— FEATURED —
The Man Who Laughs: grotesque Victor Hugo potboiler was the basis for The Joker
Eurovision 2013: An American in London
The Twelve-Fingered Boy - mesmerizing YA horror novel
ADVERTISE AT BOING BOING!
— COMICS —
Tom the Dancing Bug
TOM THE DANCING BUG: The Truth Behind the Nixonian Presidency of Obama
Brain Rot: Hip Hop Family Tree, Compton, Lonzo Williams and the Wreckin' Cru
Real Stuff: Bad Trip
— GUATEMALA SPECIAL SERIES —
NYT Editorial Board: "Justice Interrupted in Guatemala"
Guatemala's Genocide on Trial: Kate Doyle
Guatemala: After high court collapses genocide case, trial may have to restart
— RECENTLY —
Black Code: how spies, cops and crims are making cyberspace unfit for human habitation
We Can Fix it! - a graphic novel time travel memoir
The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek
Odd Duck: great picture book about eccentricity and ducks
Scatter, Adapt, and Remember: How Humans Will Survive a Mass Extinction
Illustrator William Stout's Legends of the Blues - exclusive excerpt
Hackers prepare for first "national holiday" in their honor
Review: Disunion, the VR guillotine simulator
Mousetronaut: kids' picture book about mouse in space, written by a Shuttle pilot
Review: Pebble e-paper watch
— FOLLOW US —
Boing Boing is on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to our RSS feed or daily email.
— POLICIES —
Except where indicated, Boing Boing is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution
— FONTS —
Maggie Koerth-Baker at 10:09 am Fri, Apr 27, 2012
Yesterday Alan Turing, today Rosalind Franklin. Is this “Great scientists who got dicked over by society week?”
It’s misleading to refer to Watson and Crick’s work as the discovery of DNA. The existence of DNA was shown decades earlier, and the knowledge that it was the carrier of genetic information was established by experiments that predate Watson and Crick’s working out of the structure by at least a few years. Which is not to minimize their contribution at all.
Yep. DNA was discovered almost a century earlier, in 1869, by Friedrich Miescher (not that he or anyone else knew its significance). I remember a few years back when Jim Watson’s genome was sequenced the NYT had a headline about the “Genome of DNA Discoverer Sequenced” and wondered if we could sequence the genomes of 19th century scientists, why didn’t we start with Mendel or Darwin and not a semi-obscure Swiss biochemist like Miescher?
As someone whose name is Francis, I am annoyed that you spelled “Francis” incorrectly, Maggie!
The best part of the discovery of DNA is that it proves that God exists.
Even if you discount the fact that DNA is structured information, (Craig Venter says that DNA is basically “computer code”), the DNA transcription process requires 3 biochemical machines, mitochondria, RNA polymerase and ribosomes,to function. All of these are created FROM DNA, and, without all of these machines working together, DNA transcription cannot work. DNA replication requires mitochondria, helicase and several other enzymes that make up the replisome. All of these are created FROM DNA and without these machines DNA replication cannot function.
Abiogenesis? You can’t get there from here…
You could have argued that it suggests designers’ involvement at some stage, but to say that it *proves* anything like God is quite a stretch. The way we see DNA working now is not necessarily how it originated.