Richard Dawkins admits: DNA is *not* a blueprint! But Dawkins still got another metaphor wrong!

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.

"DNA is a program or recipe for making a body."
(2 min 36 sec)

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 junk code. On the other hand, the organization of genomes balances on the edge of chaos [5]. No human engineer would have designed such a mess [5]. DNA is not the place to look for a program.

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.

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

1. Dawkins discusses the blueprint metaphor in 'The Extended Phenotype', Chapter 9, page 175 (in my 1999 paperback edition). The video is here.
2. 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.  
3.  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? 
4. 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. 
5. Ironically, Dawkins uses an intelligently designed tool (software) to illustrate how an organism is created! 
6. 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."  
7. "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."

Previous blog

• Think about this ... 9 Feb 2026

Think about this: 

If DNA was not involved in the origin of life because it has no enzymatic properties, then how could DNA now actively control the development of organisms?

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/reviewing-dna/ [1]

A short explanation of the above question:

1. Origin of Life: It is generally considered extremely unlikely or even impossible that DNA was involved at the origin of life [2]. Reasons are: DNA has no catalytic properties. RNA does have catalytic properties [10]. Therefore, the RNA-world hypothesis was proposed. Contrary to RNA, DNA requires enzymes to be replicated, transcribed, translated, repaired, etc. Those enzymes could not have been present at the origin of life, because they have a highly specific structure, which can only be based on encoded information stored in DNA. The problem is that those enzymes needed to be present before they could be produced. Vicious circle! Chicken or egg problem! Therefore, DNA was not involved in the Origin of Life.
2. What does DNA do? A quick search tells us that:
   - "DNA contains the instructions needed for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce" [3]
   - "DNA's unique structure enables the molecule to copy itself during cell division." [4], [5].
   - DNA is the blueprint of life [6].
   But, if the properties of DNA are still the same as billions of years ago [7], why would DNA today have the capacity to actively control the development of organisms? Replicate itself? Transcribe itself? Produce proteins? [8] Repair itself? Do anything at all? One might object that the difference between the Origin of Life 3.5 billion years ago and today, is that the human genome contains 3.5 billion bases and that is apparently enough to produce a human. That is the big difference between now and the Origin of Life! Wrong! My point is: that doesn't make DNA enzymatic! DNA still does not have any catalytic properties! [9]. Not then, and not now. Think about this: How could DNA on its own produce millions of complex beings, and yet couldn't produce the most primitive life forms 3.5 billion years ago?

 

I deliberately kept this post as short as possible, with just the necessary facts and arguments, in order to focus on the central question! Think about this! Once you see the inconsistency in the reasoning, you can't unsee it! 

Notes

1. "Your DNA contains a set of instructions for building a human."  This is a bit problematic: "Some parts of your DNA are control centers for turning genes on and off." The image is from the website Understanding Evolution, Berkeley University.  
2. "We are reasonably sure now that DNA and DNA replication mechanisms appeared late in early life history, and that DNA originated from RNA in an RNA/protein world. " Patrick Forterre, Jonathan Filée, and Hannu Myllykallio, (2004) Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries. This is a chapter in the book 'The Genetic Code and the Origin of Life' (2004).
3. "DNA contains' the instructions needed for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce." Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Fact Sheet.
4. "DNA's unique structure enables the molecule to copy itself during cell division." Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Fact Sheet.
5. ... DNA (wikipedia): "...carries genetic instructions for the development, functioning, growth and reproduction of all known organisms."
6. Quote from Oxford Home Schooling. The page contains statements such as "We can think of DNA as a large book", and "DNA serves as a store for all of our genetic information", but also: "It has the ability to replicate itself.". DNA cannot be 'a store' and have 'the ability to replicate itself' at the same time. Confusing sentences. Perhaps the confusion stems from the fact that they are 'Systematically Misleading Expressions' (Gilbert Ryle). In this case, it amounts to ascribing agency to objects which they don't have. The page is a rich source of SMEs.
7. The chemical structure of DNA did not change. The bases A, T, C, G are inside the double-helix; A pairs with T; C with G; the backbone consists of the sugar deoxyribose and a phosphate group; the two sugar-phosphate backbone strands run in opposite directions. This is almost a necessary structure with no good functional alternatives.
8. "Your DNA contains a set of instructions for building a human." is wrong. Even the moderate claim that "DNA contains the instructions for making a protein" is misleading. 'Instructions' involve a complete description of all the steps necessary to produce a protein from a DNA sequence. An Open Reading Frame does not contain all the instructions for how to transcribe, splice, edit, transport, bind to a ribosome, how to fold the protein, etc.
9. Maybe, perhaps, it is slightly less wrong to say: Gene Regulatory Networks control the development and maintenance of organisms, because that is on the next higher level with regard to DNA. [Feb 10 2026] 
10. "He [Gerald Joyce] and others were drawn to RNA because even today, the molecule performs two functions vital for living things. It encodes genetic information in its sequence of chemical building blocks, called nucleotide bases. And the stable 3D structures into which it folds can carry out a second essential job: acting as catalysts to promote vital chemical reactions without being used up in the process. To many researchers, that dual role made RNAs a candidate for the kick-starter of life, able to both encode its own makeup and catalyze its own reproduction." RNA comes close to copying itself, Science, 12 Feb 2026 

