Computer program puts all biologists ever out of work!

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a15886/computer-scientific-theory/
http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004295
For over a hundred years, biologists, the lowliest of the hard scientists, have toiled day in and day out to find out how to kill a worm by cutting it up. The problem they faced was that worms are invincible to blades. Now, a computer has figured out the secret to their invincibility in a mere two days. It is hoped by all involved that this will allow their betters to devise a method to finally murder worms by cutting them.

As usual for these sorts of things, not even a binary, much less the source code, is forthcoming.

This thread is biological in nature.

As usual for these sorts of things, not even a binary, much less the source code, is forthcoming.

Typical, so typical. Savage lifeforms never follow even their own rules.

>>2
lol'd

Only mathematically rigorous biology should be taken seriously.
http://news.boisestate.edu/update/files/2012/10/GradyWrightMath620x320.jpg

Too bad biological stuff are really complex to model.

>>5
Complex to model = requires a lot of computational resources
So not really complex, you just have to do it in Fortran.

>>6
I'm not talking about computationally solving, I'm talking about mathematically modeling.

>>7
It's not hard to mathematically model.

put biologists out of work, replace your body with silicon now and get 20% off future transformations

>>8
Biological processes are hella complex, pal.
http://www.bio.miami.edu/tom/courses/protected/MCB6/ch12/12-08.jpg

I'm pretty sure it's really difficult to model, otherwise mathematical biology would be widespread, since it provides much more rigour than the current approach.

>>9
Animal cell is more complex than the state of art robotics technology and more robust than what is know to the current material science. It also has that cool feature, called self-healing. No computer program can recover after a few bits of it have been erased, yet human brain can.

>>11
havent you ever heard of 'worse is better'

animal cell considered harmful

>>10
That's not complex in any meaningful way it's just a bunch of biochemical reactions happening in series, which are already modeled by quantum mechanics.

I remember Feynman talking about the biology classes he took and how he was surprised to find that nobody knew how mitochondria moved about the cell. He took that to be an "interesting question" that nobody had bothered to look into but is it really worthwhile to autistically model ever aspect of intracellular dynamics?

>>10
Once again, their complexity just maps to programs being performance-taxing. Got a lot of chemicals? Your array will have more rows. Got lots of reactions? Your array will have more columns. There is no complexity in biology that couldn't be handled by some good Fortran code and a cluster.