edbarx wrote:dasein wrote:To paraphrase Strunk and White's Elements of Style (with deepest apologies)
Good technology is concise. A technology should contain no unnecessary parts, a program no unnecessary routines or dependencies, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.
An idealisation of what technology should be in the eyes of an idealist who hasn't yet realised how complex reality is. I expect a quote like this from an intellectually gifted young adolescent, but definitely, NOT from an adult past the age of thirty.
Living cells work, yet internally, they are extremely complex. Even a DNA has redundant genes which further contradict this idealist philosophy.
According to the quote, a DNA is a bad design. Living cells, are nanotechnological systems that occur naturally.
Not quite true. Despite the extrme complexity of some DNA, often largely derived from viral and other sources - organisms do prefer simplicity, and unnecessary functions will after a period be lost. To minimize complexity.
Think cave species that lose eye and pigment.
Think reason why we cannot digest cellulose. Or make all our fats and amino acids. Like bacteria do.
Keep in mind also that introns, long believed to be useless because they do not encode genes, may actually be a means for modulating, or even frame shifting gene expression.
This is a key omission in the theory used to create GMOs, and why they may be ultimately quite dangerous.
So the complexity in the human genome may actually be useful, but Entropy can also apply to biology, species can and do degenrate over time (regression to infantile forms - snakes and humans).