13 May 2026

Turkse Tortel (Streptopelia decaocto) met afwijkend oog en snavel

Turkse Tortel ( Streptopelia decaocto ) afwijkende snavelvorm,
normaal linker oog. (13 mei 2026) ©Gert Korthof

  

misvormd rechter oog en de
bovensnavel groeit over de ondersnavel heen.

 

de nekveren lijken ook niet normaal

Het beestje kon nog zaadjes oppikken van de grond ondanks de misvormde snavel. Er komen dagelijks Turkse Tortels op het vogelvoer af, en die zien er allemaal normaal uit, maar deze afwijkende vogel had ik nog niet eerder gezien. Hij/zij was redelijk actief, maar had moeite met zaadjes oppikken. Hij kon normaal vliegen. De volgende dag zag ik hem weer.

Read more...


04 May 2026

Physicist Charles S. Cockell: "DNA and its entourage". The Genetic Code is non-random.

https://wasdarwinwrong.com/blog/The-Equations-of-Life.png

Evolution is the transformation of species into slightly modified species. The origin of species is solved in principle. However, the origin of life is a fundamentally different problem. Darwin avoided discussing the origin of life. It is the hardest problem of biology and it still has not been solved yet. Whereas the details of evolution can be described as a puzzle, the origin of life must be characterized as an intractable problem.

A crucial step (although not the first step) in the origin of life was the invention of DNA and the Genetic Code. DNA has become a defining property of life. But how DNA acquired its meaning is still a mystery. How could a relatively chemically inert non-enzymatic molecule (DNA) become useful, even indispensable, for life? DNA itself could not have been involved in the origin of life (Think about this...). There must have been something before DNA. 

In the literature the Genetic Code is usually presented as a table in which all 64 combinations of 3 bases A, T, C, G are 'associated' with 20 Amino Acids. These associations could be made in many different ways. Nature got stuck to one system of associations called the Genetic Code table. In the book The Equations of Life: How Physics Shapes Evolution, Chapter 7 'The Code of Life', physicist Charles S. Cockell notices that the Genetic Code table is non-random. This is an important observation. The assignments of base triplets to Amino Acids (AAs) is non-random. When looking at the table It is immediately clear that there is a pattern. Secondly, there is redundancy: many Amino Acids are coded by more than one base triplet. But there is also a pattern. This is all known very well.

However, Cockell also notices that there is something special about nature's choice of the twenty Amino Acids. There are many more natural Amino Acids available than those twenty. So, why those twenty? Random? Accident? Or are they the most suitable for their task? He refers to a publication [1] that argues for a non-random choice. The authors reasoned that there are 3 properties of Amino Acids that are important for constructing a protein: (1) the size of an Amino Acid, (2) the charge, (3) hydrophobicity (repelling water) [3]. Together those properties determine how the protein behaves and what it can do. In principle proteins could be constructed from one or a few Amino Acids. But most useful proteins consist of a diverse mixture of amino acids. Proteins are defined by a unique sequence of AAs to fold into a complex 3D shape. Also, it is not useful to have many AAs with the same hydrophobicity, or the same size or the same charge. The best toolkit for life would have an even distribution of AA properties that does not overlap too much. To test for optimality the authors tested a set of fifty AAs found in the Murchison meteorite. The reason? They assumed that AAs found in the meteorite would represent the set of AAs found on the early Earth. What they found was astonishing, writes Cockell:

"When they compared the twenty amino acids used by life with a million alternative bundles of amino acids randomly chosen from the fifty in the meteorite, the twenty used by life had better coverage and combinations of all three of the key factors than did any other set. ... they seemed to be selected by evolution to give a wide range and even distribution of properties that might be useful in proteins." ... Of a much expanded set of seventy-six AA, not a single group out of a million possible alternatives outperformed the natural set.". (chapter 7). 

