(October 6, 2014 at 11:57 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 6, 2014 at 11:47 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Huggy, nobody denies the existence of the fibonacci sequence. We're denying all the unbelievable and ridiculous conlusions that you're drawing from it.

(October 6, 2014 at 11:51 am)Chuck Wrote: There is no such thing as fibonacci sequence, except as mental construct that so happen to seem to resemble to a large variation in degrees another mental construct - the numericalization of some cheery picked collections of measured traits found nature.

you guys seem to contradict one another...

We don't contradict each other. He says febonnaci sequence exists, I say yes, but only in a way that makes YOU wrong.

(October 6, 2014 at 11:56 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 6, 2014 at 11:45 am)rasetsu Wrote: Huggy, it's been proposed to you that 23.7 Å is an accurate measure of the width of the most common configuration of DNA in solution, B-DNA. Since the agreed pitch of the DNA helix is 34 Å, this would make the ratio of pitch to width far enough from Phi as to disqualify Phi as a reasonable approximation of its ratio. Wikipedia also notes that the major groove of DNA is 22 Å, and the minor groove is 12 Å. This ratio too does not in a reasonable sense approximate Phi. Thus the two ratios which in your initial figure showed both as being approximately Phi, the conclusion based upon the numbers that have been suggested as accurate is that the ratios given in your initial figure are inaccurate and that Phi is not obviously reflected in the dimensions of DNA.

Do you agree or disagree with any of this data or the conclusions formed based on that data?

I'll explain my position, but need you to clarify one thing, you never stated what the ratio of the pitch to the width is, (the reason for this whole debate) please make clarify, to make your position clear.

You appear to think that a ratio can only be represented in one way - that is simply not true.

27:21 is a ratio, 27.2/20.9 is a ratio.

(October 6, 2014 at 12:01 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(October 6, 2014 at 11:56 am)Huggy74 Wrote: I'll explain my position, but need you to clarify one thing, you never stated what the ratio of the pitch to the width is, (the reason for this whole debate) please make clarify, to make your position clear.

Surgenator claims the ratio is 34/23.7, or in decimal, 1.4346. I make no claim specifically other than as noted that the width of DNA has been given as multiple values in the literature.

Now, get on with it.

Already distancing yourself I see.

Correct, Surgenator claimed the ratio 34/23.7, which I said that the ratio of those numbers was 1.434 and that 34/23.7 was not a ratio.

(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.

Which ironically made me the laughing stock of the atheist forums, but it seems you just said the exact same thing I've been saying to all you Muppets.

---

(October 6, 2014 at 12:03 pm)Chas Wrote:

(October 6, 2014 at 11:56 am)Huggy74 Wrote: I'll explain my position, but need you to clarify one thing, you never stated what the ratio of the pitch to the width is, (the reason for this whole debate) please make clarify, to make your position clear.

You appear to think that a ratio can only be represented in one way - that is simply not true.

27:21 is a ratio, 27.2/20.9 is a ratio.

First of all, I specified taking the length and dividing it by the width.

(October 6, 2014 at 11:46 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 6, 2014 at 11:40 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: You see, that'd also be a silly example because the lunar landings are events that actually happened, and can be demonstrated to have happened.

Nothing you've ever written on numerology could be said to be even remotely similar to this.

ALLAH!

Not talking a bout numerology, we're talking about the fibonacci sequence, big difference. What exactly are you saying here? Are you saying you are denying it's existence?

Denying what? The 'existence' of the sequence? It's numerology by anyone standards but I aknowledge that people have attributed meaning to something that is by itself meaningless.

And not believing your attribution of somesort of value to that set of numbers is nothing like denying moon landings or the holocaust.

(October 6, 2014 at 12:03 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(October 6, 2014 at 11:57 am)Huggy74 Wrote: you guys seem to contradict one another...

We don't contradict each other. He says febonnaci sequence exists, I say yes, but only in a way that makes YOU wrong.

There is no such thing as fibonacci sequence, - Chuck

weird way of agreeing...

Again, Huggy falls back on 'gotcha' misconstrued semantic horseshit instead of looking at the substance. Pretty typical.

(October 6, 2014 at 12:16 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 6, 2014 at 12:01 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Surgenator claims the ratio is 34/23.7, or in decimal, 1.4346. I make no claim specifically other than as noted that the width of DNA has been given as multiple values in the literature.

Now, get on with it.

Already distancing yourself I see.

Correct, Surgenator claimed the ratio 34/23.7, which I said that the ratio of those numbers was 1.434 and that 34/23.7 was not a ratio.

The most common dimensions of DNA is 34/23.7 not 34/21, blockhead.

Quote:

(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.

Which ironically made me the laughing stock of the atheist forums, but it seems you just said the exact same thing I've been saying to all you Muppets.

For good reasons.

(October 6, 2014 at 12:16 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 6, 2014 at 12:01 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Surgenator claims the ratio is 34/23.7, or in decimal, 1.4346. I make no claim specifically other than as noted that the width of DNA has been given as multiple values in the literature.

Now, get on with it.

Already distancing yourself I see.

Correct, Surgenator claimed the ratio 34/23.7, which I said that the ratio of those numbers was 1.434 and that 34/23.7 was not a ratio.

And you were wrong on that count. A ratio can be expressed multiple ways, including 34/23.7. The reason nobody responded is because they couldn't believe that you were stupid enough to believe otherwise. And you still haven't responded to the main point. Here, I'll repeat it for you.

(October 6, 2014 at 11:45 am)rasetsu Wrote: Huggy, it's been proposed to you that 23.7 Å is an accurate measure of the width of the most common configuration of DNA in solution, B-DNA. Since the agreed pitch of the DNA helix is 34 Å, this would make the ratio of pitch to width far enough from Phi as to disqualify Phi as a reasonable approximation of its ratio. Wikipedia also notes that the major groove of DNA is 22 Å, and the minor groove is 12 Å. This ratio too does not in a reasonable sense approximate Phi. Thus the two ratios which in your initial figure showed both as being approximately Phi, the conclusion based upon the numbers that have been suggested as accurate is that the ratios given in your initial figure are inaccurate and that Phi is not obviously reflected in the dimensions of DNA.

Do you agree or disagree with any of this data or the conclusions formed based on that data?

Cue Huggy arguing about the meaning of words.....

(October 6, 2014 at 12:20 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: There is no such thing as fibonacci sequence, - Chuck

weird way of agreeing...

I'm sure there are much riper cherries to pick out of his post if you really tried.

Cherry ripe, cherry ripe,


Ripe I cry,
Full and fair ones
Come and buy.
Cherry ripe, cherry ripe,
Ripe I cry,
Full and fair ones


Come and buy.