Why 5'-3' and not 3'-5'

taguebw at REMOVEwfu.edu taguebw at REMOVEwfu.edu
Fri Mar 27 11:23:06 EST 1998

Scott McMahan <mcmahan at oncology.wisc.edu> wrote:
:In article <6fes6c$jqt at ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, jkumar at lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu
:(Jay  . Kumar) wrote:
:Quick answer:
:Because the triphosphate group is off the 5' and not the 3'
[snip long answer]

Yes, but why is the triphosphate group not off the 3' end? :)
You evolutionist continually ignore the obvious design.


 In article <351B6890.5088 at marauder.millersv.edu>,
jmone at MARAUDER.MILLERSV.EDU ("Jay Mone'") wrote:

> In reply to Adams quip about evolutionaRy design and why the phosphate 
> doesn't hang off of the 3' carbon, I'm sure an answer could be found 
> in the thermodynamics of nucleotide synthesis, but perhaps a second 
> answer might be in the geometry of nucleic acids.  The way DNA is 
> designed, the bond angles allow for the formation of a double helix 
> with relatively tight turns, and exquisite symmetry.  This may allow 
> for efficient packaging of large pieces of nucleic acid inside very 
> tight spaces.  Try drawing a double helix with the phosphate on the 3' 
> carbon, and see what you get.
> Jay Mone

Jay --

But this is probably not what Adam was driving at. For reason unclear to
me, this question also ended up on the talk.origins newsgroup. What Adam
seems to be saying is that the 5' phosphate is where it is because of
"obvious design"; i.e., because it was created. That is why there is a
swipe at the "evolutionist" even tho Scott is from an oncology department,
judging by his e-mail adress. 

I didn't *really* want to get involved with the whole evol/creat debate
and I hope it doesn't generate in bionet.general the usual pointless
discussions one finds in talk.origins. But I guess I couldn't resist....

My 2 electrons,

Remove "REMOVE" to reply

More information about the Bioforum mailing list