Previous blogs

• Five objections to the selfish gene theory 26 Jan 2026

Five objections to the selfish gene theory

Richard Dawkins (1976) The Selfish Gene

The Selfish Gene Theory in short:

"Thus Richard Dawkins introduces us to ourselves as we really are - throwaway survival machines for our immortal genes. Man is a gene machine: a robot vehicle, blindly programmed to preserve its selfish genes." (blurb from the publisher).

"The replicators which survived were the ones which built survival machines for themselves to live in." [1-4]

Clearly, this is a gene-centric theory of life and evolution. Bodies are temporary throw-away vehicles to replicate genes. Viewed in this way, there are several problems that are not at all, or not adequately addressed in either the popular press or by Dawkins himself.

I have 5 objections:

1. genes (DNA) cannot build organisms. Genes cannot control the organism. Genes are never active elements in an organism, they cannot do anything. 
2. the history of life on earth shows a remarkable trend from simple to complex organisms, from single cells to increasingly complex multicellular life forms. This makes no sense from the selfish gene perspective.
3. repair-DNA genes and enzymes are altruistic genes, not selfish genes.
4. the selfish gene theory predicts asexual, not sexual reproduction.
5. the selfish gene theory does predict selfish genes, not cooperative genes. 

-1-

The first objection to the selfish gene theory is that genes cannot act without the help of the cell, and in case of multicellular organisms cannot act without the help of the organism. The central dogma of systems biology reads: The cell reads the DNA code. The cell decides when and which genes to read. The organism ('vehicle' in Dawkins terminology) uses the genes in its genetic library to build itself. DNA itself does not contain a program for building an organism. DNA only contains the code for producing proteins. That's a huge difference. The cell uses the library of genes to look up the exact specification of a protein and synthesizes it. Enzymes transcribe, translate, replicate and repair DNA. The cell has all the resources (building blocks for DNA, machinery, energy) for the transcription, replication, translation and repair of DNA. The cell has the power and ultimate control. DNA 'self-replication' does not exist. The cell replicates DNA with the help of enzymes. That's not all. An even more shocking fact for the reputation of DNA: the cell manipulates DNA. Specific enzymes turn off/on genes by attaching a methyl group to the DNA base Cytosine (methylation) or removing a methyl group (demethylation). So, genes do not turn themselves on/off. It is clear by now: DNA on its own is totally helpless. DNA is a dead molecule. DNA never initiates anything. DNA never leaves the cell nucleus. How could DNA be a cause?

But enzymes are helpless too, in the sense that they are unable to replicate themselves. They need the specific information encoded in genes to get synthesized. So, genes and enzymes are interdependent. Their very existence depends on each other. It makes no sense to single out one component of a system as being 'selfish'. If there are selfish genes, one could as well say, there are selfish enzymes. Those enzymes, for example: DNA-replicases, helicases, primases and ligases, want to replicate DNA, because their own specification is encoded in that DNA. So, indirectly those enzymes ensure their existence in the next generation. If genes are immortal, so are enzymes. Again: it makes no sense to single out one component of a system as being 'selfish' or as being 'the cause', or as being 'immortal'.

