What makes this even worse for DNA is that although it can be thought of 'source code' it isn't for a comprehensive language, and that this code was generated through various natural mechanisms such as natural selection, feedback loops like homeostasis, etc., even including possible processes that are not currently known to science. This means that not all parts make sense and that there may by all kinds of side effects and things that have several purposes. Looking at some obfuscated source code may make it clearer how misleading even simple looking code can be and how unreadable correct and well working code can be.
In the title text it is claimed that researchers found a gene that makes us thinking we've found the gene for specific things. The jokes is that this is located in the region between the start and the end of every chromosome which is the whole chromosome. Randall even includes the mitochondria stating that the gene could also be in some segments of the mitochondrion. Mitochondrion is a part of the cell that are outside the cell-nucleus. The chromosome is located in the nucleus, but the Mitochondria has its own independent genome, so some part of the human DNA is not located in the chromosomes. This makes it really complex, and makes it even less distinct where this gene should be and it implies that all of our genes make us think we've found the gene for specific things.
Of course if such a gene actually did exist, then we would never be able to correctly identify where it was since we would make a mistake every time we thought we found a gene for something specific. So the whole title text is either a contradiction (they could never find this gene if it was there) and/or it is a tautology since if the gene did exist, then of course it has to be part of our entire DNA. (If it is a tautology it is the second title text using this in just two weeks, the last being 1602: Linguistics Club.)
The source for Google.com can be found at `view-source:https://www.google.com/` for Firefox and Chrome. Also here. —Artyer (talk|ctb) 16:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Should there be a link to the code in the explain. I do not understand these links or the source code, and would not like to place these links in the explanation. --Kynde (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I really like this comic. IMHO, just another good example of intelligent design. Google's dev had to design, plan and carefully code. If that is seemingly simple compared to DNA and biology then how much more intelligence and thought was needed for the coding of all living things?--R0hrshach (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- With all the stupid things going on in our bodies (rendered useless by natural selection but staying put anyway like the Appendix or our tailbone) then it is to me just a clear example that there has been no intelligence behind our genome, but just trial and error, and then 4 billion years to get it right enough that it works but not smart. And don't get me started on how our air and food/drink has to go in the same way with the risk of being (nearly) killed by a pretzel...(even if you are the president of the US ;-) That is just plain stupid design. But few enough dies from this, that it was necessary for nature to change it once it was working. Humans and the genes survived long enough to reproduce. --Kynde (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Without an appendix how would our gut immune system develop properly? Without a tail bone how would we stand upright? It's a fallacy to think that just because we don't understand something it must have no purpose. 18.104.22.168 00:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think it somewhat illogical and incomprehensible that someone could point to the human body and call it just plain stupid design. So stupid that humans cannot replicate it on a mechanical or software level - yet it's complex design works independently of our conscious thought and exists for the most part on its own. When you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint you spot design flaws; however, we don't even fully understand the full scope of our own biology and we still run trial and error studies. My profession is in aircraft parts design and manufacture. When I look at the parts we create and build to put on aircraft and how much time, engineering, design, testing and ultimately still discovering small errors in tolerance stack-ups and cascading events and still these parts are considerably crude in nature compared to living cells and the entire ecosystem that is - us. It is mind blowing. Believe me. The fact that surgeons can go in move things around, cut things out, insert things for goodness sake and still the body operates is a wonderful testament to the truly awe-inspiring mechanical design that is our bodies.--R0hrshach (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Without a pretzel-choking mechanism, how could we ever hope to weed out less-desirable presidents?
22.214.171.124 21:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nothing to do with choking; the pretzel interfered with the vagus nerve, interfering with his heart rate Gearóid (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC).
