Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–148 of 148 posts

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#141

Post by slibhb »

failingslowly wrote: post #118

My take away from the article is that Watson and Crick were the ones who finally cracked the puzzle, but that Franklin and Wilkins' (and others') findings were a key part. It's telling that the controversy only surrounds Franklin's contributions, not Wilkins', presumably because of her gender and the need to promote women's historical contribution to science. I understand the desire to do that, as the theory goes tha…

> It's telling that the controversy only surrounds Franklin's contributions, not Wilkins'

Wilkins also shared the Nobel. Franklin was dead at that point (though I don't think 4 people can share a Nobel).

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#142

Post by lern_too_spel »

peterfirefly wrote: post #138
lern_too_spel wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm claiming that if they were properly educated, their intelligence would increase. Indeed, the gap between black American IQs and white American IQs has been steadily closing, with a 1/3 reduction between 1972 and 2002, the gap between black American IQs and white American IQs is smaller than the gap between black African IQs and white American IQs, and black Americans in 1995 have the same IQ as white Americans in…

Ever heard of the Lothian Birth-Cohort Studies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothian_birth-cohort_studies IQ can be measured quite well at the age of 10-11, before the children have had much education. It also turns out to be quite stable... and doesn't really go up if somebody goes all the way to a bachelor's degree. This means that your education excuse either isn't true at all (most likely) or that it has really,…

> IQ can be measured quite well at the age of 10-11, before the children have had much education.

That's utter nonsense that children have not had much education at the age of 10-11. I've personally seen kids reading books independently at the age of two (because their parents taught them, not because their genes made them know how to read). Yes, black two year olds can do this too: https://abc7ny.com/2-year-old-mensa-american-kashe-quest-iq-.... By the time they're 11, they're doing college level mathematics. The intelligence gap is vast versus cousins who were not brought up the same way.

Even today, black children have higher childhood exposure to lead and higher incidence of iodine deficiency, both of which have large impacts on IQ. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33394180/

Despite the strong evidence against it, white men (like you and Watson) are much more likely to believe in large genetic differences in intelligence by race, and that is either due to genetic mental deficiency among white men (highly unlikely) or racism in developmental environment (most likely).

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#143

Post by Maursault »

failingslowly wrote: post #118

My take away from the article is that Watson and Crick were the ones who finally cracked the puzzle, but that Franklin and Wilkins' (and others') findings were a key part. It's telling that the controversy only surrounds Franklin's contributions, not Wilkins', presumably because of her gender and the need to promote women's historical contribution to science. I understand the desire to do that, as the theory goes tha…

> were the ones who finally cracked the puzzle

What puzzle, precisely? That DNA is a double helix? The article makes it clear that Franklin was already aware of this fact when Watson and Crick had their epiphany. Watson's and Crick's insight that was independent of Franklin had to do with the base pairs, but every article and film and book (including Watson's) and story I know of focuses on the realization that DNA is a double helix. Turns out, that was already known by Franklin and Wilkins prior to Watson and Crick seeing Photograph 51. This changes things. Frankly, I don't even understand Watson's contribution even by his own testimony; Crick and Franklin did all the heavy lifting.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#144

Post by peterfirefly »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #142
peterfirefly wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever heard of the Lothian Birth-Cohort Studies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothian_birth-cohort_studies IQ can be measured quite well at the age of 10-11, before the children have had much education. It also turns out to be quite stable... and doesn't really go up if somebody goes all the way to a bachelor's degree. This means that your education excuse either isn't true at all (most likely) or that it has really,…

> IQ can be measured quite well at the age of 10-11, before the children have had much education. That's utter nonsense that children have not had much education at the age of 10-11. I've personally seen kids reading books independently at the age of two (because their parents taught them, not because their genes made them know how to read). Yes, black two year olds can do this too: https://abc7ny.com/2-year-old-mens…

> That's utter nonsense that children have not had much education at the age of 10-11.

In that case, the IQ measured later, say at 30, should be very different from the IQ measured at age 10-11. It isn't, though...

It should also go up (a lot) if the kid ends up with lots of education compared to a child with the same childhood score that doesn't end up with lots of education. It doesn't, though.

