From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Son of Creationist Crapola.
Keywords: creationisim, nonsense, timbucktu 
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:27:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.003242.6@sycraft.com>, ken@sycraft.com (Ken Richardson)
writes:
>>           [Chimp and human DNA are 99% alike, even the noise]
>>                 [This confirms the Theory of Evolution]

> Well, I appreciate your conviction.  But "confirmation" is a bit strong.

   No, confirmation is exactly what it is by _objective standards of evidence_,
without any need for "conviction".  I really resent your weasly insinuation, to
wit, that this is a matter of conviction rather than evidence.  Now, on to the
meat of the matter:

You say: 
> I mean, consider for a moment: If you were the Creator, and you were about
> to create life, what techniques would you use to put order and simplicity
> into the task?  Object-oriented techniques!

   This is a good example of a fundamentalist computer scientist
anthropomorphizing.
 
> What are object-oriented techniques?  They are a philosophy and approach to
> computer programming that promote code re-use.  And computer programs are
> not unlike DNA programs.

   Actually they are as different as two information storage and manipulation
methods can get in a number of senses.  Look, for example, at the error
recovery techniques :).
 
> In fact, object oriented programming makes reusing code easier than *not*
> reusing code.  So extending this to its natural conclusion, I would expect
> the process of creating life to be a more simple and orderly process by
> reusing DNA rather than not.

   Reusing the unrunnable noise.  Right.  So what your saying here is that
God is a moron who leaves his hardrive full of random, leftover bullshit? 
 
> So while at first sight it may seem astounding that chimps and humans have
> 99% similarity in their DNA, I would be surprised if that were *not* the
> case, considering the similarity of the overall "systems".

   Including the meaningless noise?  Oh, come on :-{

>  Assuming, of
> course, that object oriented techniques were applied in their creation.
> 
> While my analogy may seem only tangentially relevant to those who are not
> personally experienced with object oriented programming,

   I am so experienced and the analogy is nonsensical, not tangential, at least
as presented by you.  Do your objects randomly exchange piecies when you copy
them to a new program?

> those who *have*
> used those techniques will surely see the applicability of the analogy to
> the discussion of "How could chimp/human DNA be 99% alike?"

   Yes, the application is achieved by completely ignoring the fact that the
irrelevant, unrunnable "code" is also 99% duplicated.
 
> There is, after all, a high degree of similarity between DNA programs
> and computer programs.

   Bogus assertion alert.  Ken Richardson is a biological ignoramus.  (Go ahead,
Ken, prove me wrong, make me eat crow: DEMONSTRATE THE SIMILARITY).

> Ken Richardson		SyCraft Software

   A very poor argument, you get NO scooby snack.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.atheism