Slashdot Mirror
The Art, Music And Computer Science Of DNA
Build6 writes "As part of the 50th anniversary of the discovery of DNA's double-helix structure, many news publications are writing about what has been done with the discovery so far; The Economist has a very interesting one about DNA's use in art and music. ... You can read all about it either by picking up a copy of The Economist (it's well worth the money, I've subscribed for over a decade), or online." And Clint Harris writes "As part of its series commemorating the 50th anniversary of 'the first scientific description of DNA' NPR recently aired a story comparing DNA to software (RealAudio or Windows Media). 'For many, the best analogy for the way DNA works is that it's like a computer program at the heart of every cell. Some of its programming tricks bear an uncanny resemblance to ones the human brain has dreamed up...DNA is [like] spaghetti code because nature has been tinkering with the system for billions of years like a bad programmer.'"
Software (and now hardware too...) that is inspired by DNA recombination.
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
...God's a VB kiddie :)
I'm really confused by someone equating obtuse code they can't understand as bad programming. I want more discussion on how the information encoded in genes acts. Not "This is the worst kind of spaghetti code you can imagine..." and posturing like we can't possibly understand it.
Fnord.sig
As soon as YOUR code has had uptime of 120 years or so, then you can say nature wrote us poorly.
DNA is [like] spaghetti code because nature has been tinkering with the system for billions of years like a bad programmer.
Wow, that sure is an arrogant statement. The chemical, physical and biological systems of nature are the most complex systems we know of. Nature is influences by a seeingly infinate number of variables. We don't understand much more than we do.
Our understanding of the world is far too small to be critiszing nature works and it's language. When humanity can create a WORKING system thats 1/1000th as complex as the natural world is when we can even start to make arrogant statements such as this. Today is not yet that day.
"Entropy is the bad-guy, and he is everywhere"
Nature designs things in an incredibly complex way, because that's simply how evolution works -- there's certainly no software engineering notion of clean component separation and so on in evolution. So it ends up certainly being complex, working, and possibly even beautiful, but a nearly impossible to decipher mess of spaghetti. Sort of like an old-school assembly programming genius designing an enormous 500,000-line program in assembly -- it'll work beautifully, but nobody will have any idea what the hell is going on, or be able to modify it. Similar problems exist when trying to genetically engineer things; you're always going to mess something up.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
DNA is [like] spaghetti code because nature has been tinkering with the system for billions of years like a bad programmer.
How ignorant of you to say that. There was an article in the Feb. 2003 issue of Scientific American about genetic programming - the creation of new devices and electronic circuity by computer.
It basically involves starting out the core components (resistors, inductors, capacitors, etc) and a design (for a voltage-current converter, perhaps). A supercomputer is able to rewire the circuit through basic evolutionary processes including crossover, copying, and extinction, and come up with a much more efficient circuit.
The resulting circuitry is so effective and original that there have been designs that earned approval from the patent office. They're so complex, much like nature's genetic code.
Sure, it might look like spaghetti code - but you mean to tell me, nature is a bad programmer? Heh.
Google search on genetic programming
Everything2: Genetic programming
What is Genetic Engineering?
"Geez, it says here that the next 24,000 lines of code are wholly dedicated to picking one's nose!"
I'm sure that they would find that politicians are the result of millions of unreturned GOSUB commands.
If you haven't ever picked it up, give it a try. You can read it on a very superficial level and enjoy the dialogs among the characters, flip through it for the Escher prints...but eventually you'll start digging deeper and see things in the same words that you didn't see before. Highly recommended!
The "Sonic Gene" mentioned in the Economist article is not the only one. I attended university where one of the piano professors has been working on a project like this for many years now.
.mp3s here. This has been a pet project of his, and it's definitely worth checking out. His personal site is available here as well.
His name is Brent D. Hugh, and he has downloadable
Happy listening!