The Evolving Act Project

[kushtrees]

I'm not ganna touch the chem stuff, but squiggly is very right about following the money. Whether it be Monsanto or Pfizer I guarantee that they have very accurate information. I've talked to some of the people at UC Davis where a lot of the research for today's GMOs and pesticides come from and those guys are not dealing with incorrect information. I may not agree with what they are trying to accomplish, but they do know what they are talking about - now do they know the long term impacts of what they are studying that's a whole different convo.

Saying that what universities are teaching throughout the country is wrong is a very strong statement. You cannot base your information off of 1 study from one PHD. If you are going to say that universities are teaching the wrong things you should have a large list of studies to back you up

 

[squiggly]

I'm not ganna touch the chem stuff, but squiggly is very right about following the money. Whether it be Monsanto or Pfizer I guarantee that they have very accurate information. I've talked to some of the people at UC Davis where a lot of the research for today's GMOs and pesticides come from and those guys are not dealing with incorrect information. I may not agree with what they are trying to accomplish, but they do know what they are talking about - now do they know the long term impacts of what they are studying that's a whole different convo.

Exactly.

You might say that there is more than immediately meets the eye than what science can tell us--and that is really a foregone statement to laymen AND scientists.

It's much more difficult to say let's throw away the whole of science for no other reason than HydroRocks said we should. It's silly.

Beyond that, it's obvious that he's severely under-educated when it comes to science in general.

I'm cool with making claims, even ones without support--what I'm not a big fan of is lying to people to feed your ego, which is what this guy is doing.

If he were convinced of his BS, then I'd let it rest--but once and for all I am rather convinced that he's well aware that he's making stuff up.

It's like Bill O'Reilly on FOX news--he doesn't fully believe the shit he's shoveling. That makes him a worse person than if he did in my estimation.

My only intention here is to prevent damage to my brosef's intelligence here at the farm.

On a side note I find shit like this not only offensive, but straight up damaging. Yeah, dude, the last 10 years everything I've learned--everything I've seen with my own eyes--all of it was bullshit.

The fuck does this cat expect me to say?

"I'm sorry, I didn't realize it the first time you lied on the internet--but this time you definitely got me. Millions of scientists over hundreds of years got it all wrong, and you extemporaneously came up with the way things actually are on your own. "

What.

A Fuckin.

Moron.

 

[kushtrees]

It's like Bill O'Reilly on FOX news--he doesn't fully believe the shit he's shoveling. That makes him a worse person than if he did in my estimation.

On a complete side note.. That is truth haha. Bill ORiely is an intelligent guy and while I may hate him for spewing nonsense to the 50% of America that watches Fox, you cannot say he isn't smart. He's just a dick for making money off it

 

[squiggly]

On a complete side note.. That is truth haha. Bill ORiely is an intelligent guy and while I may hate him for spewing nonsense to the 50% of America that watches Fox, you cannot say he isn't smart. He's just a dick for making money off it

Exactly. He's a very intelligent man, that's why his bullshit doesn't sparkle with the committee. He CAN'T believe at least half of it--he would have to be much stupider.

It's the same here. This guy is no dummy. He just wants to feel special.

He isn't wrong--he's a liar.

Okay he's wrong, too.

 

[kushtrees]

Exactly. He's a very intelligent man, that's why his bullshit doesn't sparkle with the committee. He CAN'T believe at least half of it--he would have to be much stupider.

Sunshine

Hahah I love South Park

 

[squiggly]

He must have also been absent when amino acids were covered...lol

I do like his DESPERATE attempt at trying to PROVE this LUDICROUS GARBAGE about amino's being all the same.....and I quote " The atoms making them up are exactly the same, they are just arranged differently."

Did I get that one wrong also squiggly or is that what you said? It is a DIRECT QUOTE ...ROFL!!

The atoms are all the same huh?? And only the way they are arranged is different huh??

Yes that direct quote is exactly correct, I'm not sure what the point was here.

Here is a picture of D-Valine:

Here is a picture of L-Valine:

You'll notice that the only difference here is which direction the amine (NH2) is facing.

In D-Valine the amine group is directed away from us or "into the page".

In L-Valine the amine group is directed toward us.

If you play with these in your head as though they are 3D models, you should be able to convince yourself pretty easily that while each atom is BONDED to the same atom in each molecule--they are non-superimposable mirror images of each other. It is clear these different version of the amino acid valine are both structural isomers (same empirical formula with a different connectivity) and enantiomers (non-superimposable mirror images).

Discussing the difference between these two is much like discussing your right vs. your left hand. Everything is hooked up the same, but in mirrored rather than in a direct fashion.

