GENTECH archive


Re: computer programs + question


Rick Roush wrote :
 >Fortunately, biological organisms have considerable redundancy, and work
 >well even with minor changes.
Roberto Verzola answered :
Today, programmers
who used 2 instead of 4 digits for the year can still claim that the
approach works well...

I comment to Roberto Verzola :
Your example proves precisely that computer science is much more strict
than nature. Nature can tolerate "monsters" (it is precisely the source
of diversity and evolution).
Of course one may find other examples with Tryptophane, whatever might
be the source of teh problem ;) for which a slight modification is catastroph.

My conclusion is that Nature is both flexible and tough. Computers are always

Rick :
 >Physical engineering and computer programs are a poor analogy for
 >genetic "engineering".
Verzola :
In fact, genetic "engineers" have been using this analogy when it is
to their advantage, comparing the genetic code to a program that
governs the production of proteins.

I agree. Same dishonnesty when MONSANTO says GE is the same as breeding,
while they say it is a major advancement.

Anyway the way DNA works seems to me (beotian) infinitely more complex than
computers (which I know a little).

I would like to add a question :
There has been some posts on the works of Doerfler who seems to have used
"foreing genes" and not genes inserted through GE.

What is the difference ? (I noticed the Nature 3 sep. article on dissemination
of GMO compared to mutnat plants).