Abstract
According to Denis Noble, one of the greatest illusions of the Modern Synthesis is embodied in the Central Dogma, a principle first formulated by Francis Crick in 1958. The principle (roughly) holds that DNA makes protein, not the other way around. For Noble, the Dogma has contributed to the illusion that genes alone are responsible for the development and evolution of an organism’s phenotype. Though I am largely sympathetic to Noble’s critique, I argue that there may be alternative grounds for accepting the plausibility of the Central Dogma and also the illusion it perpetuates.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
For example, the Central Dogma has been associated with the idea that DNA self-replicates like a crystal, the idea that DNA encodes information like a digital computer, and also the idea that the Dogma fully embodies the Weismann Barrier. These claims, as Noble points out, lack any basis in reality. DNA does not self-replicate, but rather is used as a template by various cellular machinery to create segments of RNA. DNA does not encode information like a digital computer, but rather is akin to a valve computer. Finally, the Central Dogma is not synonymous with the Weismann Barrier, since the latter is a thesis about cells, and the former is a claim about biomolecules. Since Noble explained these criticisms in detail, I will not further elaborate on these criticisms.
As I’ve noted elsewhere (Camacho, 2020), the inheritance of acquired traits was formulated long before Lamarck articulated the principle in Philosophie Zoologique. Further, the inheritance of acquired traits is often conflated with the theory of ontogenesis. For the sake of space, I will not delve into these interpretive issues here, but they are certainly worth exploring. In what follows, I interpret the inheritance of acquired traits as a version of soft-inheritance.
For more on this, see Camacho (2021).
This could potentially open up an entirely new defense of code-based semiotics, a defense that turns on its contribution to scientific practice, and not necessarily its empirical adequacy.
References
Barbieri, M. (2003). The organic codes: An introduction to semantic biology. Cambridge University Press.
Barbieri, M. (2009). Three types of semiosis. Biosemiotics, 2(1), 19–30.
Camacho, M. P. (2020). What’s all the fuss about? The inheritance of acquired traits is compatible with the central dogma. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 42(3), 1–15.
Camacho, M. P. (2021). Beyond descriptive accuracy: The central dogma of molecular biology in scientific practice. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 86, 20–26.
Carroll, D. (2019). Collateral damage: Benchmarking off-target effects in genome editing. Genome Biol, 20, 114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1725-0.
Crick, F. H. (1958). On protein synthesis. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology, 12(138–163), 8.
Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype. Oxford University Press.
Graur, D. (2019). The fallacious commingling of two unrelated hypotheses: “the central dogma” and “dna makes rna makes protein. Blog post. http://judgestarling.tumblr.com/post/177554581856/the-fallacious-commingling-of-twounrelated.
Griffiths, P., & Stotz, K. (2013). Genetics and philosophy: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2014). Evolution in four dimensions, revised edition: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life. MIT Press.
Koonin, E. V. (2012). Does the central dogma still stand? Biology Direct, 7(1), 1–7.
Li, G. W., & Xie, X. S. (2011). Central dogma at the single-molecule level in living cells. Nature, 475(7356), 308–315.
Niemann, H. J. (2014). Karl Popper and the two new secrets of life: Including Karl Popper’s Medawar lecture 1986 and three related texts. Mohr Siebeck.
Noble, D. (2016). Dance to the tune of life: Biological relativity. Cambridge University Press.
Rosenberg, A. (2006). Is epigenetic inheritance a counterexample to the central dogma? History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 28, 549–565.
Smith, J. M., & Maynard, S. J. (1993). The theory of evolution. Cambridge University Press.
Stotz, K. (2006). Molecular epigenesis: Distributed specificity as a break in the central dogma. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 28, 533–548.
Subramaniam, A., Jones, W. K., Gulick, J., Wert, S., Neumann, J., & Robbins, J. (1991). Tissue-specific regulation of the alpha-myosin heavy chain gene promoter in transgenic mice. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 266(36), 24613–24620.
Wagner, J., Thiele, F., & Ganten, D. (1995). Transgenic animals as models for human disease. Clinical and Experimental Hypertension, 17(4), 593–605.
Waters, C. K. (2007). Causes that make a difference. The Journal of Philosophy, 104(11), 551–579.
Weber, M. (2006). The central dogma as a thesis of causal specificity. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 28, 595–609.
Wilkins, A. S. (2002). Interview: Interview with Ernst Mayr. BioEssays, 24(10), 960–973.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Camacho, M.P. Could the Greatest Illusion of the Modern Synthesis Be Practical?. Biosemiotics 14, 55–60 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09415-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09415-1