[js1138]

Don't you think that with a powerful enough computer, the development of a creature with DNA [a1, a2, a3...] (a finite string btw) could be predicted?

I can't prove it, but I believe the answer is no. Certainly with the current state of technology the answer is no.

Since DNA was discovered, it was assumed to be a blueprint -- there were dogmatic statements about the one to one coding of genes and proteins. Now we are in something of a quandry, because there aren't enough genes to make this one to one mapping.

[general_re]

I don't think it's as much of a quandary as has been made out. Edsheppa talked briefly about frame shifts - just with a frame shift, a single gene can potentially code for three different proteins. So even if it turns out that we "only" have 30,000 genes or so, if each gene pulls triple duty, that would come close to explaining the apparent "gap" between the number of genes and the complexity of the organism.