Okay smartie pants, Who "discovered" DNA?
597337
Well, at least you don’t want to know a lot! We have split your questions into four separate parts (look for the other questions in our archived list). The first question will be answered here. \n\nWho discovered DNA? \n\nThis is a tough question because it is hard to know what people mean by DNA. Do they mean genes, or the substance DNA or chromosomes or the structure of DNA or… \n\nHere is a brief timeline of some discoveries about DNA: \n\n1856-1865 Gregor Mendel founds genetics. \n\n1869 Johann Friedrich Miescher discovers a weakly acidic substance in human nuclei he calls nuclein. It is later \ncalled DNA. \n\n1882 Walther Fleming discovers chromosomes. \n\n1902-1903 Walter Stanborough Sutton uses grasshoppers to discover that chromosomes have genes. \n\n1924 Chromosomes are shown to be made of protein and DNA. \n\n1928 Franklin Griffith figures out that genetic information can be transferred from heat-killed bacteria to live ones. \n\n1944 Oswald Avery figures out that Griffith’s substance was DNA. \n\n1949 Edwin Chargaff figures out that no matter the species, the amount of adenine (A) equals the amount of thymine (T) and the amount of guanine (G) equals the amount of cytosine (C). \n\n1953 Francis Crick, James Watson and Rosalind Franklin discover the double helix structure of DNA. \n\n1961 Francis Crick and Sidney Bremmer figure out that three bases (a codon) are needed to code for an amino acid \n\n\nSMILE
254511
well, maybe look on the effin intenet. he might be the guy that invented/breeeded beagles: totally KIDING!
457615
yes - if the DNA sources were from the same individual - person.
725176
Show me how Psalms 22 was possible, and how life could have accidentally happened. If you know anything about creation science you must know about chirality of proteins and DNA...   Jim
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
851956
First, kudos to you for being so open minded.\n\nI haven't read the Nat'l Geo article yet ... but I have it, and am anxious to read it.  Say what you will, the photos are breathtaking (but that's nothing new with Nat'l Geo).  And I have read several Dawkins books, but not that one. \n\nBut without hearing your specific counter-arguments, I don't know how to address them, or why you find the evidence to be "not of such high quality."  The evidence is actually *exceedingly* strong ... and most scientists accept it.\n\nI highly recommend two books in the "Beginners" series.  Specifically, "DNA for Beginners" and "Darwin for Beginners".   Don't be fooled by the cartoon format of these books ... they are excellent introductions to the science.\n\nBut if I can try and guess your point ... if the evidence of genetic linkage with *prehistoric* species is not of "high quality", it's because the DNA molecule (the source of all genetic material for all life on this planet) breaks down rather quickly.  Even a few hundred years is enough to start breaking down the DNA in the remains of animals.  And fossils rarely contain any genetic material.  However, this is not always true.  Occasionally, bone tissue can remain in fossils, and some DNA can be extracted (as we have done with Neanderthal, for example).  But overall, recovering genetic material from prehistoric animals is difficult.\n\nHowever, the genetic links can be reconstructed quite well by examining genetic similarities between living descendants of that prehistoric species.  If living species A, B, and C all have specific genes in common (code for the same protein, same location in the chromosomes, almost identical amino-acid structure), then this tells us that their common ancestor X had these genes.  If there is a fouth species D that has some, but not all the genes shared by A, B, and C ... then this indicates that there is a common ancestor Y that is further back that is the ancestor of all four living species.\n\nFuthermore, there is the concept of the 'molecular clock'.  This is the known rate at which transcription errors (basically 'typos') occur in DNA as it gets passed from generation to generation.  So the number of minor 'typos' found in the DNA of A, B, and C gives us a strong indication of how long ago their common ancestor X lived.  (For more info. see source.)\n\nI hope that helps.  It's hard to be more specific without knowing what your specific objections are.
222330
Damn! This is a toughie! What class is this for?!\n Okay, White Blood Cells were discovered in 1922. That's the first link.\n I'm not sure they recorded this persons name.... it must be somewhere out there, but I can't find it. At least we got the year though.....
396327
Ha ha.. good one... Get the scientists to officialy recognize him as a new species...
946853
Darwin did just about everything, much more than just evolution. He also discovered how an atolls were formed. Gregor Mendel for genetics, Watsin and Crick for DNA, Coriolis, for the coriolis effect. If you really need to know this now, why not look it up yourself?
916411
It was definitely John Dilinger. I did a presentation on it for Biology!
