|
DarkCrawler posted:Don't we have a bunch of useless poo poo leftover from previous species we evolved from? The appendix, tailbone, etc. Here's NDT on the stupid design of the universe in general and humans in particular. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4238NN8HMgQ
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
Ernie. posted:Your brother didn't have a problem with the fact that only a single hydrogen bond was shown at every base pair, or that the hydrogen bond's length was larger than a Ribose ring, but the fact that the visual fx was unrealistic if it's denoting atoms (which it wasn't stated that it is)? And just to be elaborate, this is a more accurate representation of what DNA actually looks like, if you haven't seen it before:  So at the scale that Cosmos was showing the DNA molecule the individual atoms should have been visible. Those "gaps" you see in the double helix are hydrogen bonds (shown in detail at the bottom right), where the (slightly positively charged) hydrogens from one strand of DNA bond weakly with the (slightly negative) oxygen or nitrogen of the other strand. These bonds are weak individually (they're forming and breaking constantly in liquid water for example), but with millions of them working together they hold the molecule together until a helicase comes along and breaks them, in preparation for duplication for example, as was shown on the show. I get why they decided to show it the way they did, though, it emphasizes the structure of the molecule rather than the reality of it like the image above. A more realistic image may have come off as too confusing. Oh, and how do we know the molecules really form those hexagonal shapes with the hydrogens sticking straight out? Well, one way is that we've managed to actually image molecules using a sophisticated form of something called Atomic Force Microscopy:  Top: Structural model of pentacene (black is carbon, green is hydrogen) Bottom AFM image of a single pentacene molecule BBC article about this image: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8225491.stm The paper it was taken from: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5944/1110 (free with registration) P.S. I'm a chemist, not a biochemist so any experts feel free to correct me about anything.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Hazo posted:They keep saying this seemingly without realizing it invalidates their own arguments ("God did it, it's true because we said so"). It's amazing. No, no, you see they have God's eyewitness account. Haven't you read the bible, brother?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 05:01
|
|