Cockell concludes that the twenty AAs used by life are not random. That was new to me. But there is one important aspect Cockell doesn't mention: the AAs must also be suitable to be attached to a transfer RNA (tRNA) and to be processed by the ribosome. This is a crucial property. It is the biochemical implementation of the Genetic Code table. There could be differences in suitability. This must be investigated. Furthermore, all AAs are associated with 1 or more triplet codons (redundancy). The question is: how is the association made between a base triplet codon and the AA? And how did that originate in the first place? The structure of tRNAs does not show a direct chemical bond between codon and AA. Is it a random choice? That could certainly be the case because AAs and triplet codons (bases A, T, C, T) are different chemical compounds, yet they are somehow connected. Or is there a logic in the associations? Is there a pattern? Much research has been done to solve this question. No definitive answer yet. Cockell does mention this. But at least he pointed out a new aspect of the origin of life and the Genetic Code table to me.  

 ______

In this blog I did focus on the origin of the Genetic Code. The origin of the Genetic Code is in fact the origin of DNA-based life: bacteria, animals and plants. It is also the origin of protein and enzyme based life. The origin of DNA and proteins are strongly intertwined. DNA on its own has no use and proteins can not exist without DNA. DNA cannot self-reproduce, it needs enzymes. But proteins cannot self-reproduce either. A specific protein consists of a unique sequence of Amino Acids. Unique proteins do not self-assemble spontaneously. The only way to reproduce such a unique sequence is on the basis of another unique sequence: the unique base sequence in DNA. In other words: DNA and proteins depend on each other. This not a promising situation to start life. Hence, the hypothetical RNA world was developed (which is not without its own problems!). Keep in mind: the origin of the Genetic Code is not the same as the origin of eukaryotes. Bacteria are also DNA- and protein-based life forms. All life on earth uses the same Genetic Code, including viruses.

Physicist Charles Cockell used the expression "DNA and its entourage" [2]. And that is a misleading description. I hope readers recognize this as DNA-centric thinking. The cell and the cellular machinery are not an "entourage"! It is an equally important part of the cell! DNA is not the master of the cell! The cell is not the servant of DNA!


Notes

  1. Gayle, Freeland (2011) Did evolution select a nonrandom "alphabet" of amino acids? Astrobiology 
  2. "An entourage is a group of attendants, assistants, or close associates who accompany and work for an important or famous person". 
  3. There exist another list of properties of AAs: polar versus non-polar; acidic versus basic. [5 May 2026]

 

Further Reading

  • Can AI simplify the alphabet of life?  Generative AI design yields functional proteins with only 19 amino acids. Science, 30 April 2026. The design functional bacterial proteins without the amino acid isoleucine.
  • Toward life with a 19–amino acid alphabet through generative artificial intelligence design.  Science, 30 April 2026. "no known free-living organism uses an alphabet of fewer than 20 amino acids. This raises a fundamental question: Can a viable cell be constructed with a reduced amino acid alphabet?" A statement against Cockell: "Computational protein modeling also indicates that as few as 9 to 12 amino acids could, in principle, encode all protein folds."
 

02 April 2026

Douglas Hofstadter argued against the DNA-centric view in his famous book 'Godel, Escher, Bach'

GÖDEL, ESCHER, BACH (1988)

"As development of an organism takes place, can it be said that the information is being "pulled out" of its DNA? Is that where all of the information about the organism's structure reside;

DNA and the Necessity of Chemical Context

In one sense, the answer seems to be yes, thanks to experiments li Avery's [1]. But in another sense, the answer seems to be no, because so much of the pulling-out process depends on extraordinarily complicated cellular chemical processes, which are not coded for in the DNA itself. The DNA relies on the fact that they will happen, but does not seem to contain a code which brings them about. Thus we have two conflicting views on the nature of the information in a genotype. One view says that so much of the information is outside the DNA that it is not reasonable to look upon the DNA as anything more than a very intricate set of triggers, like a sequence of buttons to be pushed on a jukebox; another view says that the information is all there, but in a very implicit form.

