Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

kilobug comments on Evolutions Are Stupid (But Work Anyway) - Less Wrong

34 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 03 November 2007 03:45PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (67)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: kilobug 06 September 2011 03:46:09PM *  0 points [-]

Great post once again. There is one thing I wonder about : AFAIK there is our DNA a huge amount (my biology teacher at highschool was saying 90% I didn't double-check his figure) of code that is not "active", genes that are not used by the body to synthesize proteins. To my programmer mind they look like C source code that was disabled at compile time (say with a #ifndef SYMBOL #endif block, and SYMBOL not provided at compile time).

Would that somehow mitigate the fact that if gene B requires gene A, then gene B would be disappear unless gene A is spread ? Doesn't that allow some genes to be there dormant, to be activated (by a later mutation) and given a new try later on, either when some other gene is present, or when the environment change ? Or I misunderstood that part on "non-active DNA" ?