Just like in our DNA...

[John Corradi]

In article <7td22n$vs4$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>, srenner at lycosmail.com wrote:

> Wait right there. The analogy between DNA and a "code" or a "blueprint"
> is commonly made, but it's not a good analogy. Wittgenstein's "Zettel
> #206" (not his numbering) is relevant. But Guido wasn't making that
> analogy. He was comparing code which has parts that are never used to
> DNA which contains sequences which are never transcribed into protein,
> or introns. DNA as "code" for morphology or for an organism is nonsense,
> but DNA sequences as code for amino acid sequences is perfectly
> reasonable, and the intron/extron distinction makes a fine analogy. It's
> unexpected instead of cliched, and it makes perfect sense, so Guido is
> right and you are out of line.

I'm a biologist and couldn't help but jump in here.  I agree that
Guido's is a good analogy, although unlike useless code, "junk DNA" may
serve some function(s) that are yet to be understood (in other words, I
wouldn't want to parse my DNA and remove those regions just yet). 
Clarification: introns are not the same as junk DNA.  While introns are
non-coding segments withing genes, they do serve to demarcate splice
sites that allow for alternative coding messages to be derived from the
same gene.  They (introns) also often contain binding sites for
regulatory proteins.  There is a lot of non-coding DNA which has
characterized functionality - bottom line: non-coding != junk.

Now that we're way off topic...

-- 

John Corradi
jpc at informatics.jax.org