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. 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! 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, (...) Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries.
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. 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.  

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

Overwinterende zwartkop! Overwintering Blackcap!

 

Zwartkop. 25 Jan 2026 Sylvia atricapilla 

Overwinterende zwartkop (mannetje)

Overwintering Blackcap (male)

25 January 2026 

 

Op 17 februari 2021 had ik een vrouwtje Zwartkop in de tuin! Zie dit blog. Op 8 februari 2021 weer een vrouwtje Zwartkop. 

Er zijn vandaag 25 januari in Nederland 11 automatisch of handmatig goedgekeurde waarnemingen van zwartkoppen, waarvan 9 met foto's, waarvan 3 vrouwtjes en 3 mannetjes herkenbaar op foto. In totaal zijn er in Nederland in de maand januari 187 goedgekeurde waarnemingen van de zwartkop. De provincies Utrecht, Zuid- en Noord-Holland hadden de meeste waarnemingen; de 3 Noordelijke provincies hadden de minste.

Maandag 26 januari 09:27 hij zit er weer! op de drinkbak! Op 3 februari zag ik hem weer. De dagen er na eet hij ook van een appel.

Het is bijzonder dat zwartkoppen overwinteren, want het zijn, net als andere kleine zangvogels zoals tjiftjaf en fitis, insecteneters en trekvogels.