Utrechts Landschap: Brandrode runderen beschermen, slachten en opeten

Brandrode runderen op landgoed Sandwijck

Een verhaal over het behoeden voor het uitsterven van een oud runderras, én het slachten van diezelfde runderen. 

Infobord op landgoed Sandwijck (NB: vlinder!)

  

Het ras was bijna uitgestorven!

  

Vlees van eigen koeien!

Stier (L) en koe (R) van de Brandrode runderen
De lang gerekte bouw valt op. Dit zijn geen 'hobby-koetjes'

 

Het Utrechts Landschap beheert natuur in de provincie Utrecht. Op één van die terreinen worden 'Brandrode runderen' gehouden. Het is een oud runderras dat niet meer gebruikt wordt in de intensieve veehouderij. Er wordt mee gefokt en er worden jaarlijks kalveren geboren. Volgens het UL passen ze goed in het landschapsbeheer. Ze mogen hun hoorns behouden, en de kalveren mogen het eerste weideseizoen bij hun moeder blijven. Deze runderen worden ouder dan in de moderne veehouderij gebruikelijk is volgens het UL. Tenslotte lees ik: "de maatschap verkoopt vlees van eigen koeien". 

Maar kun je echt blijven beweren dat je de dieren respectvol behandelt, terwijl je ze ook slacht? Een oud runderras tegen uitsterven behoeden én ze tegelijk ook slachten? Eerst vertroetelen, dan de kogel. Trouwens, het woord 'slachten' komt niet voor in het verhaal op de informatie borden. Er worden zgn. géén dieren gedood, er wordt alleen maar vlees van eigen koeien verkocht! Dat noem ik verhullend taalgebruik [1]. Bij verhullend taalgebruik heb je iets te verbergen. In dit geval dat je ze slacht. Vlees is namelijk geen wol! Een andere verhullingstechniek is: grappen maken. Een vrijwilliger grapte bijvoorbeeld: één van de Brandrode runderen heeft zichzelf vrijwillig opgeofferd! Zo'n grap verhult de ongemakkelijke waarheid dat het uiteraard niet 'vrijwillig' is. Een respectloze houding. Volgens het UL worden ze ouder, maar wat gebeurt er als ze bejaard zijn? Bejaardentehuis? Begraven? In de natuur gelegd voor de wolven? Of ...? 

Wat het UL kennelijk niet weet is, dat die runderen in een groep, in familieverband leven. Het zijn sociale dieren. Alsof ze niet merken dat een groepsgenoot, dochter, zoon, vader of moeder plotseling is verdwenen. Alsof ze hun groepsgenoten niet missen. Alsof sociale dieren elkaar niet herkennen. Alsof het domme dieren zijn. Is het misschien te ongemakkelijk om over dit soort vragen na te denken als je heel graag hun vlees wilt eten?

Als je runderen gaat houden, dan ben je een veehouder! Als je dieren fokt en slacht, ben je geen natuurbeschermer maar veehouder en slager! Dat past niet bij een natuurbeschermingsorganisatie.

Ik heb het Utrechts Landschap hierover gemaild en er op gewezen dat ze reclame maakten voor vlees (zie borden hierboven). En dat dit niet meer van deze tijd is vanwege de eiwittransitie (3). Er kwam wel een reactie, zelfs van de directeur, maar ze toonde geen enkel begrip. Een organisatie die in deze tijd nog reclame maakt voor vlees, kan niet meer rekenen op onze steun.

 

Wildernisvlees!

'Wildernisvlees' is vlees van dieren (runderen, paarden) die in het wild of semi-wild leven in natuurgebieden, zoals die beheerd door Utrechts Landschap en beheerd door FREE Nature, waarbij het vlees wordt verkocht als een duurzaam natuurproduct uit gebiedsbeheer, met afhaalpunten zoals op Landgoed Oostbroek in De Bilt (let op: dit stopt per 1 jan 2026.

Op 8 januari 2026 is Landgoed Oostbroek en de Blauwe Kamer van het Utrechts Landschap nog steeds afhaalpunten zijn van wildernis vlees: Afhaalpunten wildernis vlees.

 

Bestelformulier wildernisvlees jan 2006

Nevenactiviteit van de Slagerij het Utrechts Landschap: het vlees van die dieren die je beschermt verkopen: veel anonieme namen zoals 'gemengd pakket', 'stoofvleespakket', 'vlugklaarpakket', 'tartaar', 'beefburgers', 'verse worst', 'rundergehakt', 'rundertong', 'gemengd paard'. Behalve 'paard' en 'rund', van welk dieren is dit vlees afkomstig? Ree? Wild zwijn? Hert? Je wilt/mag het niet weten! Hoe zijn ze aan hun eind gekomen? Geschoten door jagers? Verkeersslachtoffer?

