Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)

In article <657lo7F2e5vr4U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Alistair" <alistair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:69c88c59-3e42-484a-8321-67452c60d5fd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 29 Mar, 06:18, tim <T...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:15:20 +0000, docdwarf wrote:

'Technically' there is even less difference between what you cite and
between A-negative and B-positive human blood... now I'd appreciate it
if you'd keep away from dealing with transfusions.

Ditto. No more than one bit might separate a program that works correctly
and one that fails catastrophically. This is a relevant analogy, because
DNA is code.

Well said Tim. Most DNA is in fact what is called 'Junk DNA' with no
discernable function and with sections repeated without rhyme or
reason.

I think you need to qualify that to "without rhyme or reason that we can
discern at this time."

I agree, Mr Dashwood... now, how often in my postings does one read
*that*? The 'junk DNA' stuff is something that strikes me as just plain
odd; energy is required to create and maintain it. A left-over here or
there I can understand - the little toe or the vermiform appendix - but so
much... *stuff* in each and every cell?

It just doesn't make sense to me, now... but I will not say 'it will never
make sense to anyone, ever.'

DD
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Junk DNA: A hypothesis
    ... >> the junk DNA currently in our chromosomes is there for a reason. ... nature is inventive and opportunistic. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: NEWSFLASH: purpose of junk DNA is revealed!
    ... evolutionary noise. ... very same reason that Dembski posits as proof of ID: ... preservation and transmission of junk DNA is a selective disadvantage. ...
    (talk.origins)