the man who discovered the "double helix" within dna, said its too complex to have developed through evolution
341923
And that's only the pick of the Iceberg...There are many more issues that goes in other directions than with the Theory of Evolution.  In Scientific-historical terms, we still think that the Earth is flat and that it is the center of the Universe.  Your question has a great value for the Genius curious minds that doesn't stop in the established Scientific Dogmas. You're getting somewhere...
134505
Something doesn't have to be complex to alter DNA. UV light will do it just fine, as will black pepper or PCBs or many other things.\n\nYou seem to be under the impression that to change DNA you need to somehow intercat with it in a complex way, like a person changing the words in a book. That isn't the case.\n\nChanges in DNA  are produced by events that are more like a shotgun fired into a library. Mostly the changes they cause are catastrophic, but a few pellets will just remove a letter here, or change and 'd' into an 'a' somewhere else. The books they strike ramain readbale, although the meaning changes ever so slightly.\n\nYiu don't need anything complex to do that. Nothing complex about a shotgun pellet.
1003027
Sir Arthur Keith (Evolution Expert) himself said it best: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We [evolutionists] believe it because the only alternative is special creation [God], and that is unthinkable." \n\nWhat proof do we have of evolution? None at all.  One responder said you were "simplistic"...another cited the "proof" of amino acids.  Any honest/knowledgeable inquirer would recognise that those were VERY simplistic answers.  He wrote "Next comes single cells...".  Wow!  That was an easy transition...and where/how does he maintain the possibility of that? Those do nothing to support their theory, but I guess its all they've got.\n\nWhile we struggle to find the elusive "missing link", in reality there are missing links between every species. How does DNA suddenly decide to produce something other than it is programmed for? Where did those first single celled creatures come from? Where did the matter for the "big bang" come from? \n\nThere is no proof that you are reading this letter as a result of an explosion 14 billion years ago. The evolutionist accepts that origin by "faith", just as the believer accepts our Creator by faith.  However, the current scientific evidence does not support evolutionary theory, rather, it refutes it.  Why does is live on?  Because in the effort to find the origin of life outside of God, its all they've got.
805731
Hey,everybody is slamming you,but don't back down.Evolutionists are beatin' a dead horse.It's over,but it's going to take years to repair what evolution has destroyed.\n"Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links,’ transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated."\n\n"The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing."
1047208
Biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism’s DNA)—bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example. Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses. Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally\nduplicated in an organism’s DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years. 11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life. Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Erns Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.\nNatural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.
901348
well let me think...ITS A DOUBLE HELIX!!!!!!!!!!!!\nDOUBLE          DOUBLE               DOUBLE
49230
Francis Crick – joint discoverer of the structure of DNA\nJames D. Watson (US) – joint discoverer of the structure of DNA\nCharles R. Darwin - established the facts of evolution
202199
Each nucleotide contains roughly 13 atoms. There are two nucleotides per base pair. There are roughly 10,000 - 100,000 base pairs in an average gene. That's 260,000 - 2,600,000 atoms in each gene. Assuming no gene duplications, there are 2 copies of a given gene in each cell. Since atoms behave in a probabilistic manner, it is a given that DNA replication will not occur with 100% fidelity; errors (or, as we call them, mutations) occur.\n\nEvery modern organism we've observed has sophisticated methods to minimize the errors, reducing the background rate of mutation to about 1 per 1,000,000,000 base pairs.\nOf course, even simple bacteria have genomes of several million base pairs, and humans have 6,000,000,000 base pairs per cell (meaning that, on average, every cell in your body has ~6 mutations).\nVarious other factors, known as mutagens, can increase this background rate, and many of these are found in nature.\n\nAs for why genes should be variable, that is not a very precise question. Genes are observed to be variable. Variability in genes is a good thing for organisms, too. If every organism had the exact same genes, (well, first of all, there would only be one type of organism on Earth, but, more relevantly...) every organism of a species would have the exact same weaknesses. Anything that could wipe out one could wipe out all of them. Not a very good survival strategy; indeed, it would be the proverbial "placing all your eggs in one basket".\n\nOh, and one other thing. Gene variability is NOT essential for Darwinism. At the time Darwin formulated his concept of evolution (not the modern concept of evolution, of which genetic variability IS an essential component), genes were not yet known* (nor was DNA). However, Darwin predicted that, whatever the mechanism of heredity was, it would have variability in it. Further, many properties of genes (and, later, DNA) were predicted by Darwinian evolution**.\n\n\n*On the Origin of Species was published in 1859. Gregor Mendel was still conducting his experiments on pea plants, which lasted through 1863, and published nothing until 1866. It was forgotten about shortly thereafter, and not rediscovered for over 30 years, in 1900. This is when the terms "gene", "allele", and "genetics" originated.\n\n\n** Darwin called his model of heredity "pangenesis", and it was published in the late 1860's. It turned out to be incorrect, but the fundamental ideas of transmission and development of inheritable/inherited characteristics were so useful that they were incorporated, along with mendelian genetics, into the modern synthesis.
