|
|
Richard Dawkins
|
I assumed Richard Dawkins promoted the blueprint metaphor of DNA because of
his Selfish Gene theory, which is a gene-centric theory. That appears to be
incorrect. I came across
a video
in which he explained why the blueprint metaphor of DNA is wrong! [1].
Does that destroy all my critiques of gene-centrism? No! Not at all! How
so?
What is wrong with the blueprint metaphor?
|
|
blueprint of a house
|
The problem is that the blueprint is a two-dimensional ground plan with
all the rooms, doors, windows, gas, water, electricity and so on. It is a
kind of miniature house on paper, it is a final product. But DNA in a
fertilized egg cell is not a miniature animal. The three-dimensional
structure arises gradually during development. Every knowledgeable
biologist rejects the blueprint metaphor for the workings of DNA. So does
Dawkins. So far, so good.
Dawkins: "DNA is a program for making a body"
Immediately after rejecting the blueprint metaphor, Dawkins explains
that DNA is a program or a recipe for making a body. Is that any better? This metaphor does not use an animal blueprint
as the starting point. Instead, the body is gradually built by a genetic
developmental program. The 'program metaphor' looks appropriate because a
computer program as well as biological development are deterministic
processes which follow a fixed sequence of steps and seem to have inbuilt
goals [2].
Why is "DNA is a program" a wrong metaphor?
The DNA-is-a-program metaphor is still wrong. Very wrong, indeed. Yes,
metaphors can be wrong and misleading. Although there seem to be
programs in animal and plant development, the program is not located in
DNA. DNA is not a program.
Where is the program? Scientists have sequenced thousands of
genomes with high accuracy. They never found a program. I am serious. What
did they find? They found thousands of protein coding genes which are
interrupted with nonsense DNA (introns) located as small islands in large
oceans of meaningless DNA. The protein coding genes are accompanied by a variable number of regulatory sequences
(ON/OFF switches). Furthermore, the genes are arbitrarily distributed over a variable number of chromosomes (in humans:
46 chromosomes). There is no rhyme or reason to the order or
distribution of the genes over chromosomes [3]. Genes are not located in
the order in which they are executed. The genome is not logically and
efficiently structured like a computer program. A computer program is a
highly structured set of routines and subroutines, and does not contain
superfluous code. On the other hand, the organization of animal and plant genomes is
excessively complex [8] and balances on the edge of chaos. No human
engineer would have designed such a mess [5]. DNA is not the place to look for
a program.
 |
"it's a fairly long chain of causation from DNA to embryology," (12:59 min in video) This is proof of his DNA-centric view of life! [9] |
Do regulatory sequences regulate gene expression?
The regulatory sequences are recognition sites for proteins [6]. They are
sequences of A, T, C, G, just like protein coding sequences. They do not actively 'regulate' anything. They have to wait for
proteins passing by. So, although their name 'regulatory sequences' suggests that they
actively regulate gene expression, they are waiting to be read just like QR-codes:
|
|
QR codes are data
|
A QR code is not a program. QR codes are data. QR codes must be read by specific software.
Conclusion
A genome is a very large collection of data, not
a program. A genome is not even remotely like a computer program. An unstructured
collection of protein-coding genes, RNA-coding genes and regulatory
sequences and a lot of meaningless nonsense (also called a 'genome') does
not constitute a program. I am serious [4]. This is not trivial. Unexpectedly, Dawkins' failed computer program
metaphor delivers a new argument against gene-centrism! Thank You. DNA is
not the control centre which controls the cell. Then, who is in
control? Who or what decides which proteins are synthesized
and when and how much? Something must be in control, otherwise it will end
in chaos. One starts to realize that it must be the system as a whole: the
cell. The needs of the cell determine which genes are switched on or
off. Is the cell in rest, is it growing, or is it dividing? [7]. All this
should be obvious by now. Why do biologists still talk
as if DNA is the control centre? Bad metaphors lead to bad ideas.
Scientists should eliminate bad theories. Have a nice day!
Notes
-
Dawkins discusses the blueprint metaphor in
'The Extended Phenotype', Chapter 9, page 175 (in my 1999
paperback edition). The video is here.
-
Definition: "Developmental programs in embryology study the molecular
and cellular mechanisms—such as fertilization,
cleavage, and gastrulation—that transform a single zygote
into a complex, multicellular organism." (AI). Clearly, fertilization, cleavage, and gastrulation are
cellular processes.
-
Additionally: A computer program doesn't create a
computer, it requires a computer! If development were like a computer program, what is the first
instruction? In what order must genes be executed? Start with reading chromosome 1
and continue until chromosome 22, or X, or Y?
-
Of course, DNA is the carrier of hereditary properties. And DNA
mutations can cause disease. Differences between chimps and humans
result from differences in DNA. And, it is true that under normal circumstances, embryological development is a rather deterministic process with
predictable outcomes. But, all these truths don't make DNA a computer program.
-
Ironically, Dawkins uses an intelligently designed tool (software) to
illustrate how an organism is created!
-
Definition: "Regulatory DNA sequences refer to specific regions of DNA that control
the expression of genes by serving as binding sites for transcription
factors, thus facilitating the recruitment of cofactors and RNA
polymerase to initiate transcription."
-
"This means that new proteins must be synthesized every time a cell
divides." (Larry Moran blog 14 Feb 2026) The funny thing is that the title of his blog
suggests the opposite: "Protein concentration in bacteria is regulated
primarily at the level of transcription initiation."
-
Complexity:
- "Apparently the complexity of the human genome has
astonished scientists ever since the first human genome sequence was
published 25 years ago."
- "alternative splicing can create
hundreds of different proteins from a single gene and how regulatory
sequences can lie thousands or million of base pairs away from a gene."
- Zimmer notes that, "But the more scientists studied the human
genome, the more complicated and messy it turned out to
be."
Laurence A. Moran blog 16 Feb 2026. [added 17 Feb 2026] - In The Extended Phenotype, Dawkins writes: "The genome is ... a set of instructions which, if faithfully obeyed in the right order and under the right conditions, will result in a body." page 175 paperback. This is gene-, DNA-, and genome-centrism! [ added 18 Feb 2026 ]
Previous blog