[xcamel]

No problem at all.. seeing it is an opinion, like an analogy, not some scientific fact. Describing something has having a “digital nature” does not in fact make something “digital”, but you knew that, and posted it anyway.

“Sound, may be digital or analog, just as light may be a particle or a wave, but what the eye and the ear perceive is entirely analog, no matter how you slice it”

[GodGunsGuts]

Sorry camel, although the Temple of Darwin scientists aren’t comfortable with the implications, they have known that DNA is a digital code going all the way back to Watson and Crick:

Dr Matt Ridley, author of Genome and Nature Via Nurture said: “Francis Crick made not one but many great scientific discoveries.

“He found that genes are digital codes written on DNA molecules, he found that the code is written in three-letter words and he was instrumental in cracking the code.

“Any one of those things would have got him into the scientific pantheon. Discovering all three places him alongside Newton, Darwin and Einstein.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3937475.stm

[UCANSEE2]

Sound, may be digital or analog, just as light may be a particle or a wave, but what the eye and the ear perceive is entirely analog, no matter how you slice it.

But is converted by 'the brain' into digital format for storage.