Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Happy Watson & Crick Day!


60 years ago today, 28th February 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick elucidated the double-helical structure of the DNA molecule. Happy Watson & Crick day!

Thank you, Philip. That was quite moving. It seems as if C S Lewis was a mystic. I read some such suggestion the other day. It sounded rather like some NDEs, didn't it? Now for the Beauty of Cells! Axel
OT: The Beauty of Cells: A New AITSE Presentation by Caroline Crocker, PhD (of EXPELLED fame) http://www.aitse.org/the-beauty-of-cells-a-new-aitse-presentation/ bornagain77
Axel, given your appreciation of poetry and beauty, I think you may find this inspiring: A Skeptic's Journey to Faith (in Oxford) - Carolyn Weber, PhD - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcjqznbzGkI&feature=player_detailpage#t=2622s bornagain77
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2010/sep/17/pope-benedict-xvi Axel
Oh. And Happy Unholiday, Covenanters of the Double Helix! Axel
'Twoness'? The Second Person of the Trinity.... the Incarnation, nature, etc. Though I believe Crick or Watson attributed that observation of 'twoness' to Linus Pauling, who was brought up a Lutheran, but succumbed to atheism a few years before his death. 'Poor men are no more than a breath. Great men rise on the scales; they weigh less than a breath.' 'In his riches man lacks wisdom; like the beasts they are destroyed.' Pardon my tangential discursion, won't you? Axel
The real discoverer or DNA is Watson, in my opinion. Rosalind was a consummate experimenter but could not see the forest for the trees. Crick, for his part, was aiming for multiple strands because he thought it had to be complex. But it was Watson who correctly noted that the ubiquity of "twoness" (his words) in nature told them to look for a double-stranded structure. Rosalind was the experimentalist, Crick was the builder and Watson was the architect. But I could be wrong. Mapou
Rosalind Franklin and Dna Rosalind Franklin And the Structure of Life Mung
lol Eric The Eighth Day of Creation: Makers of the Revolution in Biology, 25th Anniversary Edition Mung
Dna is okay. however for origin issues it has been used to make conclusions about origins. DNA is just capturing a moment in time of biology. It tells no tale about the origin of biology. Drawing conclusions by backtracking DNA likeness has been evolutions error. Its only a line of reasoning that backtracking works. In fact dNA change is not represented by merely looking at any onew moment of dna construction. DNA is unrelated to origin conclusions beyond simple closeness and this shown by other evidences. Robert Byers
She was the one who really discovered the structure of DNA you chauvinist hater! tragic mishap
Who is Rosalind Franklin? :) Eric Anderson

Leave a Reply