Science is messy and unpredictable

Genes will no longer be seen as the blueprint for life



- Scientists and philosophers are beginning to doubt the relevance of the gene for understanding biology.
- Despite being central to the subject for over a century, there has never been a universally accepted, constant definition of what genes actually are.
- From the beginning, scientists have tried to link human characteristics to genes, but had limited success in establishing stable connections.
As a consequence, the function of genes is now understood to depend on systems of epigenetic inheritance and environmental signalling. 
- Whether a gene is activated (or not) to produce a protein depends on how it is "packaged" into chromosomes, and information the organism receives from the environment. 
- Genes may consist of separate building blocks that are distributed over the genome and have different functions. They may overlap and be read in a variety of ways. Their products in turn, may be cut into pieces and then spliced together again in a variety of ways. All of these activities depend on a variety of signals – from within the cell, from other cells, or from the environment.
But genes will no longer be seen as the blueprint for life, even if technological and medical applications of gene technology suggest this.Instead, they are increasingly seen as only one of the many resources that organisms make use of in adapting to challenges in their environments.
The history of the gene, once believed to be one of the biggest triumphs of 20th century science, shows how messy and unpredictable science is.

My comment: DNA is just passive information layer the cell uses for building different and complex RNA-products. This process is controlled by epigenetic factors and mechanisms. This is why any change in organisms is based on epigenetic regulation of EXISTING biological information. This regulation often results in degradation of genetic information. That's why there's no mechanism for evolution.