The Truth About DNA. 

DNA is only an information storage element which is a small part of an extremely complex system.  DNA alone does even begin to explain life.  There is a great deal of science which supports this conclusion.

"Lessons From The Living Cell, The Limits to Reductionism is a book written by S. Rothman who has a Ph.D. and has worked in experimental biology for 40 years.  In the book he says on page 1 speaking of a full understanding of even something as simple as a protozoa from its DNA, Dr. Rohm says; "it will never be possible and that such optimism is misplaced."  Note that a protozoa is a very simple form of life.  He adds on page 3 in regards to a comprehensive understanding of life; "Such an understanding was never realistically achievable this way." (Our emphasis.) These are profound statements coming from someone with a Ph.D. in biology!  Unraveling The DNA Myth: The Spurious Foundation of Genetic Engineering.

On page 8, Dr. Rothman also says in regards to genes explaining all of evolution; "equating genes and evolution in this way is just a mental sleigh of hand.  Genes do not in and of themselves make and organism more or less able to adapt to the environmental exigencies it faces.  This ability is an exclusive property of the whole intact organism. ---- Most important, genes and proteins are not in and of themselves responsible for the multitudinous features of life that provide for our adaptive capabilities. ---- they are transcendent qualities of the organism, and it alone."  (We highly recommend the book.  It makes a very good case for the failings of reductionism and the limitations and failings of the inbred science community.)    The Lure of Complexity.   Well-engineered molecular machine that reproduces DNA.  DNA and genes do not control our biology directly (read editorial review on this link.  The transcription of genes is quite complex in itself.

It is not proven by any means that all the information involved in life comes from DNA alone.  That is an assumption.  It has been proven that most of the information (at least for coding proteins) comes from DNA but that does not prove that all of life's information comes from DNA decoding and there is now hard evidence that it almost certain that DNA alone is not the source of all the information.   Link here to our essay on the human genome findings which quotes from science based articles which support this position. 

There are many very good reasons to believe that DNA does not tell the full story of life.   One example of this is that we have only about 25,000 genes--about the same number as a tiny flowering plant called Arabidopsis and barely more than the worm Caenorhabditis elegans.

The appearance of adaptive mutations in bacteria raises basic questions about the genetic theory of spontaneous mutation and hence the concept of the generation of biological variation.  In other words, even in bacteria, there is evidence that more than simple Darwinism is at work.

The truth about DNA is like many of the truths of science; the truth is that DNA science and most of basic science is far less certain than many scientists will openly admit.  (If  DNA were the whole story, how does it explain Chimeras (beings who have two sets of DNA) who are in effect their own twins?  Why don't the Chimeras has two hearts, two heads, etc. if the genes are truly the full control mechanism?)   Again, there are many reasons to believe that simple DNA decoding is not the whole story.   Changes to DNA and its associated proteins (histones) can alter gene expression without altering the DNA sequence.      The Functions of Introns: From Junk DNA to Designed DNA     Different patterns of gene transcription activity can be determinate.  A Closer Look at the Genome’s ‘Black Holes’     The hotspot conversion paradox and the evolution of meiotic recombination.

DNA doesn't even fully determine the building block proteins by itself.  In his book "It Ain't Necessarily So, The Dream of the Human Genome and Other Illusions, Richard Lewontin (Professor Richard Lewontin is a biologist and geneticist who is by some people and some measures considered to be a materialist (we certainly very strongly disagree with him in regard to materialism and his positions on creation), but in any case, he makes some interesting points which in our view support the probability that DNA/Genes are not the full explanation for life; as when he says on page 191; "Genes only specify the sequence of amino acids that are linked together in the manufacture of a molecule called a polypeptide, which must then fold up to make a protein.  But there are many different ways in which a long polypeptide can fold, resulting in different proteins.  The way in which the folding occurs may be different in different cells of different organisms and depends in part on the presence of small molecules like sugars and on other proteins.  Moreover, a gene is divided up into several stretches of DNA, each of which specifies only part of the complete sequence in a polypeptide.  Each of these partial sequences can then combine with parts specified by other genes, so that from only a few genes, each made up of a few subsections, a very large number of combinations of different amino acid sequences could be made by mixing and matching.  So knowing all the genes of a human being doesn't really tell us all of what we want to know."  (Our bold and color fonts.) This is from someone who could be labeled a materialist! We would add that the gene which codes for the protein also does not determine how the protein folds and it is the folded shape which determines function.  The folding requires Molecular Chaperones and Foldases.  

It is also worth noting that protein folding out side of the cell is different than the folding that occurs within a cell.  Protein folding in vivo.  This is just another example of how life functions beyond the simplistic linear DNA code.  The protein folding itself is extremely complex and requires a number of different chaperone molecules.   The proteins can still be misfolded which creates disease producing prions.  All the requirements of life and the potential problem which must be circumvented go far beyond the simple linear string of DNA molecule sequences.  To get some idea of the complexity of going from DNA information to a folded and ready to use protein, go to the following link; Protein aggregation in disease: a role for folding intermediates forming specific multimeric interactions.  It is clear that DNA is only part of the story in producing functioning proteins that will not produce disease.

