Are genes followers rather than leaders in evolution?
This is the central
question raised in an
article
in the New Scientist
(12th October 2013). The article quotes Richard
Dawkins: “which elements have the property that variations
in them are replicated with the type of fidelity that
potentially carries them through an indefinitely large
number of evolutionary generations?” Dawkins answers his own
question: “Genes certainly meet the criterion. If anything
else does, let’s hear it.”
Nature is replying to
that challenge loud and clear.
First, there are
increasing numbers of experiments showing robust
transgenerational inheritance independent of DNA. See
Transgenerational inheritance.
Second, intricate
cellular structure, static and dynamic, replicates itself
faithfully and indefinitely through the process of
self-templating. See
Immortal Genes.
Experiments on
cross-species cloning show the specific
nature of this inheritance and how it determines the way in
which the genome is interpreted.
Third, the famed
‘immortality’ of DNA is actually a property of cells. Cells
have the machinery to correct frequent faults in DNA
replication. It is also an elementary philosophical mistake
to regard DNA as an active cause. On its own, DNA does
nothing. See
What does DNA do?
Finally, since DNA is
not an active cause, it must be a follower in evolution. It
is organisms that live or die and can therefore be subject
to selection.
Those who are trapped
inside the misleading 20th century discourse of
genes being responsible for everything should read chapter 1
of
The Music of
Life,
where it is shown that there could be no biological
experiment to demonstrate attributes of selfishness or
cooperation in DNA. The same point is made in depth in an
article
published in 2011. The central problem with
The Selfish Gene
is that it is unfalsifiable. See
What is wrong with The Selfish Gene?
| |
The MUSIC of Life: Biology Beyond the Genome ©Denis Noble |