As in But what IS a gene? (At one time we knew. We were wrong. Honestly and stubbornly so). Philosopher (and photographer) Laszlo Bencze here:
The notion of a gene seems to be becoming less and less useful with every discovery in genetics. Of course all (or practically all) of these discoveries are being made by strict evolutionists. They still palm off the increasing complexity of reproduction as the result of a long evolutionary process no matter how much their own work does not support that notion.
The way I see it, the main purpose of the gene concept is to support a comprehensible evolutionary scenario. If one gene equals one protein and one protein equals one trait, it is easy to say that a random change to the structure of the gene will cause a change to the trait, perhaps a beneficial change. Given enough time, it seems reasonable to assume that many beneficial gene changes will happen purely by chance. Eventually all these changes accumulate and produce the vast diversity of life. Why not?
But if the true complexity of genetic reproduction is addressed—jumping genes, epigenetic control, environmental feedback to the genome, strands of DNA which can be read forwards, backwards, and erratically to produce thousands of differing proteins—suddenly the simple beauty of gene to protein to trait evaporates. Therefore, it behooves the evolutionists to maintain the old simple view. It makes their agenda comprehensible.
Thoughts?
Follow UD News at Twitter!