  

Noten

1. "Taal moet onthullen. ... Niet om de realiteit te vervormen of haar mooier voor te doen dan ze is, maar juist om zichtbaar te maken wat we anders zouden missen." Iris Murdoch (1919-1999). (Filosofie Kalender).
2. Juridisch: de wet definieert 'moord' specifiek als het doden van een mens door een mens. Het doden van een dier door een mens wordt niet aangeduid als 'moord', maar valt onder wetgeving inzake dierenwelzijn of dierenmishandeling.  
3. Eiwittransitie (overstap van dierlijke naar plantaardige eiwitten) en: Voedingscentrum over eiwitten. 

 

Bronnen

• "Let op: het afhaalpunt bij De Bilt stopt per 1 januari 2026. In de december levering van 2025 kunt u dus voor het laatste op deze locatie afhalen." geraadpleegd 8 jan 2016. 
• https://www.freenature.nl/nl/afhaalpunten/de-bilt-landgoed-oostbroek 
• https://www.freenature.nl/nl/wildernisvlees
• https://nos.nl/video/2595333-mee-op-jacht-naar-wild-vlees-dat-steeds-populairder-wordt 
• https://www.freenature.nl/nl/afhaalpunten/overzicht 

 

Vorige blogs Utrechts Landschap

• Een sfeervolle avondwandeling met een zeer relaxte ree 31 mei 2025
• Utrechts Landschap: stop met boeren in natuurgebieden! Bewaar de rust! 30 mei 2022
• Very disturbing agricultural activity in Utrechts Landschap nature reserve Moersbergen, The Netherlands. 24 mei 2022
• Utrechts Landschap schaft twee elektrische auto's aan. 1 jul 2020

 

If the blueprint of the embryo is not in DNA, then where is it? Alfonso Martinez Arias. A very convincing argument for the cell-centric view of life

The Master Builder

In previous posts I argued that DNA is not the blueprint of life, nor the control center of the cell. But, there must exist some organizing principle. If that is not in our DNA, then where is it? We still need an explanation. The book of Alfonso Martinez Arias (2023) 'The Master Builder. How the New Science of the Cell is Rewriting the Story of Life' was very helpful for me in answering the problem how is an embryo made from a single cell? 

Alfonso Martinez Arias' book is a lengthy and detailed  defense of the cell-centric view of life. His arguments are based on first-hand experience with growing embryos in the lab. After reading this book, I realized that the hardest problem in evolution is neither the origin of species, nor adaptation by natural selection, but: how is an embryo made from a single cell? Without answering this central question, the major evolutionary transition [1] from single cell organisms to multicellular organisms will forever be a mystery. Without going deep into technicalities, I have selected a few important quotes from the book in order to give a sense of why the creation of an embryo out of a single cell is an extraordinary feat. "What a piece of work we are!" A newborn baby is estimated to have approximately 26 billion to 2 trillion cells all originating from a single cell. Imagine a robot constructing itself from a less than a 1 mm sized entity! That does not exist. A crucial milestone in the development of the embryo is the creation of the three body axes:

This is a spatial problem par excellence. The fertilized egg cell has neither a head-tail axis, nor a dorsal-ventral axis, nor a left-right axis. These must be created. All other developments such as the creation of organs in the right positions depend on the body axes. This is the work of cells, which are after all three-dimensional objects contrary to DNA. 

CarnegieStage-2figure-4 (The Virtual Human Embryo).

(illustration not in the book)

 

Alfonso Martinez Arias convincingly shows that "DNA cannot send orders to cells to move right of left within your body or to place the heart and the liver on the apposite sides of your thorax; nor can it measure the length of your arms or instruct the placements of your eyes symmetrically across the midline of your face. We know this because each and every cell of an organism generally has the same DNA in it. But cells can send orders, measure lengths." "If genes can't tell right from left or middle, they simply can't be responsible for doing everything involved in the making of you and me." 

To get a grip on causes, cells are grown in vitro: 

"Why do cells behave differently in culture versus in embryo? We found that when embryonic stem cells are left to roam on a Petri dish in certain conditions, they will become different from each other; they generate the different types of cells that make up the embryo but do so in a disorganized manner. If the same cells, with the same genes, are placed in an early embryo, however, they will faithfully contribute to the embryo. Same cells, same genes. So, something other than genes must be involved in making an embryo."

(the above quotes are slightly adapted from the Introduction and the first chapter of the book) 

 

Figure 18: Duboule's hourglass. Chapter 5.
Starting from very diverse forms and going through
a bottleneck of similarity, animals diversify.

