12 June 2026

Autonome wereld en theodicee bij Taede Smedes (3)

"Het blog over Autonome Wereld bij Taede Smedes (2) is een van mijn meest bekeken blogs. En er kwamen soms vreemde reacties. Iemand die je een Taede Smedes-kenner zou kunnen noemen, schreef dat Taede Smedes nooit over het probleem van het kwaad had geschreven. Dat vond ik een vreemde bewering.
In een vorig blog (1) schreef ik over het probleem van het kwaad zoals beschreven in het boek God en Darwin van theoloog-godsdienstfilosoof Taede Smedes. Het probleem werd in dat boek maar heel kort aangestipt omdat het boek over een ander onderwerp ging. Toch werden er in dat boek zeer belangrijke en revolutionaire uitspraken gedaan. Sommigen (2) beweerden dat Taede Smedes nooit iets over het probleem van het kwaad had geschreven, en daaruit volgde op de een of andere manier dat ik het helemaal mis had. Of zo iets. Onzin! Onwetendheid! Smedes heeft wel degelijk over het probleem van het kwaad geschreven in zijn boek God en de Menselijke Maat (2006). Met name in Hoofdstuk 11 (toelichting, literatuurlijstje) (bewijst ook dat hij zich met de literatuur heeft beziggehouden)." 

Tot zover een draft blog dat ik nooit heb afgemaakt. Ik publiceer het nu ongewijzigd zoals het sinds 2011 als draft is blijven staan. De aanleiding is een blog van Taede Smedes: Lieke Marsman – Een oproep tot leven, 4 juni 2026. Dat blog opent met de woorden:

"Ik heb het feit dat kanker bestaat altijd gezien als een van de belangrijkste argumenten tegen het bestaan van een bovennatuurlijke God. ... Dat kanker bestaat, toont voor mij aan dat een bovennatuurlijke Schepper-God – zoals voorgesteld in het christendom – niet kan bestaan. Zo’n God is voor mij dan ook een illusie."

Je kunt in ieder geval vaststellen dat Smedes in de loop der jaren consistent is gebleven in dat opzicht [3].


Noten

  1. Autonome wereld en theodicee bij Taede Smedes (2) Het probleem van het kwaad, 28 november 2011. 
  2. Uitgerekend filosoof Jan Riemersma heeft vele malen gezegd dat je vooral Taede Smedes moest lezen. Overigens is het helemaal niet relevant of Smedes 'nooit over het probleem van het kwaad' geschreven heeft. Het gaat er om wat hij wel geschreven heeft. Daar doe ik het mee.
  3. Dit blog van Smedes over hetzelfde onderwerp had ik nog niet eerder gezien: Sluit zinloos lijden het bestaan van God uit? 17 mei 2010.

01 June 2026

A likely breeding case of the Common Hoopoe in the Netherlands

Common Hoopoe / Hop / Upupa epops ©GertKorthof

The Hoopoe is a rare and unique bird in The Netherlands. It has an unusual combination of a movable crest like that of a cockatoo, and a long beak curved slightly downwards like that of an Eurasian Curlew (wulp). The plumage is a combination of an inconspicuous brown and a striking black-and-white pattern. The food-seeking behavior is mostly on grasslands and clearings in the forest, but it breeds in tree cavities like a woodpecker.

©GertKorthof

Recently, I was fortunate enough to watch this beautiful bird in the wild in The Netherlands. It landed on a bare spot in the forest about 20 meters (65 Feet) away from where I was walking. From my position, I could observe, photograph, and film it perfectly. After a few minutes, it flew away. I was able to make a short video:

A short video clearly shows the hurried way of foraging.

Evidence for a breeding case

The bird is very busy gathering food for short moments during most of the day on different locations and returning again and again. It has been observed that the birds repeatedly fly with food in their beaks in the same direction. They are usually very relaxed, but this bird was very busy. I have seen pictures made by another birder that clearly show a Hoopoe flying away with an insect in its beak. That is the best, albeit indirect, proof of a nest with young. This is not the same as fledging, the stage that the young leave the nest. Only then can it be called a success.

I have submitted my observation to waarneming.nlThe image recognition system (ObsIdentify) resulted in a 100% certain identification. Not really a surprise for an easily recognizable bird. This observation appeared to be under embargo and is only visible to myself and authorized persons. So, I can't see how many observations have been submitted. My observation was automatically approved. This shows that manually approved observations of the bird on the same location must have existed already at that moment. Despite its rareness, there are a lot of Hoopoe observations visible in waarneming.nl at many locations in The Netherlands, but these aren't breeding cases.

Read more...

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 [4].

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]
  4. For example there is a famous article by Freeland and Hurst (1998) The Genetic Code is One in a Million, Journal of Molecular EvolutionSee also their April 2004 article Evolution Encoded in Scientific American [5 Jun 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