Comment by scythe
18 hours ago
It's hard to say because the helix existed as a theory before it could be verified. From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_molecular_biology#D...
>In 1948, [Linus] Pauling discovered that many proteins included helical (see alpha helix) shapes. Pauling had deduced this structure from X-ray patterns and from attempts to physically model the structures. (Pauling was also later to suggest an incorrect three chain helical DNA structure based on Astbury's data.) Even in the initial diffraction data from DNA by Maurice Wilkins, it was evident that the structure involved helices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#History
>Franklin told Crick and Watson that the [phosphate] backbones had to be on the outside. Before then, Linus Pauling, and Watson and Crick, had erroneous models with the chains inside and the bases pointing outwards.
The mere idea of a helix is not especially complex and could have existed in the minds of many theorists at the time. Franklin's discovery provided the final piece of the puzzle, but the desire to attribute major scientific discoveries to a single author or team is based on an incorrect interpretation of the scientific process. The real reason that Franklin didn't win the Nobel Prize is because she died:
>In 1962, after Franklin's death, Watson, Crick, and Wilkins jointly received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.[210] Nobel Prizes are awarded only to living recipients. A debate continues about who should receive credit for the discovery.
A student of Franklin, Raymond Gosling, actually took Photo 51. He was not awarded the Prize.
> A student of Franklin, Raymond Gosling, actually took Photo 51. He was not awarded the Prize
Yes, how many students get Nobel prizes for the work of their graduate advisor that they didn’t go on to examine independently?
Pauling would certainly figure out that too before Watson and Crick but his passport was taken by USA gov so he couldn't attend the conference where X-Ray picture was shown. That would almost certainly win him third Nobel Prize.
« the helix existed as a theory before it could be verified »
This is an important point. And the X-ray diffraction patterns are not direct evidence. They had to be interpreted. How do we call that "verification"?
Crick and Watson only suggested the structure was a double helix. They made a cardboard model to illustrate their idea. Crick's wife made a drawing. Still, their idea, at first, didn't make much of an impact.
Over time, more theory was added, in analogy to information theory. DNA as a kind of biological "magnetic tape". It eventually became consensus.
If you think about it, it boggles the mind. Two meters of DNA in every cell of the human being, containing the entire blueprint of the organism.
How do you fit two meters in such a tiny space, and then without a reel, as nature doesn't do "hub and wheel"? The suggested structure is also extremely awkward for "splitting", as it involves rotationary mechanics. Yes, it "looks nice" (two snakes entwined, a very old symbol), but it doesn't make any practical sense.
And why would every cell contain the entire blueprint? There is no need. In fact, it is counter-productive. The cell needs to know only the tiny bit that concerns its own place in the whole. How does it retrieve that bit in the millions of base pairs? Why would it have to in the first place? What would be the processing speed? This kind of organization seems absurd.
And then if we look at the practical results of genetics, there are none that are conclusive or imnpressive. Think about all the dog races and crops that predate genetics. Did genetics manage to create anything like the Chihuahua? No, it didn't.
It seems what works is – horribile dictu – the Lyssenko methods. Refined, certainly, but it's his approach. Life adapts. If you expose plants to toxic environments, they'll adapt over time (survival of the fittest). They call it epigenetics. But it's nature's doing, where man provides the toxic environment and systematic selection.
Here's an audio in German (you can find similar articles in English if you search Lyssenko epigenetics):
https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/lyssenkos-geist-pflanzen-zuec...