DNA - Blueprint or recipe?

While explaining the function and workings of DNA to someone who doesn't have a clue, it is always helpful to use analogies. I remember Richard Dawkins pointing out that a recipe is a better analogy for how the DNA regulates development and function, than the perhaps more often encountered "blueprint" analogy.I think it would be interesting to discuss the respective qualities and deficiencies of these analogies. Is "recipe" indeed better, and why? In what ways would they still be misleading, or inadequate to really do justice? Are there any crucial differences that need to pointed out in order to avoid big misconceptions?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "DNA - " part to the topic title.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I think that "recipe" is less likely to mislead, but both are only really good at a basic level. The difference I see it is that the blueprint is very focussed on the final product, while the recipe says very little about it.For a very simply, high-level view both are OK. Your DNA is the instructions on how to make you.Looking at a low level genes code for proteins. There is a direct relationship between the DNA sequence and the sequence of the protein produced from that DNA. For that, too, either analogy would work. (Even there, there are complications, though._But that's where it ends. You won't find a strong match between genes or groups of genes and the higher-level structure of your bodies. Rather it is in the interactions of the genes and the proteins - and their environment. Some genes control whether other genes are active or not, for instance. That is more like a recipe - the genes are more about what to do to get to the final product than what that product looks like.

Would it be fair to say that the "recipe" analogy is better at illustrating that:- small changes in DNA do not necessarilly correspond with small changes in the organism, so a small change could have an enormous impact and completely change (or fuck up...) the end product(while small change to a blueprint is much more likely to only suggest a small local effect)
- not only the DNA instruction itself is important, but also at which moment it is called, or for how long it operates; i.e. the same instruction can have different impact depending on when and how long it is executed (while a blueprint has no 'time' dimension)At least those are the "high level" arguments that I would use when defending the "recipe" approach.

Yes, they're true. Timing is very important in development.But I'd look for concrete examples in real recipes before going too far down that track.

I would be inclined to say that calling it either a blueprint or a recipe would suffice - almost seems like splitting hairs at that point in the conversation. If the person you are talking to is interested in hearing more on the topic, the following explanations you use will clarify your original statement. If I were talking to a woman I would probably call it a recipe and if I were talking to a man, I would probably call it a blueprint. I dont think it would be held against you at a later point in the conversation if you chose either though.

I think that "recipe" is still misleading. Both "blueprint" and "recipe" imply a linear set of instructions, though "blueprint" is worse since it implies that each elements of an organism are planned out spatially by DNA.Not so. DNA is a fractal seed. Ideally, if you can teach someone what a fractal is (a repeating pattern that creates great complexity when instructions are modified with each iteration) then it can REALLY help explain how complex organisms can develop from such a small set of genes.