Non-coding RNAs: the architects of eukaryotic complexity.  "--- the central dogma is incomplete, and that intronic and other non-coding RNAs have evolved to comprise a second tier of gene expression in eukaryotes" (A startling admission that DNA is not the whole story.)

The limits of what genes can tell us is also show by the apparent fact that the relatively simple Coral plant has the same number of genes as humans.  "the findings challenge the idea that the more complex an organism's form, the more genes are needed to code for its complexity."  Clearly, there is something in addition to the genes that is determinate in function and it is life's functions that are meaningful and definitive in life.  In addition to the referenced book, we also recommend Mr. Lewontin's book; Science and Ideology in DNA research.  We do not accept or agree with some of his positions, but he has some good insight into the failings of dogmatic science and many thought provoking things to say.

It is worth elaborating on the fact that; "The way in which the folding occurs may be different in different cells of different organisms and depends in part on the presence of small molecules like sugars and on other proteins."  The truth is that this is very profound.  It is the shape that determines the function and somehow beyond the direct decoding of the DNA itself, different organisms manage (know how) to fold the proteins differently into different shapes according to the needs of that particular organism.  The protein folding itself is extremely complex (as is the folding of the DNA which can result in as much as a 100,000 to one change in the dimensions of the DNA.)  This is typical of the multitude levels of complexities that are not explainable to any reasonable probability by simple Darwinian linear addition of an incredible number of selected random small changes in DNA and genes.

On page 152 of the first book, Mr. Lewontin says; "A deep reason for the difficulty in devising causal information from the DNA message is that the same "words" have different meanings in different contexts and multiple functions in a given context--".  We believe that this fact means that there is no simple relationship between DNA and the functions of the life form.   The more complex the relationships, the lower the probability that Darwinism alone is the explanation for the relationships.  Genome Organization and Reorganization in Evolution.  

In the quote, Mr. Lewontin is referring to what we want to know about how to read DNA and how to understand human life.  If you been led to believe that reductionism can explain life, you need to read his books, they will change your mind if it is at all open to change.  While we highly recommend the books by Mr. Lewontin, as is often the case with such recommendations, we do not agree with all of his conclusions.  Lewontin’s Living Legacy: Levels of Selection and Organismic Construction of the Environment.

Many scientists are now raising doubts about Darwinian macro evolution.  The scientist who wrote one of the mainline books on evolution "Biochemical predestination (Doctorate in biophysics and professor of biology at S.F. State University in Calif.) Dr. Kenyon, has come to believe that a simple strictly naturalistic explanation of life is not possible.

Link here to the Institute of Science in Society article titled; "Subverting the Genetic Text" which talks about the reality of the limits of DNA which is known to encode for proteins.  Scientists uncover clues to the mystery of 'gene deserts'

On the “barcode” functionality of the DNA  "A limited practical success can be reached with a mistaken scientific theory. Thus, the construction and exploitation of steam engines was perfectly compatible with an innocuous idea that heat is a liquid. And this example is not a rare exception."

There are hormone-binding proteins.  These are proteins which allow hormones to interface with our DNA, regulating whole sets of genes at once which is another conundrum for Darwinism to explain away.

The ratio of divergence in two gene classes (e.g., nuclear and mitochondrial) may vary widely over time even if the ratio of mutation rates remains constant.  In other words, the divergence in the genome is not a function of just the mutation rate.  Some other process is at work!

GENOME BIOLOGY: ON GENOME INSTABILITY; "The presence of so many genes of unknown function among the essential genes of the simplest known cell suggests that all the basic molecular mechanisms underlying cellular life may not yet have been described.   --- Until now, mutations seemed to be relatively rare and to occur in a characteristic spectrum. But such observations are challenged by recent work"  (Our emphasis.)

If you read the comments we reference made by many scientists or read the links herein or the books listed below, you will probably conclude that DNA is in fact only a minor part of the story of life and you may come to believe that the full story of life will probably always be beyond science to fully explain because of the extremely high level of complexity found even in individual cells.  The fact that with living entities, the whole is much greater than the simple sum of the parts.   Simple DNA additions thru Darwinism does not simply explain life.  Much more gene complex interactions are the reality and the more complex the interactions, the lower the already low probability of Darwinian macro evolution being the answer becomes.  Complex Gene Interactions Explained   DNA replication is even complex in a fungus. 

Darwinism is also not the full story of the creation or evolution of life.  Even the proponents make some telling comments which argue against simple Darwinian/Selfish gene evolution.  The Darwinian dogma as it relates to genes contains a lot of paradox as this link shows.     