- I am sure you are right about intelligent design being involved: clearly DNA's tangled structure is a deliberate nod to a plate of spaghetti, proof indeed that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has had a hand (well, a noodly appendage) in all of creation. Martin (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, when I saved my comments it blitzed someone else's that must have been being written at the same time :'-( RIIW - Ponder it (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2015
- Yeah it was my two comments above? I have now moved the one right her above back in place from the bottom where Davidy22 had placed it when he tried to fix it. No harms done but as he says: Read error messages, I know mediawiki gives them to you. You can always see in the history what you have changed. --Kynde (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- I, for my part read the edit conflict (with Kynde, 18:43) like a good little boy, re-edited in light of that, resubmitted and... forgot to answer the security question. For completeness I wrote the following. If it's still helpful...
- HTH, HAND 126.96.36.199 21:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think that Google's homepage is only optimized. I'm sure part of obfuscation is deliberate. That said, just removing comments and changing variable names is usually enough to make program unreadable. -- Hkmaly (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
IMHO DNA with its redundant sections for things not currently used and the bodges in biological design are a good example of unintelligent design. For example the blood supply to the retina is between the iris and the retina, so it is in the way. An intelligent designer would do an eye mark II. But this has nothing to do with the comic. RIIW - Ponder it (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Sigh. Another of the "I could do a better job" brigade. Go ahead. Try it. Post back here after you learn enough about the existing eye design that you recognise just how incredible it is. 188.8.131.52 00:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Eye mark II is used in octopuses: Cephalopod eye. Solves multiple problems of our eyes. -- Hkmaly (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Cephalopod vs Vertebrate eyes is a classic example of convergent evolution, therefore eye structure proves evolution not intelligent design. Martin (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Eye structure disproves intelligent design BECAUSE no intelligent designer would use two things which are so similar and yet so different. Disproving intelligent design is easy. The real content is between evolution and STUPID design. Or, well ... Cephalopod vs Vertebrate eyes looks EXACTLY like something which would happen if two designers try to compete without directly copying from each other. -- Hkmaly (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nothing about Intelligent Design leads one to assume that the human anatomy would have been designed foolproof and without any inherent weak points. Why would you design a superhuman?--R0hrshach (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
White Hat is showing the hubris often seen by people who think their (often limited) knowledge in one field can be used as an anology for something very different. Megan only manages to showchim his error by showing that a "simple" web page, which has only been evolving for a few years is more complex than he thinks, and the role of any one line/command in the page is probably far from clear without deep analysis RIIW - Ponder it (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The evolution of life is composed exclusively of copy-paste programming on top of legacy code, global variables, and hacks on hacks on hacks at every level, from telomeres and DNA looping, to the structure of the human hip (childbirth), to our breathing tract, optic nerve, and brain structure and cognition. --184.108.40.206 21:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- That's what you get when you hack the universe together with perl. -- Dsollen (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- Or C. Reminds me of a joke going around in the 90s ... http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/dna.en.html 220.127.116.11
So much for Gattaca then... Martin (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't quite sure what was meant by a comprehensive language in this line:
"What makes this even worse with DNA is that although it can be thought of 'source code' it isn't for a comprehensive language"
Whether it meant that the language of DNA is incomplete in some way (e.g. relies on other linguistic components), or what. I changed it to:
"What makes this even worse with DNA is that although it can be thought of as 'source code' it isn't for a language we fully understand"
Which I think is clearer, and I hope captures the intended meaning. If not, please clarify. Thanks. 18.104.22.168 20:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
To maintain historical context, it would be prudent to add links to the current version of the Google homepage, both as it appears in a web browser, and Google's current code for the page (e.g. via the Wayback machine). Google could change the page to make it visually more complex, or change the code to make it simpler. Preserving samples of both would futureproof this explanation.
Here is a link to the archive for the Google homepage on the day this comic was posted [Archive of www.google.com homepage, on 18 Nov 2015]
I do not know how to easily provide either an image of what this page looks like in a web browser from this time period, or how to provide a link to just the google code from the archived page, without violating copyright. 22.214.171.124 20:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I thought it notable that the source code for the wiki page for 'Minification (programming)' , itself contained minified code. These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)