The Central Dogma of molecular biology, which holds that DNA makes protein and not the other way around, is as influential as it is controversial. Some believe the Dogma has outlived its usefulness, either because it fails to fully capture the ins-and-outs of protein synthesis (Griffiths and Stotz in Genetics and philosophy Cambridge introductions to philosophy and biology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013; Stotz in Hist Philos Life Sci 28(4):533–548, 2006), because it turns on a confused notion of information (Sarkar in Molecular models of life, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2004), or because it problematically assumes the unidirectional flow of information from DNA to protein (Gottlieb, in: Oyama, Griffiths, Gray (eds), Cycles of contingency: developmental systems and evolution, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2001). This paper evaluates an underexplored defense of the Dogma, which relies on the assumption that the Dogma and the Inheritance of Acquired Traits, a principle which dates as far back as Jean Baptiste-Lamarck, are incompatible principles (Smith in The theory of evolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993; Judson in The eighth day of creation, Jonathan Cape, London, 1979; Dawkins in The extended phenotype, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1970; Cobb in PLoS Biol 15(9):e2003243, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2003243; Wilkins in BioEssays 24(10):960–973, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.10167; Graur The fallacious commingling of two unrelated hypotheses: ‘the central dogma’ and ‘dna makes rna makes protein’. Judge Starling., 2018. http://judgestarling.tumblr.com/post/177554581856/the-fallacious-commingling-of-two-unrelated). By appealing to empirical evidence in molecular science, I argue that this apparent incompatibility is indeed merely apparent. I conclude by briefly demonstrating how these considerations bear on the topic of conceptual pluralism in the philosophy of science (Stencel and Proszewska in Found Sci 23(4):603–620, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-017-9543-x; Lu and Bourrat in Br J Philos Sci 69(3):775–800, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axx019).

中文翻译：

---

有什么大惊小怪的？获得性状的遗传与中央教义兼容。

分子生物学的中心教条认为，DNA可以制造蛋白质，而不是相反，它的影响力和争议性一样大。有人认为教条已经过时了，因为它不能完全捕捉蛋白质合成的来龙去脉（Griffiths和Stotz在《遗传学和哲学》中向剑桥介绍哲学和生物学，剑桥大学出版社，剑桥，2013年； Stotz在Hist Philos Life Sci 28（4）：533–548，2006），因为它打开了一个混乱的信息概念（Sarkar in Life Molecular Model of life，麻省理工学院出版社，剑桥，2004年），或者因为它有问题地假定了信息的单向流动从DNA到蛋白质的信息（Gottlieb，载于：Oyama，Griffiths，Gray（eds），“偶然性的循环：发展系统与进化”，麻省理工学院出版社，剑桥，2001年）。牛津大学出版社，牛津，1970；Cobb在《公共科学图书馆·生物学》 15（9）：e2003243，2017.https：//doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2003243; Wilkins在BioEssays 24（10）：960-973，2002.https：//doi.org/10.1002/bies.10167; Graur两种无关假设的错误混合：“中央教条”和“ dna使rna产生蛋白质”。牛津大学出版社，牛津，1970；Cobb在《公共科学图书馆·生物学》 15（9）：e2003243，2017.https：//doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2003243; Wilkins在BioEssays 24（10）：960-973，2002.https：//doi.org/10.1002/bies.10167; Graur两种无关假设的错误混合：“中央教条”和“ dna使rna产生蛋白质”。史达琳法官。，2018年。http：//judgestarling.tumblr.com/post/177554581856/the-fallacious-commingling-of-two-unrelated）。通过呼吁分子科学中的经验证据，我认为这种明显的不相容性确实只是显而易见的。最后，我将简要说明这些考量如何影响科学哲学中的概念多元性主题（Stencel和Proszewska，2018年发现科学23（4）：603-620。https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699- 017-9543-x; Lu和Bourrat在Br J Philos Sci 69（3）：775-800，2018.https：//doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axx019）。