shirlest is amazing, i set my mindset on highest level

Shirlest is insane

thanks

You are amazing bro, helped me a lot, thank you so much

I agree

And selective pressure.

@@GuardianSoulkeeper Sure, a selective mind giving the need to improve, grow, multiply, think, reason, fight for food, fly, etc. This thing called "chance" is impressive...

@@marceloribeirosimoes8959 and selective pressure.* Selective mind indeed.

Me basically doing masters in this thing in 8th grade✋🏼:

3

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The pentagons and hexagons represent the shapes of the molecules. Their corners are where the atoms lie and the edges represent the chemical bonds between the atoms. Their significance lies in that fact that they represent the shape of the molecules. In the case of ribose, the structure is actually more 3-dimensional but it's represented as a pentagon because in reality there are 5 atoms there connected to eachother like the corners of a pentagon. There are molecules that have little triangles in them and ones with squares and ones with pentagon and so on and so forth. So when we draw them, we draw those shapes. The only "shape" they use that doesn't really have anthing to do with the way the atoms are connected are the circles they use to represent the phosphate groups. They show the actual atoms in there at 2:03. It's not like "blue circle" is a universal symbol for "phosphate group" or something like that. There's no "scientific standard" or "reference chart". Whoever made the graphics thought "hmm, I need some kind of symbol to indicate that there's something here, this blue circle will do fine (and kind of match the color chosen for the ribose)" If I completely misunderstood your question or you would like me to explain anything further, let me know

@@lunkel8108 are the molecules actually shaped as displayed, or is it simply a way to represent how many and where connections are made? Depends how you read "pentagons and hexagons represent the shapes of the molecules" (ref.) It's difficult to adequately convey the questions in my mind, having never liked the sciences enough to learn more than I did in required classes. So, please forgive my ignorance.... but, I certainly thank you for responding.

@@mnrd34 Yes, the molecules are really those shapes, with 2 (maybe 3) caveats: 1) This is a pretty minor one: the side lengths and angles are commonly not all perfectly equal as in a regular pentagon/hexagon/etc. If the ring only consist of one type of atom (e.g. all carbon) (and all of the bonds are of the same type), then all of the lengths and angles will be perfectly regular. If you introduce other atoms such as nitrogen (in the nucleobases) or oxygen (in the sugar), then some atoms end up taking up more space than others and pulling on eachother by different amounts, resulting in bond lengths and angles that differ by a few percent from what you would observe in a perfect regular polygon. But in general, they're pretty approximations. 2) This is a bigger point. In general, molecules are not flat. They have more complicated 3D conformations. The nucleobases are an exception. If you look at their structures, you might notice that every second bond is a double bond. This gives rise to a phenomenon called "aromaticity" that leads to them being completely flat (within the ring structures). The classic example of an aromatic molecule is benzene, which is a perfectly flat, perfectly regular hexagon of carbon atoms. But if you don't see double bonds between every second pair of atoms, rings of atoms are 3D. The (deoxy)ribose here is a good example. If you search for "2' endo vs 3' endo" or something like that, you'll see the two conformations it can take. For 6-membered rings, look up "chair conformation" to see the actual structure. 3) You could argue about what it really means for a molecule to "look like" something. Here we're just talking about the relative position of each atom. Connected to this, but more complicated, is what the electrons between and around those atoms are doing and how they are distributed. If you'd look at the electron density instead of the nuclear positions, you would end up with a slightly different picture. Again, if you have any more questions, I'd be happy to help

@@lunkel8108 ...off to read and learn! ...to return, as needed, with questions. Thank you so much.

If you want know pleas read Quran and you will find it I was like you but finally l had found the reality the truth

Evidence suggests no one at all.

@@GuardianSoulkeeper How can anything come from nothing?

@@Curi0us-s0ul Dunno. How do you get something from nothing?

@@GuardianSoulkeeper All these miraculous things in the nature must not have come on their own from full matter alone. There must have been an orchestration by conscious entities who manipulated matter to do various functions like humans use physics and chemistry to manipulate matter to fulfill their needs and desires. I believe God is that conscious entity behind these awesome phenomena in nature. My point is "Matter doesn't generate life/consciousness rather it's the opposite."

+

Glad you liked it! Check out our course as well. bit.ly/700xBio