26 February 2026

Jonathan Wells: The human eye is perfectly and flawlessly designed...

Jonathan Wells: The Human Eye: Evolution’s Hardest Problem

 

Jonathan Wells (Sep 19, 1942 – Sep 19, 2024)
  


Jonathan Wells ... !

 

Sources


16 February 2026

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 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

  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."
  8. 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]
  9. 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


09 February 2026

Think about this ...

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