1. He starts by giving us a loose, abstract definition of malicious DNA (virus): "``Legitimate'' host DNA is just DNA that aspires to pass into the next generat

1. He starts by giving us a loose, abstract definition of malicious DNA (virus): "``Legitimate'' host DNA is just DNA that aspires to pass into the next generation via the orthodox route of sperm or egg. ``Outlaw'' or parasitic DNA is just DNA that looks to a quicker, less cooperative route to the future, via a squeezed droplet or a smear of blood, rather than via a sperm or egg. " 2. He then tries to establish a connection to computer viruses. This is is aid of constructing 'virus' as an abstract concept that can exist outside of it's physical form as a piece of DNA. He points out some characteristics of computer viruses. 3. He then suggests that religious memes are viruses, that they exhibit virus characteristics etc. *This is still analogy, not evidence. But this is clearly not fluff. Being contrarian, provocative or the like is not necessarily bad. Like I said, I am not 100% satisfied with everything. I think that he hasn't defined for themes the same distinction between code/malicious code, DNA/Malicious DNA. The whole section dealing with that is not good enough. I am not at all convinced that all memes are not viruses But if that is your reason for objecting to this article being on HN, that's not good enough. That's a reason to remain unconvinced, not a reason to dismiss. This is an interesting approach to an interesting question (flammable or not) written by the person most qualified to argue it.