(this paragraph has been improved Jan 31) 

 

-2-

The second objection starts with an uncontroversial observation: the earth is populated by complex bodies. If selfish genes want to maximize the number of copies in the next generation, and use bodies as temporary vehicles, why do we see highly complex vehicles instead of relatively simple single cells? (bacteria). Single cells leave more descendants in shorter time, so more copies of their genes are produced. A bacterium can multiply in 30 minutes. In contrast, large, complex bodies take longer to grow and leave fewer descendants. What a waste of time! For example, in the human species, the female is only about 20% of the year fertile; it takes 9 months to grow a baby; it takes about ten years for the newborn to reach sexual maturity, and the number of offspring is significantly smaller compared to mice, flies, bacteria. So, the selfish gene theory should predict single cells as the outcome of evolution. 

-3-

The third objection is: the existence of DNA-repair genes refutes the idea that genes are selfish. DNA-repair enzymes repair DNA replication errors. They repair errors in all genes, irrespective of what the genes 'do', if anything. They do not do what one would expect of 'selfish genes': selfishly and selectively repair errors in their own genes. Repair enzymes are blind with respect what the genes 'do'. Hence, DNA-repair genes behave altruistically. This is a new and profound objection to the selfish gene theory.

-4-

The fourth objection: the selfish gene theory predicts asexual reproduction because that is the most efficient method to produce copies of the selfish genes. But that is not what we see. Sexually reproducing species are far more common than asexual species. Sexually reproducing species dilute their selfish genes with foreign genes of an unrelated individual. That means, with sexual reproduction, only half of the alleles of the male and half of the alleles of the female end up in the children. While with asexual reproduction (sort of cloning) 100% of the alleles end up in the offspring.   

-5-

The fifth objection: the selfish gene theory seems to predict selfish genes within genomes, not cooperative genes. It seems to predict a war of genes within a genome, since every gene wants to become the dominant gene. Yet, the 'selfish' genes of an organism are housed together with all other selfish genes in the same body (vehicle). In other words: they are all in the same boat! The problem is that genes housed in bodies can do nothing on their own. A single gene cannot build an organism. Even the most simple single-cell organisms need thousands of cooperating genes to build the 'vehicle'. The totality of all genes is called the genome. Only a complete genome can be the basis for building an organism. If one gene in a genome replicates significantly more than all the other genes in the same genome (a selfish gene), that could result in the death of the organism. Consequently, it would result in the death of that selfish gene and all the other genes. There is only one option for the 'selfish' genes to survive: cooperate! So, a genome necessarily is a community of cooperating genes. Paradoxically, in order to build their vehicle, those 'selfish' genes need to be altruistic towards all the other genes in the same vehicle. Remember this: The best cooperators build the best vehicles! 

 

Conclusion

The Selfish Gene theory is an extreme form of gene-centrism. The book The Selfish Gene became a bestseller because it resonates with our perception of human nature. The book seems to explain the urge to survive, to have sex, and to have children of one's own. The story that genes make survival machines is intuitively easy to comprehend. But it is misleading. It is wrong. It is not what really happens in the cell. The truth is more complicated than that. Genes do not have the power to control anything. From the perspective of the organism, DNA is nothing more than a storage medium and a vehicle of inheritance. Organisms want to make identical or at least very similar copies of themselves. To make that possible they use DNA. It makes no sense to single out one component (DNA) of a system as the most important, as Dawkins did. Maybe, in a sense we are programmed to reproduce, but that cannot be attributed solely to genes. If evolution is all about the replication of genes, then why complex bodies? Why sex? They are unnecessary to get genes copied. Bacteria do that much better and faster without complex bodies and sex.

Notes

1. "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes." Preface to the first edition. 
2. "The replicators which survived were the ones which built survival machines for themselves to live in. (...) They are in you and me, they created us, body and mind ..." page 21, hardback Oxford University Press 1977.
3. "This DNA can be regarded as a set of instructions for how to make a body." page 23
4. "genes control embryonic development" page 25. (all emphasis is mine) 

Previous blogs

1. A review of 'The Music of Life' by Denis Noble. Noble is not a clown! My blog 15 Jan 2026
2. Gene-centrism is bad biology. Here is why. My blog 17 December 2025
3. What is DNA-centrism? Why is it wrong? My blog 10 November 2025