Talk:1605: DNA

The source for Google.com can be found at `view-source:https://www.google.com/` for Firefox and Chrome. Also here. —Artyer ^(talk|_ctb) 16:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Should there be a link to the code in the explain. I do not understand these links or the source code, and would not like to place these links in the explanation. --Kynde (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I really like this comic. IMHO, just another good example of intelligent design. Google's dev had to design, plan and carefully code. If that is seemingly simple compared to DNA and biology then how much more intelligence and thought was needed for the coding of all living things?--R0hrshach (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

With all the stupid things going on in our bodies (rendered useless by natural selection but staying put anyway like the Appendix or our tailbone) then it is to me just a clear example that there has been no intelligence behind our genome, but just trial and error, and then 4 billion years to get it right enough that it works but not smart. And don't get me started on how our air and food/drink has to go in the same way with the risk of being (nearly) killed by a pretzel...(even if you are the president of the US ;-) That is just plain stupid design. But few enough dies from this, that it was necessary for nature to change it once it was working. Humans and the genes survived long enough to reproduce. --Kynde (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Without an appendix how would our gut immune system develop properly? Without a tail bone how would we stand upright? It's a fallacy to think that just because we don't understand something it must have no purpose. 198.41.238.32 00:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it somewhat illogical and incomprehensible that someone could point to the human body and call it just plain stupid design. So stupid that humans cannot replicate it on a mechanical or software level - yet it's complex design works independently of our conscious thought and exists for the most part on its own. When you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint you spot design flaws; however, we don't even fully understand the full scope of our own biology and we still run trial and error studies. My profession is in aircraft parts design and manufacture. When I look at the parts we create and build to put on aircraft and how much time, engineering, design, testing and ultimately still discovering small errors in tolerance stack-ups and cascading events and still these parts are considerably crude in nature compared to living cells and the entire ecosystem that is - us. It is mind blowing. Believe me. The fact that surgeons can go in move things around, cut things out, insert things for goodness sake and still the body operates is a wonderful testament to the truly awe-inspiring mechanical design that is our bodies.--R0hrshach (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Without a pretzel-choking mechanism, how could we ever hope to weed out less-desirable presidents?

162.158.180.215 21:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to do with choking; the pretzel interfered with the vagus nerve, interfering with his heart rate Gearóid (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC).

I am sure you are right about intelligent design being involved: clearly DNA's tangled structure is a deliberate nod to a plate of spaghetti, proof indeed that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has had a hand (well, a noodly appendage) in all of creation. Martin (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, when I saved my comments it blitzed someone else's that must have been being written at the same time :'-( RIIW - Ponder it (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it was my two comments above? I have now moved the one right her above back in place from the bottom where Davidy22 had placed it when he tried to fix it. No harms done but as he says: Read error messages, I know mediawiki gives them to you. You can always see in the history what you have changed. --Kynde (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I, for my part read the edit conflict (with Kynde, 18:43) like a good little boy, re-edited in light of that, resubmitted and... forgot to answer the security question. For completeness I wrote the following. If it's still helpful...

Had the same thought.  Although I just use "View | Source" from the menu or right-click and "View Page Source", or whatever that browser tends to want to give me.  And, having had that same thought: For reference, in case anybody wants it, the source of the google.co.uk main page (assumed not far off google.com in its nature) is 51 lines.  But that's 51 long lines of mostly javascript, with much of the unnecessary whitespace (including line-feeds) taken out of it, overwhelmingly single-character variable names, over 150 'if' statements (including 'else if' ones, in continuation to a prior one) and perhaps 56 'for' loops, at first glance.  Whether 'optimised' or obfuscated, it certainly could be a challenge to fully understand.