945352
Then defend it... I say that there is no way that a random chance process could have formed life forming proteins and DNA with their unique chirality. If proteins and DNA were formed by chance  each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of "R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Even if \nthere were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer. If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work. If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which process  was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process? The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control is not possible in a random chance natural process.\nYou are an intelligent man alot smarter than a mere theist so I don't think I need to explain chirality more thoroughly. You just need to defend your statement... Too bad you can't now that you have this informant ion.....   Jim
325658
Well, he wasn't a lunatic.\n\nWas he a genius?  His Origin of the Species was definitely revolutionary and is relevant to this day.\n\nI suspect that you may be a "strict creationist," however, which poses another question.\n\nAre you a lunatic?  (You aren't a genius.)
1081078
It's a good question, and of course the answer is not exactly a simple one.  The 'why' of scientific experiments can be rather complex, but let me try to give you some hopefully clarifying information.  \n\nThe problem of hominization, that is, how our species Homo sapiens became what it is, does not end with the evolutionary reconstruction of our ancestor species.  It also involves such difficult to answer notions as 'mind,' 'intelligence,' 'self-consciousness,' or 'person'.  All are terms we all use freely but we have a very hard time to explain.  If I tell you about how I felt yesterday when I saw Brasil win its opener game at the World Cup, you can relate and grasp what I mean, but it would be quite difficult to say how this experience differs from when a chimp feels when faced with a stronger attacking male.  In otehr words, what does it mean when we say 'feel'?  Many of the categories we take for granted for our species are difficult to fully understand and grasp scientifically.\n\nLanguage seems to be a major characteristic of our species, which in and of itself is reason enough to study it well.  About 40,000 years ago, our species (H. sapiens) began to spread widely across the planet, while numbers of another hominid species, the Neanderthals (H. neanderthalensis) decreased rapidly.  Eventually, Neanderthals became extinct, and it has been hypothesized that one of the reasons they did was that they did not have the ability for complex speech.  Why would language matter?\n\nIn language we can express certain complicated complex and evolution can assume another degree of complexity.  We can convey information that then can be learned by others who did not have the same experience as ourselves.  Language allows for culture to evolve - or so it seems.\n\nRecent research has actually shown that culture can evolve with very 'simple' means of communication.  certain information can actually be taught by individuals even in species without semantically complex languag like ours.  For example, some decades ago Japenes primatologists began studying Macaque monkeys on Koshima Island and fed animals potatoes.  A little Macaque girl washed the sand of its potatoes and got the extra benefit of having them now salty from the sea water.  Her mother learned her daughter's behavior and soon potato washing had spread theoughout the colony.  Now, some generations later, all the Macaques of the Island wash their potatoes.  Culture is therefore possible not only in human beings.\n\nStudying communication in Macaques here showed us something about how complex social societies and their culture may evolve.  We learned about simple ways of passing on knowledge from one to the next generation.  But what more is there to learn from great apes or dolphins?\n\nBoth species are particularly interesting for modern communication research.  Aside from learning more about the basic function of language and communication, we can learn something about how our mind may work and how language plays a role in grasping reality.  Studies on chimpanzees and bottlenose dolphins have shown that these animals are able to recognize their own mirror reflection.This suggests a certain cognitive evoltuion that is mostly absent from other animals.  For example, our Macaques from Japan would attack their own mirror image, unaware that the individual they are seeing is themselves.  Studies on communication in chimpanzees and bottlenose dolphins have shown that animals indeed convey rather complex messages.  These can not only involve such simple informations as "Hi, here I am!" but also very complex behaviors such as reconciliation after fights.  Chimpanzees have been observed to show reconciliatory behavior after conflicts that serve to restore the community and allow for the social structure within the group to function.  What these studies taught us is that indeed aggression, which we long cons
709934
How about the guys and girl that discovered the structure of DNA?? James Watson, Francis Crick, Rosalind Franklin, and Wilklins. Def all born after 1800 and made a HUUUGGGE impact in life, genome, and life. OR the guy who disocvered penecillin...there are a lot.
