Watson’s Nobel Prize Medal for Decoding DNA Fetches $4.1M at an Auction • Hacker News Board

Re: Watson’s Nobel Prize Medal for Decoding DNA Fetches $4.1M at an Auction

#51

Post by kendallpark » Fri, Dec 05, 2014, 6:36 PM UTC

waps wrote: post #49

kendallpark wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What we know as the double helix, what everybody thinks of as DNA, is really a picture of sex (or "conception" if you want to get technical. That's why we have sex of course). DNA only occurs in that form during reproduction (could be cell, or organism reproduction of course, though during cell (asexual) reproduction it's only present for a few seconds at best, during sexual reproduction it exists for a few minutes…

In the chromatin network there's no double helix, because it's always mostly unrolled and various things are bound to it. It looks a lot more like a ladder. The double helix as analyzed only exists as part of chromosomes.

It seems you are mistaking DNA's quaternary structure for its tertiary structure. DNA's tertiary structure remains helical while wound up in chromatin.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Nucleosom...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid_structure

Re: Watson’s Nobel Prize Medal for Decoding DNA Fetches $4.1M at an Auction

#52

Post by jamesaguilar » Fri, Dec 05, 2014, 8:42 PM UTC

pervycreeper wrote: post #29

jamesaguilar wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am condemning the reaction to the comments Are you saying that you believe it is wrong to fire or refuse to associate with someone who says racist things? (This was the reaction to his comments.) I mean, leaving aside the legal issues of having someone in a management position saying something like that. Morally, you feel that this is wrong?

>Are you saying that you believe it is wrong to fire or refuse to associate with someone who says racist things? No, that is an overgeneralization of a very lazy mischaracterization of what I said. Ostracizing someone for "saying racist" things would be appropriate, depending on a number of particulars, including degree (is teaching "math" instead of "anti-racist math" itself an assertion of racism?). However, in thi…

> No, that is an overgeneralization of a very lazy mischaracterization of what I said.

I didn't characterize what you said, I asked whether I had understood your properly.

Now that you have clarified, I have another question. Do you actually believe that what he said was a controversial yet fundamentally scientific opinion? The man himself has acknowledged that there is not actually any genetic difference in intelligence, as far as we can tell. It might be different if the data actually backed up what he said, but as far as I can tell, it was simple racist ranting.

Nobody was punished for shirtgate. A guy apologized for doing something wrong. Everyone forgave him. The end.

Re: Watson’s Nobel Prize Medal for Decoding DNA Fetches $4.1M at an Auction

#53

Post by whorace » Fri, Dec 05, 2014, 11:42 PM UTC

shamney wrote: post #47

seekingtruth wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm getting downvoted for linking to Wikipedia. Facts don't matter on this topic.

the downvotes are quite amazing. this is just a basic factual matter -- nothing to do with whether watson's broader claims are true -- yet it seems some people are simply incapable of dealing with reality...

The same people who decry creationists as ignorant insist that evolution only works from the neck down.

Re: Watson’s Nobel Prize Medal for Decoding DNA Fetches $4.1M at an Auction

#54

Post by pervycreeper » Sat, Dec 06, 2014, 1:55 AM UTC

jamesaguilar wrote: post #52

pervycreeper wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Are you saying that you believe it is wrong to fire or refuse to associate with someone who says racist things? No, that is an overgeneralization of a very lazy mischaracterization of what I said. Ostracizing someone for "saying racist" things would be appropriate, depending on a number of particulars, including degree (is teaching "math" instead of "anti-racist math" itself an assertion of racism?). However, in thi…

> No, that is an overgeneralization of a very lazy mischaracterization of what I said. I didn't characterize what you said, I asked whether I had understood your properly. Now that you have clarified, I have another question. Do you actually believe that what he said was a controversial yet fundamentally scientific opinion? The man himself has acknowledged that there is not actually any genetic difference in intellig…

>Do you actually believe that what he said was a controversial yet fundamentally scientific opinion?

well, using this quote as a source (can't find the original):

>He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”

This is more of an off-the-cuff, vague, and poorly considered comment. So, no.

However, it has attracted a disproportionate amount of scrutiny (compared to the stupid and incorrect things said all the time by other scientists), most often from people who are equally unqualified to comment. Also notable is the assumption on the part of critics who assumed he stated the basis for the difference is genetic, which he did not in fact say.

>Nobody was punished for shirtgate

He was bullied to tears by a giant internet hate mob telling him he was a bad person on one of the most significant days in his career, all for his choice of apparel. The same people, I might add, who advocate internet censorship in order to curb "harassment".