Figure 27. Human embryos from Day 14 to Day 28.

The 'embryo problem' becomes especially urgent when realizing that there is no miniature human being in the egg (preformatism !), so all body parts must be created 'out of nothing' (de novo)!

By placing a fertilized egg in a Petri dish in a lab, cells show what they are capable of outside the natural environment of the mother, and which external triggers are required. These experiments show: 1) that DNA is not enough, and 2) that cell-cell interactions are crucial. 

Growing a human embryo in vitro beyond 13–14 days—approaching the time of gastrulation—presents profound technical challenges, primarily because laboratory conditions cannot fully replicate the complex, dynamic environment of the uterus. While recent research has pushed past the traditional 14-day limit using specialized techniques, standard methods fail because the embryo enters a phase requiring intricate, 3D interactions with maternal tissue, which are difficult to simulate [2].

The limited power of genes

"Identical twins have very similar faces because they share the tools and materials needed to build a face. It's like assembling bookshelves from a store kit: the final products look identical because parts in the kits are identical and adjusted to fit perfectly. ... Someone has to put the pieces together." 

A genome neither creates an organism, nor does software create a computer.  

"If you were to put DNA in a test tube and wait for it to make an organism, it would never happen. Even if you were to add all the ingredients that allow the reading and expression of the information in DNA – the transcription factors, plus some amino acids, lipids, sugars, and salts to help catalyze chemical reactions – it would still never happen. DNA needs a cell to transform its content into a tangible form. An organ or a tissue, and most certainly an organism, is no more the result of the activity of a collection of genes than a house is an aggregate of bricks and mortar." [3].

Tools: 

"Understanding how animal (and plant and fungal) life emerged demands that we see genes not as the instructions or blueprint for an organism but rather as the instructions or blueprints for the tools and materials that cells use to build organisms." (Chapter 3).

"It is the cell that reads, interprets, and translates the tools or signals it is given." (Chapter 5)

Genes are agnostic

The genes are agnostic about anything except the protein that will be made after they're copied into RNA, and the genes that are copied because of signals being communicated between cells based on their environment. (Chapter 5)  [4].

Gene-centric versus cell-centric thinking

"This way of talking about what is happening in cells differs greatly from the language used by geneticists. In their view, genes are the bosses, the engineers, the drivers of the events that decide when and where something happens. Yet, as we can already see, the cells are the ones who count and read signals from their neighbors and assess their position in the community, sensing not only the chemical signals they exchange with each other but also the physics of geometry, tension, pressure, and stress within and across a group." (Chapter 6). 

Faustian bargain

"Cells are allowed to take control of the genome's hardware in order to build and maintain the organism, so long as the cells pass the genome along intact to the next generation through the germ cells: eggs and sperm." (Chapter 7). 

Genes are not ignored!

"It was this idea that inspired me in 2003 to turn my attention away from fruit flies, which I had been working with for fifteen years, to embryonic stem cells." (Chapter 7). Arias has firsthand knowledge of genetics. Genes are not dismissed as unimportant. Genes get their rightful place in the story. Unlike other anti-gene-centric authors such as Denis Noble, Arias is an expert in genetics and developmental biology.

Conclusion

In order to give the reader a general idea of the position of the author, I decided to give striking quotes instead of all the data (which is anyway impossible to do). But I guarantee that the book contains all the details to convincingly substantiate the cell-centrism position. Furthermore, I've included some illustrations from the book to show the topics the author discusses. 

For a geneticist the universe is made of genes, for an embryologist the universe is made of cells. Now it's time for both points of view to be merged.

 

 

Notes

1. John Maynard Smith (1995) The Major Transitions in Evolution.
2. quote from google-AI. 
3. Slightly edited quote from Chapter 1 Not in our genes. [IKEA bookcase!]
4. I like to compare this situation with the Chinese Room experiment. Genes are inside the Chinese room and don't have any idea of what they are doing, and what the symbols mean, they are blindly following rules.

Previous blogs

• Gene-centrism is bad biology. Here is why. 17 Dec 2025
• What is DNA-centrism? Why is it wrong?  10 Nov 2025
• Embryo's zijn mensen, die kweek je niet 06 June 2016 

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

• The Human Eye: Evolution’s Hardest Problem youtube 23 Feb 2026 (8:32 min)
• Jonathan Wells (wikipedia) According to wikipedia he died September 19, 2024 (aged 82). It is a miracle he is still talking :-)
• Larry Moran:  Jonathan Wells (1942 - 2024) blog.

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

• 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. 
3. 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! 

