> Reality: DNA/Alleles do in fact encode the "blueprints for life".
This seems to be talking past the article, which notes: "genes’ activity — [e.g.,] the length of protein that they encode — depends on myriad external factors ... and each trait can be influenced by many genes. For instance, although the HCN4 gene encodes a protein that acts as the heart’s primary pacemaker, the heart retains its rhythm even if the gene is mutated.
> This paper is a perfect example of a process called "complicating" a field, like they tried to do with the feminist glaciology paper
Could you share an aspect of the book or a quote from the article which you think illustrates such a similarity?
> Not really. They are more like incomplete recipes that depend on external factors to fill in the missing information.
As someone who has worked in construction, you have literally described blueprints.
Blueprints specify key elements of a building, what sort of material is to be used, rough locations, routing of utilities, etc, but it’s up to the installer to use their knowledge of building practices and building code to perform the installation correctly. Sometimes materials can change due to availability (or budget).
I think the difference (as per the article) is that what function a particular piece performs can vary wildly. A blueprint calls for a door, and there may be a lot of flexibility on which door is installed—but the builder does install a door. They don’t install a door which occasionally turns into a fireplace or blender.
> Where in the article do you see this being said?
From the article:
> This “fuzziness and imprecision” is not sloppy design, but an essential feature of protein interactions. Being disordered makes proteins “versatile communicators”, able to respond rapidly to changes in the cell, binding to different partners and transmitting different signals depending on the circumstance. For example, the protein aconitase can switch from metabolizing sugar to promoting iron intake to red blood cells when iron is scarce.
No, recipe is not the same as blueprint. As I posted just upthread, a blueprint has a lot more detailed information than a recipe.
In addition to that, a blueprint has a different kind of information. A blueprint for a human body, for example, would tell you the general plan of the body, where the organs go, how things are connected, etc. Yes, it might leave small details, like the exact location of each minor blood vessel or nerve fiber, up to the constructors, but it still is giving you an overall plan.
DNA, however, does not do anything like this. DNA information is more like (I'm giving time frames off the top of my head here, so they're probably off, but I think the general idea is correct) "at week 1 after fertilization, split into three layers; at week 3, start differentiating cell types in each layer; at week 5..." and so on. And even that information is very incomplete; it's depending on a lot of external factors to be a certain way, like blood supply from the mother, particular hormones being present at particular times in particular concentrations, etc. There is nowhere in any of that where it says "the final body in general has a head, torso, two arms, two legs, the heart goes here, the brain goes here", etc. All of those things are emergent results from the process. So much more like a recipe than a blueprint.
There are many open questions in biology, but this article is by and large the current consensus in genetics and molecular biology. There are enough facts by now that we can conclude environment plays a big role, real traits are multigenic, the lock-and-key hypothesis was misleading, and evolution has a number of tricks up its sleeve that were not previously appreciated.
Oh, if your point is that both environment and genetics (and circumstance/luck) plays a large role in development then we completely agree. If you're saying that the role of genetics is overstated or insignificant then I strongly disagree.
