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 junk code. On the other hand, the organization of genomes balances on the edge of chaos [5]. No human engineer would have designed such a mess [5]. DNA is not the place to look for a program.

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.

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."

Previous blog

• Think about this ... 9 Feb 2026