 

Conclusion  

DNA seems to be so powerful because of its environment: the cell!

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 
11. 21 March: Conclusion added. 

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. Why are there eukaryotes at all? The selfish gene theory should predict single cells (prokayotes) as the outcome of evolution. [8]

-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 [7]. 

-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 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.

Postscript

22 Feb 2026

Strange things happen at female meiosis. In female animals, three of the four meiotic products are typically eliminated by extrusion into polar bodies, and only one cell develops to produce an ovum. Contrary to male meiosis, which produces 4 functional haploid spermatids. Does The Selfish Gene theory predict that 3 of the 4 meiosis products in females are discarded? Those 3 are not transmitted to the next generation, but contain a full haploid set of chromsomes. The Selfish Gene theory predicts that all genes (and alleles) maximize their transmission to the next generation. Concluding, the Selfish Gene theory predicts asexual reproduction, which is rare. Additionally, sexual reproduction is common, but the details of female sexual reproduction don't allow for a straightforward explanation by The Selfish Gene theory [6].

If that is not enough trouble, "around 30 percent of early pregnancies fail before the embryo implants in the body of the mother, with another 30 percent around that time." [5]. Apparently, reproductive output is not maximized!

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) 
5. Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz (2020) The Dance of Life: Symmetry, Cells and How We Become Human. [22 Feb 2026]
6. However, explanations have been proposed for this wasteful behaviour: Instead of producing 4 small, equal gametes (like sperm), the female reproductive system invests all available resources into a single, high-quality, nutrient-dense gamete. The follow-up question is then why female meisosis does not consists of just one reductive division resulting in 2 haploid egg cells thus avoiding wasting 2 haploid cells. [23 Feb 2026] 
7. In evolutionary biology known as 'The cost of sex': 1) The Two-Fold Cost of Sex (Cost-of-Males); 2) The Cost of Meiosis (Genome Dilution); 3) Three Additional Costs of Sex. Chapter 40 Introductory Biology. (open source, free access, anonymous authors but it looks a complete overview of biology.) Wikipedia doesn't have a page 'Costs of sex'. [24 Feb 2026] 
8. This argument is also made in chapter 3 of Alfonso Martinez Arias (2023) 'The Master Builder. How the New Science of the Cell is Rewriting the Story of Life.': "When genes became components of cells, they had to abide by the terms and conditions of the cells ever afterwards. Their selfishness was curtailed." [11 Mar 2026]

 

 

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. 

 

A review of 'The Music of Life' by Denis Noble. Noble is not a clown!

The Music of Life. 

Denis Noble has been unfairly attacked. One YouTuber, 'professor Dave', called Noble 'a clown' [1]. Evidently, attacking a person rather than his theory is always wrong. One of Noble's books, The Music of Life. Biology Beyond the Genome [2], contains very valuable insights about problems of DNA-centrism. Noble has gone too far in later books, but it would be foolish to ignore the very valuable insights about DNA-centrism and 'the selfish gene' in this 2006 book. Here I give a summary of his insights. His insights are in agreement with ideas in my previous blog posts about DNA-centrism [3], [4] and some of his ideas are a useful addition to my ideas.

The amazing thing is that Noble's criticism doesn't contain controversial facts. His facts are all mainstream scientific facts. The facts are not the problem. It is just that the views about the precise role of DNA in organisms in mainstream science literature is an inaccurate description of what is really going on in a cell. Noble doesn't deny the importance of DNA. It is the routine mainstream science writing about DNA that is wrong. The way mainstream science writes about DNA is based on a bad habit that crept unnoticed into the literature after the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953, and culminated in Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene in 1976. 

The book The Music of Life is about systems biology. It is about putting together rather than taking apart, integration rather than reduction. DNA is important, but is not 'the control centre of the cell'. The genome is not a privileged level of causality in biological systems. The genome is on a 'lower' level than the cell. The cell or the organism is 'the system'. The genome is part of the cell, and the cell is part of the organism. The genome only functions within a system. Reducing the cell to its genome is reductionism. Reductionism as a method to discover the parts of a system is necessary and should not be replaced by anything else. The system level must be built on successful reduction. 

According to Noble, DNA as a biological molecule does not do much. The real players are the proteins. DNA is in comparison rather passive. (How could a passive part control anything?). I think that Noble's statement:

'the cell reads the DNA code'

could be called 'the central dogma of systems biology or cell biology'. This statement must be printed in a bold, large font in every biology and evolution textbook. It is a perfect antidote to the DNA-centric worldview. Here, the cell is the active part. The cell is the system. From this principle, it follows that we must describe the genome as a database (or an archive, library, toolbox, memory ) that is transmitted to the next generation, rather than a 'program' that creates organisms. How could a database with protein-coding genes create an organism? There must be an organizing principle. Something has to choose which genes are to be read in which cells (in a multicellular organism like us). Our worldview influences how we describe what happens in a cell. So, the language we use to describe DNA is important. The language that scientists use, reveals the underlying worldview: DNA-centric or cell-centric.

Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene

That is in particular true for expressions such as 'The Selfish Gene'. The way Noble analyses 'The Selfish Gene' idea is enlightening and new to me. 'The Selfish Gene' idea is in fact not a scientific theory at all, Noble says. No empirical test could possibly distinguish between 'selfish genes' and the opposite view  'genes as prisoners'. The genes are prisoners because they are trapped in huge colonies locked inside highly intelligent beings [5]. They are inside you and me; we are the system that allows their code to be read. The selfish genes do not create us, body and soul. Their preservation is totally dependent on our efforts to reproduce. We are the ultimate rationale for their existence. Additionally, Noble mentions that Dawkins agrees with him that the 'selfish gene' idea is not a scientifically testable hypothesis. I didn't realize that. Despite the fact that the selfish gene metaphor is not a scientific hypothesis, it continues to influence scientific research, thinking and writing. However, if it is an arbitrary view, then it doesn't deserve to be the standard view in biology and evolution. Noble presents us with an eye-opening alternative view.

Evaluation

I think, contrary to Noble, that there is a fact that can distinguish between the DNA-centric and cell centric view. That fact is that DNA as a molecule is passive. How could a passive molecule create you and me? A molecule that for every 'action', such as transcription, replication, recombination, repair or whatever, requires enzymes  [6]. In my view, this fact contradicts Dawkins' selfish gene view, because that view implicitly claims that genes actively control the actions of the organism. To be precise Dawkins says: we are robots obeying the commands of the selfish genes. I consider that claim as falsified. A database cannot dictate anything. Consequently, a theory of how an individual is created from a fertilized egg is far from complete by summing up all the necessary protein-coding and regulatory genes in the genome. The genes in our genome are an inventory that is necessary, but far from sufficient. Question: how do thousands of individual protein-coding genes and proteins create an individual? [7]. These are fundamental questions in biology which tend to be ignored by the standard gene-centric selfish gene account.

In several chapters, Noble elaborates the Systems view of the cell. It amounts to highlighting forgotten, uncontroversial facts. It certainly is worth reading, but I can not discuss it in this blog. My thoughts are this: molecular genetics after 1953 became a huge success, mainly because the discovery of DNA sequencing made it possible to identify genes and determine the fine-structure of genes. Additionally, genes can be experimentally modified, silenced and deleted. That enabled the determination of the functions of many genes. Furthermore, the expression of genes, even a large number of genes at the same time, could be detected. Undeniably, that is scientific progress. However, all these methods, taken together, strongly suggest that genes control everything: the development and daily running of the organism. Yes, genes are involved in almost everything, but strictly speaking, they do not control everything. The most fundamental and difficult question in biology remains unanswered: 

 

How do 25,000 protein-coding genes and proteins

 create an individual? [7]. 

 

How is that regulated? Who or what does orchestrate all this? There is more to organisms than DNA, genes, gene expression and protein synthesis alone.

Denis Noble is not a clown!

Professor Dave Explains: Denis Noble is a clown [1]

Contrary to what 'Professor Dave' claims: Denis Noble is not a clown! Don't let the loudmouths scare you away from reading The Music of Life and benefit from his insights. He is a serious and intelligent scientist. Don't be distracted by statements he made later in life.

 

 

 

Notes

1. Professor Dave Explains: Denis Noble is a Clown 22 May 2025 is a video fiercely attacking the person Denis Noble.
   
2. Denis Noble (2006) The Music of Life. Biology Beyond the Genome. In this review I use words and expressions from Noble's book to describe his position without giving page numbers. 
3. Gene-centrism is bad biology. Here is why. my blog 17 December 2025
4. What is DNA-centrism? Why is it wrong? my blog 10 November 2025  
5. 'genes as prisoners' locked inside the nucleus of a cell: to me, it looks similar to the mitochondria which are also locked up in the cell and are completely depended on the host cell! Nice!
6. The only 'exception' is self-splicing RNA. But RNA is not DNA, furthermore, RNA is the product of a transcription process that uses enzymes. 
7. "one of the great unsolved mysteries of biology for nearly two centuries" from: Sean B. Carroll (2005) Endless Forms Most Beautiful (2005), page x Preface. I will return to interesting examples of Carroll's DNA-centric language.