Now it might seem that these are just two ways of saying the same thing, but that is not necessarily so. One view says that the DNA is quite meaningless out of context; the other says that even if it were taken out context, a molecule of DNA from a living being has such a compelling inner logic to its structure that its message could be deduced anyway. To put it as succinctly as possible, one view says that in order for DNA to have meaning, chemical context is necessary; the other view says that only intelligence is necessary to reveal the "intrinsic meaning" of a strand of DNA."

Quote from chapter 6 'The Location of Meaning'. 

 

My copy of Douglas Hofstadter's famous book 'Gödel, Escher, Bach' (Dutch translation, 1985) stood gathering dust on my bookshelf for some 30 years. A few days ago when I was searching for artwork of M. C. Escher in Hofstadter's book, I unexpectedly came across arguments against the 'DNA-centric view' of life. I have blogged about DNA-centrism many times over the past several months. It is extraordinary to find the same ideas you have been developing in a book that was written 47 years ago. As far as I can see, Hofstadter was not participating in an ongoing discussion among biologists about DNA-centrism. He wrote his ideas as part of an investigation of formal languages. DNA was an example of such a language. Probably the two mutually exclusive points of view –'DNA-centric' and 'cell-centric'– did not exist at the time. Likely, mainstream biology was DNA-centric. For example, Hofstadter writes: "Gunther Stent has characterized the nucleus as the 'throne room' of the cell, with DNA acting as the ruler." (page 509). Hofstadter wrote this in passing and without further comment! Stunning remark! If this isn't DNA-centrism, then I don't know what is! Hofstadter accepts it as if it were merely a neutral description of what DNA is. Probably it reflects mainstream scientific thinking at the time.

Hofstadter is a computer scientist and investigated coded messages, and the concept of information and meaning. It appears he had a detailed knowledge of what DNA is and how it functions. In chapter 16 Hofstadter gives detailed description of the structure of DNA, the Genetic code [2], transcription, translation, proteins, Transfer RNA and Ribosomes. Furthermore, he understood that knowing the Genetic Code, that is how a particular DNA sequence is translated in to a protein, is far from sufficient to understand how a genotype is translated in to a phenotype [1]. This truth still holds today! 

An important question for Hofstadter was: 

Where is the meaning of a coded message located? 

Applied to DNA, attempts to answer this question yield important insights. Interestingly, he proposed two possible answers: the intrinsic and extrinsic view of meaning. The intrinsic view means that DNA has 'a compelling inner logic' that enables an intelligent (extraterrestrial) investigator to decode the DNA message. This sounds rather vague. Hofstadter doesn't explain what 'inner logic' means [4], [5]. The extrinsic view is that the meaning of DNA is not stored in DNA itself, but that "extraordinarily complicated cellular chemical processes" are required.

Although he never rejects the intrinsic meaning hypothesis explicitly, I conclude from his statement "extraordinarily complicated cellular chemical processes, which are not coded for in the DNA itself", that he favours the extrinsic view. This is further confirmed by the heading "DNA and the Necessity of Chemical Context" and this (charming!) statement: 

"they [an extraterrestrial civilization] might to try to deduce from its chemical structure what kind of chemical environment it seemed to want, and then supply such an environment." (under the section heading How Universal Is DNA's Message?). (page 183).

Another wonderful statement:

"On the other hand, DNA is itself a passive molecule which undergoes manipulation at the hands of various kinds of enzymes; in this sense, a DNA molecule is exactly like a long piece of data, as well." (page 542) (my emphasis). I love this. This is exactly what I argued on several previous blogs. And: "But most of the 'living' in a cell goes on outside of the nucleus, namely in the cytoplasm..." (page 512). Well said! I fully agree. In other words: DNA is dead, the cell is alive! However, Hofstadter does not note there is a certain degree of contradiction between DNA 'sitting on a throne' and being dead.

