If you have ever opened a biology textbook, you have probably encountered a familiar claim:
Genes contain the information needed to build an organism.
It is such a commonplace that it scarcely invites reflection. Genes are said to store information, cells read that information, and organisms emerge from the execution of a genetic programme.
The metaphor has been enormously successful. It has inspired generations of research and provided an intuitive way to explain heredity. Like all good metaphors, however, it eventually risks becoming invisible.
When that happens, we begin mistaking the metaphor for the ontology.
The trouble begins with a deceptively simple question.
What exactly is this information that genes supposedly contain?
Consider a strand of DNA removed from a living cell.
Chemically, nothing has changed. The sequence of nucleotides remains precisely the same.
Yet outside the extraordinarily complex environment of a living organism, that DNA does nothing. It constructs nothing. It develops nothing. It specifies nothing.
It simply exists as a remarkably stable molecule.
Whatever "genetic information" may be, it cannot be something that resides inside the DNA alone.
The familiar blueprint metaphor quietly encourages us to imagine otherwise. Blueprints already contain the building they describe. A competent builder simply follows the instructions.
Development is not like that.
Every organism emerges through the continual interaction of genes, proteins, cells, tissues, physical forces, chemical gradients, environmental conditions, evolutionary history, and chance. Alter any one of these relationships and development changes—often dramatically.
Genes do not operate independently of these relations.
They operate through them.
Modern developmental biology has increasingly revealed precisely this picture. Genes regulate one another. Cells exchange chemical signals. Embryos continually respond to their changing environments. Development unfolds through an intricate web of reciprocal interactions extending across multiple scales.
In other words, the science has become progressively more relational.
Yet the language often remains stubbornly substantialist.
We continue speaking as though genes contain instructions waiting to be read.
The metaphor is understandable.
It is also misleading.
Suppose we say that a musical score contains a symphony.
In one sense, that is perfectly ordinary language.
But strictly speaking, the score does not contain music.
It contains marks on paper.
The symphony emerges only through the coordinated activity of musicians, instruments, acoustics, listeners, and the cultural practices through which those marks become meaningful performances.
The score participates in the conditions under which the symphony may be actualised.
It does not contain the symphony.
DNA occupies a remarkably similar position.
Its nucleotide sequence participates in an immensely sophisticated developmental system. Remove that system, and the sequence remains—but the organism does not.
This observation points toward a deeper philosophical mistake.
We often imagine information as though it were a substance capable of existing independently of the relations through which it functions.
But what if information is not a substance at all?
What if it is instead a way of describing stable relations within organised systems?
Seen from this perspective, genes do not contain information in the same sense that a bottle contains water.
Rather, genetic sequences participate in developmental possibilities that have emerged through billions of years of evolution.
Evolution has not filled genes with instructions.
Evolution has shaped relational systems within which particular genetic variations reliably participate in particular developmental trajectories.
The distinction is subtle.
It is also profound.
Nothing in modern genetics becomes less true.
DNA remains indispensable.
Genes remain central to heredity.
Genetic mutations continue to influence development in countless fascinating ways.
What changes is not the science.
It is the ontology through which we interpret it.
The remarkable achievement of contemporary biology has been to reveal the extraordinary relational organisation of living systems. Development is not the execution of a pre-written script but the continual actualisation of biological possibility through an evolving network of interactions.
Genes are indispensable participants in that process.
But they are not tiny containers of information hidden inside our cells.
They participate in developmental possibility.
And perhaps that is even more remarkable than the blueprint metaphor ever allowed us to imagine.
No comments:
Post a Comment