(October 3, 2014 at 12:44 pm)Chas Wrote:

(October 3, 2014 at 11:54 am)Huggy74 Wrote: yes REALLY!!!!!

A quotient is the result of dividing 2 numbers, 34/23.7 is not a ratio, if you had been paying attention you'd know that the 34 refers to the length of the DNA and the 23.7 the width, the ratio would be 1.434.
this is like remedial math...
BTW if I was home schooled and taught math with a Bible, what does that make you?

I will be waiting patiently for your apology.

You will have to wait a long time, because you are wrong.

"34/23.7" is an example of a ratio, as is "34:23.7" as is "34 to 23.7". Read a math book.

OMG, those are the dimensions of the DNA if you look at his post

(October 2, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Surgenator Wrote:
It is still amazing on how hard it is for you to get these concepts.

I showed that the most common ratio is 34/23.7 not 34/21. So do you retract your claim?

he is clearly referencing my numbers of 34/21, 34 divided by 21 =
1.619

If you think his number is a ratio, then what numbers were used to get it?

If you guys are in fact unbiased, will someone explain this to Chas?

(October 3, 2014 at 12:57 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 3, 2014 at 12:44 pm)Chas Wrote: You will have to wait a long time, because you are wrong.

"34/23.7" is an example of a ratio, as is "34:23.7" as is "34 to 23.7". Read a math book.

OMG, those are the dimensions of the DNA if you look at his post

(October 2, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Surgenator Wrote:
It is still amazing on how hard it is for you to get these concepts.

I showed that the most common ratio is 34/23.7 not 34/21. So do you retract your claim?

he is clearly referencing my numbers of 34/21, 34 divided by 21 =
1.619

If you think his number is a ratio, then what numbers were used to get it?

If you guys are in fact unbiased, will someone explain this to Chas?

Sure, I will.

Chas, Huggy74 is wrong. Hope this helps.

Is..is Huggy actually denying that 34/23.7 is not a ratio? Like..what?

Huggy, all this whining just makes you look like a sore loser.

Are atheists biased? Sure. Does that make you any less wrong? No.

(October 3, 2014 at 1:28 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Huggy, all this whining just makes you look like a sore loser.

Are atheists biased? Sure. Does that make you any less wrong? No.

I know your biased, not according to esquilax though.
not whining, i'm actually enjoying this...

---

(October 3, 2014 at 1:03 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Is..is Huggy actually denying that 34/23.7 is not a ratio? Like..what?

ok genius, ratio of what?

(October 3, 2014 at 1:36 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 3, 2014 at 1:28 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Huggy, all this whining just makes you look like a sore loser.

Are atheists biased? Sure. Does that make you any less wrong? No.

I know your biased, not according to esquilax though.
not whining, i'm actually enjoying this...

---

(October 3, 2014 at 1:03 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Is..is Huggy actually denying that 34/23.7 is not a ratio? Like..what?

ok genius, ratio of what?

Huggy...the ratio has the same units as yours...the only difference is that this one is right..

(October 3, 2014 at 11:54 am)Huggy74 Wrote: A quotient is the result of dividing 2 numbers, 34/23.7 is not a ratio, if you had been paying attention you'd know that the 34 refers to the length of the DNA and the 23.7 the width, the ratio would be 1.434.

Good, we agree that 34/23.7 is not the golden ratio.

Quote:Who said anything about ALL DATA, we were talking specifically MEASUREMENTS, Surgenator clearly asserted that there was newer data available and that the measurements from 1953 were not accurate, fine.

Upon further questioning about the methods for Measuring DNA he posts an article from 1953! Thereby contradicting himself.

No, I showed the original as the possible source of 34/21 ratio crap. Even though that paper measured 34/20 not 34/21. Thankfully, howstuffworks.com does quote their sources. And here it is.
http://milan.milanovic.org/math/english/...lden2.html
The author is mathematician not a biologist. He didn't do the measurement nor does he site where he got that value. My source was from a Molecular Biophysics of the Cell course from the University of Illinois.

Quote:You can have it one of two ways, either my measurements from 1953 were in fact correct, or he contradicted himself.

The 1953 measurement had a larger error. The newer measurements have smaller errors. The 1953 measurement is correct within its error. The newer measurements are correct within their error. Since the newer has a smaller error, they are more accurate. So if you want to be most accurate, you take the data that has the smallest error. Is this so fucking hard to understand?

(October 3, 2014 at 1:43 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(October 3, 2014 at 1:36 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I know your biased, not according to esquilax though.
not whining, i'm actually enjoying this...

---

ok genius, ratio of what?

Huggy...the ratio has the same units as yours...the only difference is that this one is right..

if you say it's a ratio, what is it the ratio of?

(October 3, 2014 at 1:56 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 3, 2014 at 1:43 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Huggy...the ratio has the same units as yours...the only difference is that this one is right..

if you say it's a ratio, what is it the ratio of?

It's the ratio of the pitch vs the width of DNA whcih is 34 angstroms vs 23.7 angstroms. An angstroms is 0.1 nanometer.

(October 3, 2014 at 1:56 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 3, 2014 at 1:43 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Huggy...the ratio has the same units as yours...the only difference is that this one is right..

if you say it's a ratio, what is it the ratio of?

What do you think a ratio is? The aspect ratio of my laptop screen is 16:10 or 16/10 or 8/5 or ...