Linus Torvalds wrote:This is not entirely true if the pressure for changes are removed. For instance in mammals the bones in the ear are what used to be gills in fish. When fish became amphibians the gills weren't needed as much and evolution took a side path. In nature there is a lot of duplication: several copies of genes can exist and different copies may have a distinct evolution. There is also a lot of 'junk' DNA that doesn't code for anything (although it may have regulating functions). In there some copies of genes may remain that are inactivated, as well as parts of virusses, slowly obtaining random mutations because there is no pressure on the evolution of them. Some may eventually become active again and have different functions. The duplication also often ensures there is fallback when random mutations are acquired and a protein is knocked out. Besides the two chromosomes several proteins also can have overlapping functions. The result is more like a balance. Evolution in nature and changes in code are different because in code junk and bugs are constantly removed. In biology junk is allowed and may provide a pool for future development. Linux development is intended and not survival. --
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| david | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Bart Van Assche | Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Evgeniy Polyakov | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 28/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 3 (client side) |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Tantilov, Emil S | WARNING: at include/net/sock.h:417 udp_lib_unhash |
