Commenters here are noting many ways in which CS and biology are different, and how computer analogies can break down.<p>I've got a PhD in biology, and have been into computers all my life. I write code as a biology researcher every day.<p>To me, there's a much more practical level to this than that of philosophical questions on how far analogies take you. Biologists and computer scientists learn, in their studies and through lots of experience, a different mindset about how things work.<p>As a computer scientist, finding a solution to a problem, or predicting how a system will behave, is ultimately just a question of having a deep knowledge of the system, plus being a little bit smart about using that knowledge.<p>As a biologist, having a deep knowledge of what you are dealing with plus being a little bit smart is just a starting point for formulating hypotheses that you will then still need to test. Every biologist knows in their gut that a plausible story is ultimately just that. It's not a proof of anything, just a starting point.<p>This runs really deep and can make communication between people who aren't aware of this difficult. I see this in comments here all the time, where someone has read up on a little biology, and then goes on to explain that, therefore, clearly this or that has to be true. Usually that makes me go: "Yeah, maybe. But what about all these other things you didn't consider? And what about all those things that literally no one in the world knows you would need to consider in this particular case?"<p>Anyhow, I think it's still productive to try to find simple physicsy explanations in biology. Sometimes it does work, and then you get things like PCR or gene editing... ;)