Re: Chez Watt: Re: 1 billion people under Darwinist terror
- From: "A.Carlson" <amcarls@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:59:47 -0800
On 16 Mar 2006 21:00:39 -0800, "Fooj" <deanlangenfeld@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I have difficulty believing a hydrocarbon is anything other than like a
snowflake.
( Proteins could still be compounds. But if the chemical
formula is uniform in the compound, it makes little difference
functionally.
Your statement about chemical formulas is absolutely untrue. Formulas
merely indicate the ratios of different atoms within a compound and
not where they appear within a compound, which is what is crucial both
structurally and 'functionally'.
For example, three different isomers of chromium(III) chloride have
the same overall formula (CrCl3-6H2O) and yet they each have their own
characteristics and properties, including different colors (purple,
blue-green, and green).
Is there proof that proteins are non-complex compounds? )
As an adjective, complexity is a matter of degree. As far as the
complexity of proteins go, other than being comprised of long chains
of amino acids, the individual amino acids themselves are relatively
straightforward, with a carbon atom attached to a H3N (the amino
group), H, COO (the carboxyl group), and then various different side
chains that give each of 20 amino acids (for human proteins)their own
characteristics.
You certainly know your stuff about biology, because you were able to
say DNA is nucleic acid which isn't necessarily anything other than a
complex compound. DNA is not completely elegant, because its atomics
and molecules tend to vary. But you certainly know more than the
would-bes who say DNA is a molecule rather than a compound.
The terms 'compound' and 'molecule' are somewhat, but not completely,
interchangeable. A compound is a "substance made up of two or more
different elements", while a molecule is a "particle made up of two or
more atoms joined by covalent bonds or ionic attractions".
O2 is a molecule but not a compound because it has a covalent bond but
only consists of one type of element while CO2 is considered a
'molecule' or 'molecular compound' because it fits the criteria for
both terms.
NaCl is a type of molecular compound that is commonly referred to as
an 'ionic compound' due to it's ionic bond. There are also a number
of other named types of molecular compounds such as 'aromatic
compounds' which contain benzene rings.
The chain of amino acids in proteins matches the definition for
molecular compound because of the covalent bond that connects each
monomer (remember it is a 'polymer'). Although DNA is commonly
referred to as a 'molecule', strictly speaking I suppose it could be
claimed that it is actually two molecules since it is comprised of two
polynucleotides coiled around each other and held together by hydrogen
bonding, but that may be being a bit picky.
Fascinating. I have forgotten a lot of basic biology. ( I preferred the
more difficult physics, and now some basics. )
Any takers for the term complex compounds? Perhaps it already exists.
Apparently there is a family of compounds in inorganic chemistry
referred to as 'complex compounds'.
For what you seem to be looking for, Chemistry already has names like
'monomers', 'oligomers', and 'polymers' for compounds containing
interchangeable elements. If you're just talking about size, where
would you draw the line? Regardless, 'molecule' apparently has no
such line, at least that I am aware of.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Chez Watt: Re: 1 billion people under Darwinist terror
- From: guscubed
- Re: Chez Watt: Re: 1 billion people under Darwinist terror
- From: John Wilkins
- Re: Chez Watt: Re: 1 billion people under Darwinist terror
- From: Fooj
- Re: Chez Watt: Re: 1 billion people under Darwinist terror
- From: A.Carlson
- Re: Chez Watt: Re: 1 billion people under Darwinist terror
- From: Fooj
- Re: Chez Watt: Re: 1 billion people under Darwinist terror
- From: A.Carlson
- Re: Chez Watt: Re: 1 billion people under Darwinist terror
- From: Fooj
- Re: Chez Watt: Re: 1 billion people under Darwinist terror
- From: A.Carlson
- Re: Chez Watt: Re: 1 billion people under Darwinist terror
- From: Fooj
- Chez Watt: Re: 1 billion people under Darwinist terror
- Prev by Date: Re: REAL PROBLEM IN ISRAEL!!!1!!11~!!
- Next by Date: Re: Hitler and evolution
- Previous by thread: Re: Chez Watt: Re: 1 billion people under Darwinist terror
- Next by thread: Re: Chez Watt: Re: 1 billion people under Darwinist terror
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|