(October 6, 2014 at 12:29 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

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

I was not wrong, the whole point was about how you could take the dimensions of DNA, divide them together and get the golden ratio.
In my case the numbers were 34 and 21 which when divided together comes out as the ratio of 1.61, I made this clear from the beginning, any other "expression" of a ratio isn't relevant.

Further more a ratio can be expressed also as a fraction if you are saying that 34/23.7 is a fraction, explain the decimal point?

otherwise a ":" between the numbers is the proper way of displaying a ratio.

(October 6, 2014 at 12:29 pm)rasetsu 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?

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

I Disagree,

Remember you accusing me of cherry picking?

http://biowiki.ucdavis.edu/Genetics/Unit...orm_of_DNA

Quote:Dimensions of B-form (the most common) of DNA

0.34 nm between bp, 3.4 nm per turn, about 10 bp per turn
1.9 nm (about 2.0 nm or 20 Angstroms) in diameter

Surgenators, own link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Quote:DNA is a long polymer made from repeating units called nucleotides.[3][4][5] DNA was first identified and isolated by Friedrich Miescher and the double helix structure of DNA was first discovered by James Watson and Francis Crick, using experimental data collected by Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins. The structure of DNA of all species comprises two helical chains each coiled round the same axis, and each with a pitch of 34 ångströms (3.4 nanometres) and a radius of 10 ångströms (1.0 nanometres).

These two sources agree that the width is 20 Å, making my original number of 21 alot closer than your 23.7, which you claim to be the most common.

---

(October 6, 2014 at 12:44 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(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.

I don't know how I can misconstrue the phrase "There is no such thing as fibonacci sequence" as meaning he doesn't believe the fibonacci sequence exists.
I think anyone familiar with the English language would come to the same conclusion.

(October 6, 2014 at 1:14 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Further more a ratio can be expressed also as a fraction if you are saying that 34/23.7 is a fraction, explain the decimal point?

Huggy will be here all week, ladies and gentlemen! Try the veal.

(October 6, 2014 at 1:14 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: These two sources agree that the width is 20 Å, making my original number of 21 alot closer than your 23.7, which you claim to be the most common.

34/20 is still not close enough to Phi for the claim that Phi is reflected in the DNA. Regardless, it matters not why you chose the width of 21 Å as typical of the width of DNA, what matters is why you chose to throw out all the other measurements of the width which disagree with your 21 Å figure. If you don't have a rational reason for "discarding" those other data points, that makes you a cherry picker.

(Incidentally, I never claimed that 23.7 Å was the most common measurement. You yourself noted that I did not, and now you're falsely accusing me of having done so.)

(October 6, 2014 at 1:23 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(October 6, 2014 at 1:14 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Further more a ratio can be expressed also as a fraction if you are saying that 34/23.7 is a fraction, explain the decimal point?

Huggy will be here all week, ladies and gentlemen! Try the veal.

you're more than welcome to answer the question..

I honestly think Huggy might have a visual problem. He doesn't seem to be able to see the posts that directly answer his questions. Is that a prerequisite for LASIK?

(October 6, 2014 at 2:03 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I honestly think Huggy might have a visual problem. He doesn't seem to be able to see the posts that directly answer his questions. Is that a prerequisite for LASIK?

Just answer this simple question.

Is 34/23.7 a fraction?

Yes you unbelievable monkey.

(October 6, 2014 at 2:06 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(October 6, 2014 at 2:05 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Just answer this simple question.

Is 34/23.7 a fraction?

Yes you unbelievable monkey.

LOL, you moron...

I'll let yahoo answers answer this one for you.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...656AATgFGx

Quote:Q: Can you have a decimal in a fraction?

A: no. a decimal represents a fraction

seems like I have a new sig, thanks for the laugh.

*Rubs his temples*

(October 6, 2014 at 2:18 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: *Rubs his temples*

Silence is golden..