dvunkannon
Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008
|
| Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 20 2009,12:29) | Gil "has a thought"
| Quote | | I’ve had a thought somewhat along the lines of the OP. Much of what has been proposed as junk DNA involves redundant or repetitive nucleotide sequences. Computer programs often use repetitive or iterative code (for example, for(), do(), and while() loops), the number of iterations of which are either specified or controlled by other code. |
Er, and now what Gil? I think you forgot the next paragraph where you note how you'd go about testing that, what any potential results would indicate and all that other fancy stuff generally falling under "work" rather then "armchair scientist".
And anyway, in a computer program you can have a loop that runs 1000 times and you don't need 1000 loops in the source code. You just use a counter. So if junk DNA has lots of repetitive section then it's exactly unlike a computer program in that regard. So WTF Gil, did you think about that one for all of a second?
Linky |
I think the idea Frill was groping towards is loop unrolling, as is done in some optimizatons.
--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima
|