As I said previously this is the type of chemistry that I specialize in. It is known as asymmetric organic chemistry. The "right" or "left" handed nature of molecules (and permutations of reactions which can increase enantioselectivity--i.e. making the desired version of the molecule [right or left, commonly denoted S and R] in high yield). This is important especially in pharmaceuticals because many drugs are only active in one form (S or R). For other drugs one form is beneficial, and the other is damaging. Science made this discovery the hard way with Thalidomide--which led to the discovery of the "handedness" of molecules, and the field of asymmetric organic synthesis. I'll leave you to google to find the horrors that Thalidomide caused.

Currently I am applying knowledge of asymmetric reactions towards trying to enhance (and make cheaper) the synthesis of the antiretroviral drug used for HIV therapy called Saquinavir. This molecule has four stereocenters compared with one in valine above.

It's like I said dude, you brought a knife to a gun fight--I know the structure of every single amino acid by heart (as does anyone else who has suffered through a general biochemistry course--it's an absolute precondition for passing with even a C).

I find it amusing that you question what days I missed in class when you've made it abundantly clear that you never even enrolled into a chemistry course in the first place.
Come back and talk to me when you're able to understand molecular structure in 2D--THEN we can talk about what things look like in 3D and have a reasonable conversation.

Continued.......

 

[squiggly]

As it stands now I'd guess you're missing at least 5 concepts to being able to understand 2D molecules:

1. General Chemistry (periodic table, atomic properties [ionization potential, isotopes, atomic radius], bonding theory, and you can probably skip the rest for understanding molecular geometry)

2. Valence Shell Electron Repulsion Theory (VSEPR)

3. Molecular Orbital theory.

4. Orbital hybridization.

5. Resonance.

Once you've nailed those down, you will be able to describe Lewis structures fairly well--and you will be able to start playing in 3D--but not before.

Here' I'll get you started on VSEPR theory--don't worry, you'll only have to read prerequisite material for about 40 hours or so before it starts to make a little bit of sense.

Good luck!

P.S.

Please realize that I only became hostile here because you insulted much more than my intelligence.

Imagine for a second that your poured your entire life into something--that you'd spent almost every day for 16 years preparing for it--saving for the three years you were a giant drug addict.

Imagine that it impassioned you so greatly that you gained the strength to overcome your fear of leaving the comforts of home, and the depths of your drug addiction, to strike out into the world and make a way and a name for yourself.

Now, imagine some random dude on the internet took your friendly offer to share some of the knowledge you had gained along the way (with him and others) not only spat on your offer--but continued on to mock and defame the entire field you had devoted your life to, to make derogatory comments about you, and most importantly to question your level of commitment and devotion to your passion.

What would you do?

You'd make the guy look like an asshat, and rightfully so.

You can question my surety (certainly) and my intelligence itself with impunity, and I welcome such claims and challenges. What I will not ever stand for is someone questioning my work ethic and my commitment to the field of chemistry and achieving greater understanding of the natural world.

Not.

Ever.

You know what day I missed in class, dude?

I missed NONE of them.

In fact I need to skedaddle soon here to take my ass to--you guessed it--the laboratory.

I hope we can clear the air here and avoid further conflict--because I firmly believe that we all have something novel to offer when it comes to developing a new, shared, understanding. I don't want to end up ignoring you, because I look at you (yes, even you) as an asset for furthering my knowledge.

I am SURE there is stuff you know that I don't and vice versa--and this is why I don't believe in ignoring people, but if we're going to continue having a pissing match about chemistry two things are going to happen:

1. I'm going to bury you, and leave in my wake any doubt that you hadn't the foggiest about what you were discussing here (at least not as it went to the specifics on the atomic scale).

2. I'm going to ignore you to save both of us, and the moderators, wasted time.

Let's move on with this discussion and learn something NEW--not try to reinvent the wheel.

Again please accept my apologies--there is no need for any from you. Let's just move on from here and be respectful of one another. I do not have a monopoly on knowledge, and I never claimed to.

 

[tecatecs]

Gentlemen... So after waving each other's dicks in each other's faces to prove who has the biggest fucking pecker, I'm sure both of you did not achieve what they were trying to do.

Can we agree to disagree? Move on?

Please, HydroRocks, its your thread, continue with the posting of your findings. I'm much interested.

And please, Mr. Squiggly, your intentions are true, but you also hijacked the thread, which is obviously rude. A link to a NEW thread with arguments proposing why Mr. HydroRocks's research is wrong would also be appreciated.

You two have a different perspective to the same point. What is the point? To grow trees man, not to fight each other for the sake of education of the people. There is no single absolute truth.

I think not even God knows exactly what's going on lol.

Peace.