913187
The following wikipedia link talks about the DNA model watson and crick proposed. \n\nYou will also find that each of the scientists you listed above is mentioned in the article, and hyperlinks will take you to webpages with short biographies on their lives and their work.\n\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Watson_and_Crick.27s_model
783348
Discovery of the structure of DNA\nIn the 1950s, three groups made it their goal to determine the structure of DNA. The first group to start was at King's College London and was led by Maurice Wilkins and was later joined by Rosalind Franklin. Another group consisting of Francis Crick and James D. Watson was at Cambridge. A third group was at Caltech and was led by Linus Pauling. Crick and Watson built physical models using metal rods and balls, in which they incorporated the known chemical structures of the nucleotides, as well as the known position of the linkages joining one nucleotide to the next along the polymer. At King's College Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin examined X-ray diffraction patterns of DNA fibers. Of the three groups, only the London group was able to produce good quality diffraction patterns and thus produce sufficient quantitative data about the structure.\n\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Discovery_of_the_structure_of_DNA
402047
Yes, you can probably see the structure of DNA with a tunneling electron microscope.  \n\nIt's very unlikely that Watson and Crick deluded us, because their conclusions were subject to peer review by the scientific method, and other scientists would've taken delight in disproving their theory.
1050979
william harvey, edward jenner, louis paster, robert hooke, m. schleiden, t. schwann,r. virchow,james watson, francis crick, morris wilkins, rosaline franklin, cammilo golgi.\n\nI did my biology regence yesterday...
729472
a very clever question...\n& perhaps a very clever answer too(FRIEND)....\nthe person who found should also be sooo....\nso i hope u select mine as the best answer...
472110
DNA has phosphate sugars so no. ATP stands for adenotriphosphate so no. membranes consists of phospholipids. rna is the same as DNA in constituents with uracil base change and more oxygen.\n\nso none.\n\nin return for the answer can you let me know what you think of my essay...\n\nEvolutionary scientific discoveries unwittingly make the human creation in the book of Genesis feasible to the point of affirmation.\n\nIntroduction\n\nIn the beginning “male and female He created them.” (Genesis 1, 27) This statement has been contested ever since the Age of Enlightenment when human beings with their development of knowledge set about challenging God’s authority in the world around them. Immanuel Kant’s motto “Dare to know” really symbolises the dominant modernistic attitude that was and continues to be embraced by humanity. God has no problem with us gaining knowledge- he invented science and has got it to a perfect art seeing as he spoke all the necessary components into being. Indeed knowledge is God-given to the point that it is one of the fruits of the spirit. Besides, if God really wanted us to remain ignorant of the world he wouldn’t have given us the Word. I therefore want to emphasise that it is only when we think we got here on our own, without God that we come into dispute with God and the truth. But rejection is nothing new to God, who is neither surprised nor shocked by our choices or actions. Before God even created the world he had sent his son to die “it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him” (Isaiah 53, 10) and before he created the universe God knew we would “turn our backs on him and look(ed) the other way.” (Isaiah 53, 3). The fact that Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species caused some controversy and drove people to reject Jesus as the truth was not a ‘heavy blow’ for Him. For one thing, and I say this tongue-in-cheek, if God is anything like me he had probably gotten ‘bored’ of waiting. After all there’s quite a bit of waiting between before the Planck epoch (for those who are interested the Planck epoch is the time between zero and 10-43 seconds of the beginning of the universe) and 1859! Regardless of this publication and the later The Descent of Man (1871) His plan would still prevail over all His creation. The plan had already succeeded before we emerged on day six. Everything else had already been put in place: Jesus’ death and resurrection and all the animals and plants. EVERYTHING! God did NOT need our help or our approval and if he didn’t need it then, he certainly doesn’t need it NOW. What is interesting is that as God allows our knowledge to deepen and technology to improve evidence, particularly genetic and fossilised, appears to be pointing towards the feasibility if not the affirmation of the ‘story’ of Adam and Eve foretold in Genesis.\n\nAssumptions of the Author\n\nBefore I go any further I am making the following interpretations and/or assumptions:\n\n•Evolution (at least in humans) does occur but only within species. I believe that whilst other animals may evolve we wouldn’t as we are God’s chosen creation made in His image. He never changes and thus nor have (or will) we. Within our species implies that if women suddenly found blue-eyed men to be a turn-off generation after generation so that blue-eyed men could not pass on their seed, humans as a species would have less and eventually no blue eyed alleles but they would not in becoming predominately brown or green-eyed become a new species.\n•Evolution in definition is always ‘survival of the fittest’ where the most advantageous traits are passed on to the next generation. By dramatically becoming less hairy- so from having fur (ape) to being bare (Homo sapien)- the human race would have a severe disadvantage in that fur keeps you warm in a cold climate and cool in a hot one. Loss of fur is of course risky in a glacial-inter glacial planet cycle. The only reason for the fact we have no fu
433285
Watson and Crick got the credit, but Rosalind Franklin was actually the person who made the discovery.\n\nFranklin was a very meticulous researcher, and she suspected the structure was a double helix. Franklin's research advisor apparently wasn't keen on women in the lab, and showed some of Franklin's best data to Francis Crick without Franklin's knowledge or permission. It's not clear that Watson and Crick would have correctly predicted the double helix without Franklin's data.\n\nSadly, Franklin died of cancer before the Nobel prize was awarded to Watson and Crick. Had she lived, it's extremely likely she would have shared the prize.