Posted on 02/01/2003 9:01:09 PM PST by gore3000
Tuesday, January 28, 2003
By Richard Dawkins
Genes work just like computer software, says this writer - which is why the luddites don't get it, but their children probably will.
IT IS HARD TO EXAGGERATE the sheer intellectual excitement of genetics. What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. The genetic code is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as computer codes. This is not some vague analogy, it is the literal truth. Moreover, unlike computer codes, the genetic code is universal. Modern computers are built around a number of mutually incompatible machine languages, determined by their processor chips. The genetic code, on the other hand, with a few very minor exceptions, is identical in every living creature on this planet, from sulphur bacteria to giant redwood trees, from mushrooms to men. All living creatures, on this planet at least, are the same “make”.
The consequences are amazing. It means that a software subroutine (that’s exactly what a gene is) can be carried over into another species. This is why the famous “antifreeze” gene, originally evolved by Antarctic fish, can save a tomato from frost damage. In the same way, a Nasa programmer who wants a neat square-root routine for his rocket guidance system might import one from a financial spreadsheet. A square root is a square root is a square root. A program to compute it will serve as well in a space rocket as in a financial projection.
click here for rest of the article .
(Excerpt) Read more at checkbiotech.org ...
Good question. Our bodies are designed to recognize foreign intruders. The system is very specific to our own bodies, that's why to mitigate it it is often necessary to use organs from a family member with almost the same genetic structure. Otherwise it is necessary to use drugs to defeat the immune system which of course usually leads to great complications.
I dunno. Are good genetics exactly equivalent to physical appearance?
What if that absolutely drop-dead gorgeous blonde is a hemophiliac (i.e. quite likely to die in child-birth without major medical intervention)?
What if she's color-blind to boot (hint: your sons are guaranteed to be colorblind, and vulnerable driving in locales with eccentric/horizontal-positioning approaches to stoplight placement)?
What if she is... er... "blonde"? Is it better genetics to be beautiful than intelligent? Beautiful than resistant (to diseases)?
Um. Okay. In this specific case possibly you're right, I don't know. I've encountered sufficient number of problems that are *prevalent* in males that I've come to consider that a default for a number of problems.
I would not say that. I think it is more proper to say that there are large sections of DNA about which we do not know what they do. Just about 2-3 years ago with the completion of the genome project, we found that only 5% of our DNA was used in genes. We have been discovering since what that DNA does. Some of it was some DNA that was repeated all over the genome and was thought to be totally useless. Well, it turned out that all that DNA, some 10% of the total, does have a use. It is used as a zipper that separates a cell when it replicates. We have known about genes for some 50 years and we still are not sure that we have found all of them. DNA is very intricate code and it will take decades to figure what all of it does.
As to bugs - well human systems work for 70+ years without getting a blue screen of death!
What else would one expect from a virulent atheist? Anyways, his idiocy is not confined to morals!
Hey! I resent resemble that remark...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.