DNAunion writes:
I think the analogy breaks down at the very first statement: that DNA is like machine code.
DNA performs no real function itself, it basically just stores information for the rest of the system.
As does machine code. The DNA code is interpreted by the cells RNA machinery, and the machine code is interpreted by the processor, so I couldn't agree with this:
Probably the most analogous component of a computer system is a secondary storage device, such as a hard drive, CD-ROM drive, etc...Copying of DNA information (and loosely, the subsequent tranporting of it to where it can be used) is trascription. This is analogous to retrieving information from a hard drive and storing it in main memory.
I think you're forgetting that machine instructions in memory are copied to the processor where they are executed.
But I think we're over-analyzing this. Getting back to the original analogy:
quote:
"DNA is machine code. Genes are assembler, proteins are higher-level languages like C, cells are like processes ... the analogy breaks down at the margins but offers useful insights."
If by "machine code" he actually means all the instructions available to a processor, then this analogy improves but still breaks down quickly. Genes encode for proteins, but assembler does not encode for higher-level languages, except perhaps when you bootstrap onto a new architecture. To me a gene is more analogous to a sequence of assembler statements that carry out a function, so saying that genes are to proteins as assembler is to higher level languages doesn't really hold together for me, though I like the comparison of cells to processes. I think his analogy says more about his misconceptions of computing machinery than it does about the DNA machinery behind heredity.
--Percy