Other gene theory paradoxes.  There is the C-Value paradox which is that the number of genes does not correspond to the complexity of the organism.    There is this Hox gene paradox.   There is also a second Hox paradox which is even more profound.  (Read the second paragraph of the abstract.)  This Hox paradox was the discovery that homologous genes "code" for fundamentally different body plans!  How is that possible if genes are fully determinate of all of life?  Clearly the answer is that genes are not the full explanation.  Another paradox is that neither the cellular DNA content (in mass) nor its gene content appears directly related to our intuitive perception of organismal complexity (Read second paragraph.)    Telomere research reveals another intriguing paradox.    The Centromere Paradox is very profound: Stable Inheritance with Rapidly Evolving DNA.  How can DNA be the whole story of life's information when rapidly changing DNA leads to stable inheritance?  The Linking Number Paradox.   The lagging strand paradox.    The DNA Synthesis Termination Paradox.    The hotspot conversion paradox.  Evolutionary centromere repositioning is a paradox.

Type in the words DNA and PARADOX in Google, and you will get about 300,000 hits!  DNA with that much relationship to paradox is almost certainly not a simple/complete answer to the mysteries of life, even if Google is loaded with (junk) duplication itself.   As we have noted, many scientists are now of the belief that DNA cannot of itself fully explain life.

"The Pattern of Evolution" by N. Eldredge, Curator in the Department of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History.  On page 5 Mr. Eldredge says "Dawkins's "selfish genes" are as incapable of triggering ecological succession as they are of directly causing evolutionary history." (Our highlights.) This a statement by a leading evolution scientist!                     

"Toward a New Philosophy of Biology" by E. Mayr also contains some very telling comments by an evolutionist.  Mr. Mayr is a major proponent of Darwinian evolution as the whole explanation for life yet he makes some very interesting statements such as on page 98; where he admits "mutations, in a given species, are highly "constrained," which means that only a very restricted range of mutations is possible."  (Our emphasis.)  We certainly agree with him on this point as one of the reasons to reject Darwinian evolution and simple/random gene changes as explaining more than a very small part of the extreme complexities of life.

Science and Ideology in DNA research, a review of The Doctrine of DNA by R.C. Lewontin

Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior  "-- book provides a panoramic view of altruism throughout the animal kingdom-from self-sacrificing parasites, to insects that subsume themselves in the superorganism of a colony, to the human capacity for selflessness---".  We would not agree on the source of the altruism but believe that the book does provide a reality check on the nil list atheistic belief in just selfish genes being determinate in life.

Certainly genes play a major role in the evolution of life, but there are a number of reasons to believe that selection from random changes in genes limits Darwinism from being a valid explanation for more than the fine tuning of life.  The "selfish" gene is not the rule or determinate.   The Unselfish Gene.

Science is not finding simplicity as the basis of life but rather extreme complexity, coordination, and cooperation amongst even the proteins that are made only by complex cellular machinery using in part the information contained in DNA.  The complexity in protein interactions alone even resembles the complexity of the internet.  Study of proteins offers insights into organization of biological networks.

At the end of all this complexity results in a living cell which does requires genes in part to achieve a level of interrelated functions that is intricate almost beyond description.  The language of the cell.

The complexity of a living cell cannot be generated with a simple program.  (That simple inadequate program would be Darwinian evolution.)

Beyond the cell, there is the actual reality of human genome findings.

       Additional links below;

The Language of God.  A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

GM - Unraveling the DNA myth (The threat erroneous dogma could represent to our food supply.)

Unraveling the DNA myth.

Putting Genes in Perspective.

How can identical twins be genetically different?  Non-genetic factors influenced the expression of  genes.

Scientists are discovering how sea stars and their five-sided relatives use "old" genes to make new bodies.

Lifelines, Life beyond the Gene

The truth about human and chimp DNA differences.

Biology Beyond Determinism

The Gems of "Junk"DNA

Logic, DNA, and Poetry (See "putting genes in context" about 1/3 down the page.)

NOTES ON COMMONALITY OF DNA CODE

Death of the Central Dogma

The Problem with Treating the DNA of Living Organisms As if It Were A Barcode

DNA replication description.

Notes on commonality of DNA code.

Did DNA replication evolve twice independently?  (If DNA replication requires 2 creations, that would point towards Design.)

Improbable proteins needed to replicate DNA.

The Problem of Genetic Reductionism

Evolutionary Forces Driving Nuclear Genome;  "There is now compelling evidence that secondary DNA is functional, i.e. positively selected by organismal selection, not the purely neutral or ‘selfish’ outcome of mutation pressure."  (Selfish genes are not determinate.)

Metaphor and Mechanism:"Epigenetic Control Systems" Reconsidered  "----the systemic components of living systems, which are not just creatures reified from the "blueprints", but essential complementary components of life that reciprocally regulate the nucleic system."

Our views on evolution.

A Scientific Critique of Evolution