99773
fairy tales? , probably you can do that in literature or history, but in physics is sort of hard ..He dedicated his life to work , he was truly a genius, we needed a bunch of scientists to get together just for continue with his legacy ; maybe his ideas were , at his time, sort of fantastic ; but I don't think He was a lier or something ,if that's what you were trying to say... if not, yeah he was fun :P
1036246
right on, I'm glad someone else sees some of the problems with evolutions.  Everyone else, keep in mind that this protein is just one of millions that is vital to life as we know it.  And another thing how do we know that the world is 4 billion years old?  Carbon dating?  The half life of carbon 14 is 5,730 years.  So how many half lives is that. Simply put by 4 billion years there no carbon 14 left to measure, it would have all deteriorated.  There is no way that all the life on earth could have resulted by evolution\n\nOkay to everyone above, to the person who said that scientists have created living cells from nonliving molecules, slap yourself because that is an absolute falsehood.  Next when you say that scientist created amino acids that is true but lets look closer.  There were only about 5 different amino acids that were created not all the ones that are necessary for life.  Next how were all the other cell parts (lipids, nucleic acids, carbs) formed.  Did they just appear? Scientists cannot make lipids from just the molecules needed to synthesize them.  I have a very hard time believing that all these parts were formed, in the same place (it is very hard to keep things together underwater let alone in an ocean) and somehow all came together and then replicated.  No that does not happen.  \n\nNext how did new material get added in to the gene pool? Mutation?  Well everything that we know from science (Medicine, genetics) tells us that mutation is bad.  Name one good mutation.  Not sickle cell anemia.  First of all sickle cell is only beneficial when it is in the heterozygote and so it helps protect against malaria, it also cause way more harmful symptoms than beneficial ones.  Look at what happens with people that have cystic fibrosis.  There are a few (less than 10) nucleic acid changes and it is usually fatal.  Mutation does not, repeat, DOES NOT, provide helpful change.  Another thing is how did this first cell survive?  Even the simplest cell carry out complex reactions, and processes that "Scientists" cannot explain after years of study.  In order for this "first cell" to be viable all these pathways would have to present before the cell could live.  And what about all the proteins need for DNA/RNA replication?  There are about 150 different proteins that carry out karyokinesis alone and then comes the problem of separating the DNA.  Come on do you still think that all this could have happened by chance?  \n\nNext time, do not come after creationist because you do not want to believe that there is a God.  With creation everything fits.  The more you know about biology the more you see the holes in evolution.
507123
Rosalind Franklin can be credited with the discovery of the double helical structure of DNA. She crystallised DNA and made Xray diffraction pictures of it. Different structures will show different patterns on the Xray diffraction pictures. The pictures that Franklin took had patterns that were indicative of a double helical structure being present. Although scientists cannot directly look at the structure of DNA through a microscope, there are many other ways to determine the structure of it.
811174
I don't think it did.\n\nWatson and Crick , stole the idea of a single helix from Pauling via his son, and stole some x-ray crystallography data from Rosalind Franklin , then they went to the pub and drank and worked it out. \n\nThey should have shared with the other folks I think.
1066627
I am a Christian and I have found remarkable facts that have bolstered my faith in Intelligent Design. To name one, Irreducable Complexity. It is the fact, (Not Theory) that the simplest cell in our body was created completely in a moment's time, instead of a gradual evolution. It is like a mouse trap. There's a board, spring, lever, and latch. The cell, like the trap, has components that compliment each other in the same way the trap does. If you took one component away the trap would be defective, likewise if the cell is left without all the necessary systems it will perish leaving no time for evolution.