In other words, it is NOT utter nonsense.

I have flagged you.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#145

Post by lern_too_spel »

peterfirefly wrote: post #144
lern_too_spel wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IQ can be measured quite well at the age of 10-11, before the children have had much education. That's utter nonsense that children have not had much education at the age of 10-11. I've personally seen kids reading books independently at the age of two (because their parents taught them, not because their genes made them know how to read). Yes, black two year olds can do this too: https://abc7ny.com/2-year-old-mens…

> That's utter nonsense that children have not had much education at the age of 10-11. In that case, the IQ measured later, say at 30, should be very different from the IQ measured at age 10-11. It isn't, though... It should also go up (a lot) if the kid ends up with lots of education compared to a child with the same childhood score that doesn't end up with lots of education. It doesn't, though. In other words, it i…

> It should also go up (a lot) if the kid ends up with lots of education compared to a child with the same childhood score that doesn't end up with lots of education. It doesn't, though.

Of course it does. Did you fail to verify your claim prior to making it because of genetic mental deficiency (highly unlikely) or due to environmental racism leading you to believe that it couldn't be possible (most likely).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6088505/ shows that each additional year of mediocre classroom education is worth ~5 IQ points.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#146

Post by peterfirefly »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #145
peterfirefly wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's utter nonsense that children have not had much education at the age of 10-11. In that case, the IQ measured later, say at 30, should be very different from the IQ measured at age 10-11. It isn't, though... It should also go up (a lot) if the kid ends up with lots of education compared to a child with the same childhood score that doesn't end up with lots of education. It doesn't, though. In other words, it i…

> It should also go up (a lot) if the kid ends up with lots of education compared to a child with the same childhood score that doesn't end up with lots of education. It doesn't, though. Of course it does. Did you fail to verify your claim prior to making it because of genetic mental deficiency (highly unlikely) or due to environmental racism leading you to believe that it couldn't be possible (most likely). https://…

> each additional year of mediocre classroom education is worth ~5 IQ points.

"we found consistent evidence for beneficial effects of education on cognitive abilities of approximately 1 to 5 IQ points for an additional year of education"

1-5 is not 5. Besides, it is contradicted by the Lothian Birth-Cohort Studies (and many others).

You should not misrepresent your sources. On the other hand, it is good you have started citing real research instead of Mother Jones. Ritchie is a real, serious researcher, whether he is right in this case or not.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#147

Post by lern_too_spel »

peterfirefly wrote: post #146
lern_too_spel wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It should also go up (a lot) if the kid ends up with lots of education compared to a child with the same childhood score that doesn't end up with lots of education. It doesn't, though. Of course it does. Did you fail to verify your claim prior to making it because of genetic mental deficiency (highly unlikely) or due to environmental racism leading you to believe that it couldn't be possible (most likely). https://…

> each additional year of mediocre classroom education is worth ~5 IQ points. "we found consistent evidence for beneficial effects of education on cognitive abilities of approximately 1 to 5 IQ points for an additional year of education" 1-5 is not 5. Besides, it is contradicted by the Lothian Birth-Cohort Studies (and many others). You should not misrepresent your sources. On the other hand, it is good you have star…

> 1-5 is not 5

You failed to understand the study. The 1 case is the marginal effect of a year of education on students who were about to drop out of school, which is a very special type of unmotivated population. 5 is for an additional year of compulsory "mediocre classroom" education on the entire population of students. Is your failure to understand due to genetic inability (highly unlikely) or due to your strong priors influenced by racism in development environment forcing you to conjure up a favorable interpretation for your argument (much more likely)?

The Lothian Birth-Cohort studies were not designed to measure genetic differences in mental ability by race nor to measure the impact of education on mental ability, and your article does not claim it was nor draw any conclusions in that regard. It merely shows a correlation of 0.66 between mental ability at age 11 vs. age 79, which leaves a lot of variability to be explained by environment after age 11. Multiple studies have shown that intentional changes in educational environment cause large differences, with Bloom's 1-on-1 educational coaching causing the largest differences of two entire standard deviations, the difference between median and genius ability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_2_sigma_problem

Post reply on HN