Bootstrap problem

Continuing with the intrinsic and extrinsic point of view. There is a problem with the distinction. The tRNAs contain the translation key of DNA to protein. Since the information for producing tRNAs is stored in DNA (necessarily, because it must be inherited), one could say that the meaning of DNA is intrinsic to DNA. That's OK. However, in order for that information in DNA to be used, it must first be read by cellular machinery. Hofstadter is aware of the problem [3]: "... there is no way for the DNA to hoist itself by its own bootstraps. Some amount of knowledge of the Genetic Code must already be present in the cell beforehand." (page 519) (my italics). Excellent remark! Remarkable insight! However, it appears that the concepts intrinsic and extrinsic meaning are ambiguous. In one sense, DNA has an intrinsic meaning because DNA encodes for tRNAs, but on the other hand the meaning is extrinsic because machinery outside DNA is necessary to get the whole process started. In other words: a bootstrap problem [6]. The information is there, but one can not get it out!

Think about this: 47 years ago a smart computer scientist clearly understood that a DNA 'message' is meaningless without its cellular context! So, the cell-centric view is certainly not a modern invention. It was kept alive in the fringes of science. Hofstadter did not fully realize that his anti DNA-centric views contradicted the prevailing view of DNA as 'the Ruler on the throne'. Since Watson and Crick (1953) DNA-centrism has experienced stormy growth. Today, more and more scientists reject the DNA-centric view of life.



Notes

  1. My note: Avery (1944) was the first to demonstrate that DNA and not protein was the vehicle of heredity.  
  2. The Genetic Code table is on page 515. Furthermore: "The curious
    fact is that the Genetic Code is stored-where else?-in the DNA itself.
    " (page 517).
     
  3. quote: "(Warning: Understanding this "language" would not at all be the same as cracking the Genetic Code, something which took place in the early 1960s. ... The cracking of the Genetic Code was a vital step on the
    way to extracting the meaning of DNA strands, but it was only the first on a long path which is yet to be trodden.)
    " page 168.
  4. An argument against the intrinsic meaning of DNA is: the genetic code is a rather arbitrary association of 61 base triplets with 20 Amino Acids and 3 base triplets with STOP signals. Hofstadter did not mention this in this book. But 3 years later, in his 1982 Scientific American "Metamagical Themas" column, titled "Is the genetic code an arbitrary one, or would another code work as well?" Hofstadter argued that the genetic code is not fundamentally dictated by chemical necessity, suggesting that many other codes could theoretically work. (answer by Google AI!). The conclusion must be: there is no compelling logic in DNA. 
  5. A further problem with 'intrinsic meaning': how to find the translation keys in a code script with the length of billions of symbols? The code for the tRNAs are scattered all around DNA and there are many duplicate keys. In other words: how to locate the meaning of DNA?! That's the fundamental question.

 

Sources

The paperback edition is still available on Amazon. The PDF of the book can be found on several websites, such as this one. I discovered the Dutch translation of the book at my bookshelves, which so it appears was a birthday present. 


Previous blogs

 

 

22 March 2026

Utrechts Landschap: Brandrode runderen beschermen, slachten en opeten + reclame voor vlees maken

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. Some we love, some we hate, some we kill, some we eat. Opvallend genoeg, komt het woord 'slachten' niet voor op de informatieborden. Er worden 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? [4].

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 voor mijn standpunt. Een organisatie die in deze tijd nog reclame maakt voor vlees, kan niet meer rekenen op onze steun.

kleine edit 26 maart. 

 

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. 
  4. "My own research on the ‘meat paradox’ shows how people reconcile caring about animal welfare with enjoying eating meat: when reminded of animal suffering, they resolve the tension by downplaying the mental capacities of animals." from Nature book review of Animate: How Animals Shape the Human Mind Michael Bond Picador (2026) by Brock Bastian. 26 mrt 26

 

Bronnen

     

    Vorige blogs Utrechts Landschap

     

    14 March 2026

    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


    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. 
    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