[muawiyah]

doc30, you still have to admit that from the first to last article about "junk DNA" (so named by so-called MSM science writers) didn't you have doubts about the theory of "leftovers just piling up"?

I sure did ~ having spent my turn in the can writing computer programs (COBOL, FORTRAN, AL1, etc. as well as cranking through JCL in the early days) I knew that a good program doesn't have garbage in it ~ particularly when you are working with primitive processors that have to read everything to find something ~ just slows it all down and keeps you up nights rewriting broken code.

So, when Primrose's book came out I read it ~ and some of the others he recommended to bring a reader up to date.

As I recall the sequence, Primrose wrote his book before the quantum-computer idea came along, and certainly many years before anyone had thought to wire up a DNA strand and see if it would process data.

Well, the wires have been hooked (it does), and the quantum-computer is a distinct possibility, and Primrose wrote a second book.

We can quibble over details, but it's pretty obvious there shouldn't be any unused DNA in a biological system.

[Coyoteman]

I knew that a good program doesn't have garbage in it...

Windows... Enough said?

[gondramB]

>>We can quibble over details, but it’s pretty obvious there shouldn’t be any unused DNA in a biological system.<<

I think the term ENCODE is using is “few unused sequences” not none.

With regard to programming in Cobol and Fortran, code had to be a lot tighter with such little memory but even then there were comments and inefficiencies.