9 ms·
Not a biologist, but isn't he omitting the key fact that those 4 letters can't construct completely new meanings? As in the 4 base letters can only make 20 "wo
by XaspR8d 12y ago
Not a biologist, but isn't he omitting the key fact that those 4 letters can't construct completely new meanings? As in the 4 base letters can only make 20 "words" (the fundamental amino acids), which each have some pre-defined "semantics" to them. Sure we still have tons and tons of protein "sentences", but the analogy fails because we can't (yet) build our own arbitrary syntax + lexicon using those words; they have specific chemical interactions that limit their usage.
- stcredzero 12y agoAs in the 4 base letters can only make 20 "words"...the analogy fails because we can't (yet) build our own arbitrary syntax + lexicon using those words Isn't that just the circumstance of the particular hardware we have? There's nothing fundamental preventing the construction of a different set of molecular machinery with its own "opcodes." It may be beyond us right now, but there's nothing fundamental preventing it.