This is tough for me. "Instead, we must let our ideas evolve as more discoveries are made in the coming decades." is a very appealing statement. My concern is admitting that something is complicated is different from saying it is not the case.
To that end, is there anyone that thinks genes are a simple blueprint for life? Seems far more accurate to say that they are part of the blueprint for life, and that even with that, we have not defined the execution environment for how that blueprint is carried out.
Do we present an even more simplified model to students? Especially young students? Absolutely. As we do to laymen. But things being markedly more complicated does not mean that models are bad.
From meeting identical twins in my lifetime, yes I’d say they are quite a blueprint for an organism. A blueprint doesn’t mean things are exactly the same, yes there are environmental factors, but there is a lot going on there that is the same. Identical twin studies done with twins separated at birth and experiencing different environments will show you that.
Depending on what exactly you are studying, there is a much more important environment, that has dramatically different outcomes even for the same genes: the uterus you develop in. If you implanted two genetically identical fertilized eggs into two different women, you'd see a much larger difference, since the mother's body has a significant active role in controlling gene expression, one that's often forgotten about in such discussions.
And even then, it is far from clear how much of the similarity comes from the matched genes, and how much from the original egg cells having fissioned from a common ancestor, independently of the contents of the nucleus. We know the cell itself actively seeks a goal, on its own.
As that first cell divides again and again to generate the trillions of cells in your body, mutations happen in the hundreds and thousands. Even though they started with all the same genes, they certainly don't stay that way as you grow.
> admitting that something is complicated is different from saying it is not the case.
I agree. I do think "too many people take convenient science metaphors as literal" is a valid concern, especially when it comes to pedagogy, but the situation is not so bad that everyone is wrong about everything. No scientist goes around thinking molecules are made of little colored plastic balls.
This always confused me as well. It’s all nature in the end - your genes will react to a certain environment in a certain way. Of course we have some control over environment so it’s worth making the nature vs nurture distinction, but how you react to an environment is predetermined. Not that we can easily predict any of this given the staggering complexity.
Additionally, what’s the deal with the almost doublespeak in the article? The author plainly states that genes aren’t code, but then goes on to say they’re just more complex code.
To that end, is there anyone that thinks genes are a simple blueprint for life? Seems far more accurate to say that they are part of the blueprint for life, and that even with that, we have not defined the execution environment for how that blueprint is carried out.
Do we present an even more simplified model to students? Especially young students? Absolutely. As we do to laymen. But things being markedly more complicated does not mean that models are bad.