HTH, HAND 141.101.106.161 21:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that Google's homepage is only optimized. I'm sure part of obfuscation is deliberate. That said, just removing comments and changing variable names is usually enough to make program unreadable. -- Hkmaly (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

IMHO DNA with its redundant sections for things not currently used and the bodges in biological design are a good example of unintelligent design. For example the blood supply to the retina is between the iris and the retina, so it is in the way. An intelligent designer would do an eye mark II. But this has nothing to do with the comic. RIIW - Ponder it (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Another of the "I could do a better job" brigade. Go ahead. Try it. Post back here after you learn enough about the existing eye design that you recognise just how incredible it is. 198.41.238.32 00:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Eye mark II is used in octopuses: Cephalopod eye. Solves multiple problems of our eyes. -- Hkmaly (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Cephalopod vs Vertebrate eyes is a classic example of convergent evolution, therefore eye structure proves evolution not intelligent design. Martin (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Eye structure disproves intelligent design BECAUSE no intelligent designer would use two things which are so similar and yet so different. Disproving intelligent design is easy. The real content is between evolution and STUPID design. Or, well ... Cephalopod vs Vertebrate eyes looks EXACTLY like something which would happen if two designers try to compete without directly copying from each other. -- Hkmaly (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing about Intelligent Design leads one to assume that the human anatomy would have been designed foolproof and without any inherent weak points. Why would you design a superhuman?--R0hrshach (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

White Hat is showing the hubris often seen by people who think their (often limited) knowledge in one field can be used as an anology for something very different. Megan only manages to showchim his error by showing that a "simple" web page, which has only been evolving for a few years is more complex than he thinks, and the role of any one line/command in the page is probably far from clear without deep analysis RIIW - Ponder it (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The evolution of life is composed exclusively of copy-paste programming on top of legacy code, global variables, and hacks on hacks on hacks at every level, from telomeres and DNA looping, to the structure of the human hip (childbirth), to our breathing tract, optic nerve, and brain structure and cognition. --199.27.130.234 21:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That's what you get when you hack the universe together with perl. -- Dsollen (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Or C. Reminds me of a joke going around in the 90s ... http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/dna.en.html 141.101.98.38

So much for Gattaca then... Martin (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't quite sure what was meant by a comprehensive language in this line:

"What makes this even worse with DNA is that although it can be thought of 'source code' it isn't for a comprehensive language"

Whether it meant that the language of DNA is incomplete in some way (e.g. relies on other linguistic components), or what. I changed it to:

"What makes this even worse with DNA is that although it can be thought of as 'source code' it isn't for a language we fully understand"

Which I think is clearer, and I hope captures the intended meaning. If not, please clarify. Thanks. 199.27.129.155 20:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

To maintain historical context, it would be prudent to add links to the current version of the Google homepage, both as it appears in a web browser, and Google's current code for the page (e.g. via the Wayback machine). Google could change the page to make it visually more complex, or change the code to make it simpler. Preserving samples of both would futureproof this explanation. Here is a link to the archive for the Google homepage on the day this comic was posted [Archive of www.google.com homepage, on 18 Nov 2015]

I do not know how to easily provide either an image of what this page looks like in a web browser from this time period, or how to provide a link to just the google code from the archived page, without violating copyright. 199.27.129.155 20:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought it notable that the source code for the wiki page for 'Minification (programming)' [1], itself contained minified code. These Are Not The Coments You Are Looking For (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not think DNA is 'source' code. A more apt comparison would be compiled (binary) code of a self-modifying program for which no source code is available. Anyone who've dabbled in reverse engineering is probably familiar with the Chinese-crossword level of confusion when first reading an unannotated binary (although it does get better with experience). Now imagine you also don't know most of the assembly language, multiply by at least 1000, and you've got the genetic engineering problem. Biologists who study it now are at least as hardcore as programmers in 60's. Probably more. 172.71.98.193 13:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Being a programmer (and especially one that works with hardware a lot), I love to try to make analogies of biology to computers. Of course that really really only goes so far. Having done the briefest amount of research into DNA, it's definitely not "source code". It's machine code for the worst ISA in the world that has no documentation and the code uses every single quirk to its extreme. Talk about self-modifying code, this is a self-modifying processor! Multiple "instructions" seem to code for the same thing except they actually impact the "performance" significantly. The interactions between every part of the system is so wild and sensitive that not only is the outcome different "run to run" but even when replicating the code exactly, environmental conditions make the outcome possibly very different. Not to mention that every single "processor" is slightly different and will run the same thing differently! The fact that we can be sure about almost anything is wild to me but clearly we know way less about complex organisms than simple ones. IIRC, we've managed to "compile" a simple bacterium gnome and get it to work at least somewhat, but not as well as the original! Brycemw (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)