"Bio-Chemistry" Scientists !!!... write about a "Hexal" !!!... "molecule" !!!...

with two(2) "Bases" !!!...

I have made a "Hexal-molecule" !!!...

with six(6) !!!... "similar" !!!... BUT "different" Bases !!!... ( to "each-other" ) !!!...

( for a "Hexal-D.N.A.-Helix !!!... )

It is "sad" !!!... BUT "NO" one !!!... takes My (THEORETICAL) "Molecules" serious !!!...

:-(

and !!!... "EVOLUTION" !!!... :

4 hours ago, Koni said:

"Bio-Chemistry" Scientists !!!... write about a "Hexal" !!!... "molecule" !!!...

with two(2) "Bases" !!!...

I have made a "Hexal-molecule" !!!...

with six(6) !!!... "similar" !!!... BUT "different" Bases !!!... ( to "each-other" ) !!!...

( for a "Hexal-D.N.A.-Helix !!!... )

It is "sad" !!!... BUT "NO" one !!!... takes My (THEORETICAL) "Molecules" serious !!!...

:-(

and !!!... "EVOLUTION" !!!... :

They may take your idea more serious if you lose all the fonts, italics, bolds and exclamation marks.

That said, have you synthesized any of the molecules in the lab? Or is this all on paper? Plastic?

I am "NOT" !!!... a "Bio-Chemistry" Science-tist !!!...

It is all on paper and Plastic !!!...

( It is more "Alien-DNA" !!!... )

BUT it is a probability !!!...

Edited May 29May 29 by Koni

3 hours ago, Koni said:

It is "sad" !!!... BUT "NO" one !!!... takes My (THEORETICAL) "Molecules" serious !!!...

Can you explain how your first diagram follows the normal rules of valency ?

Three atoms do not comprise a hexagon (your nitrogen structure)

Can you form a bond with a vertex? With three nitrogens, plus other atoms?

<<Three atoms do not comprise a hexagon (your nitrogen structure)>>

THIS is "NOT" !!!... My structure !!!...

( I "saw" it in the "Internet" !!! under the Name : "cyclic rosette structure" !!!... )

<< Can you explain how your first diagram follows the normal rules of valency ?>>

It seems to Me !!!... THAT the "valency" is o.k. on My "TRIPLE" & "HEXAL" Cyclic-Molecules !!!... ( ??? )

BUT "IF" !!!... I have made a "Mistake" !!!... "please" !!!... "correct" ME !!!...

"THANK You" !!!...

Kosta - GREECE

15 minutes ago, Koni said:

<<Three atoms do not comprise a hexagon (your nitrogen structure)>>

THIS is "NOT" !!!... My structure !!!...

( I "saw" it in the "Internet" !!! under the Name : "cyclic rosette structure" !!!... )

YOU said it was “hexal”

You also said you made it.

(I also see that your coloring is obscuring some double bonds, so my comment on that is moot)

(1) The ( DOUBLE / TRIPLE ) relationship !!!...

(2) The "TRIPLE-"Base" with three(3) kinds of "Molecular-Models" !!!...

(3) The ( 2:1 ) & ( 1:2 ) relationship !!!... and ( 1:5 ) & ( 2:4 ) & ( 3:3 ) !!!...

I do NOT "say" !!!... THAT there is a "TRIPLE-Base" and a "TRIPLE-Helix" on "Earth" !!!...

I say "only" !!!... THAT there is a THEORETICAL possibility !!!...

to exist a "TRIPLE-D.N.A." somewhere in the LARGE UNIVERCE on a "Planet with Life" !!!...

( I have "correct" !!!... My "Mistakes" of "valency" on the Plastic "space-filling" C.P.K. "Molecular-Models" !!! )

“D.N.A. Evolution”  is a "theoretical" approache for the possible forms of DNA that can exist in the Univerce as (possible) extraterestrial "Alien-Life" to search by "NASA").

Overview

Theory of  “DNA Evolution”

on Earth we have the "Double-Bases" ( G≡C ) and ( A=T ).

and on Earth exist in Natur a ( 2+1 ) DNA-Helix.

But with Biochemistry it was possible to made additional artificial synthetic "Double-Bases" (Hachimoji_DNA)

( “Evolvable-Life” has to be made with “weak” Hydrogen...Bonds, which can joint “together” easy and “separate” easy again, so that mistakes can occur !... )

 

The ( THEORETICAL ) proposal is to make a "real" TRIPLE-DNA-Helix with TRIPLE-DNA-Bases.

The point to try to make a "TRIPLE-D.N.A.-Base" is :

(1) First to "compare" the "DOUBLE-Helix" properties with the "TRIPLE-Helix",

and make conclusions about their "similarities" and their "differencies".

(2) IF You want to make from "small-inorganic-molecules" LIFE !,

You have to make it with a "TRIPLE-DNA-Helix,

So, THAT You can "prove" THAT it is "artificial-Life" made per "Intelligent-Design",

and "NOT" through "changes" on already "existing" Life !

(3) The more “Hydrogen≡Bonds“ of the „TRIPLE-Helix“ conclude to stroger Bonds between the three  „Bases“ because ( 3 * ≡ ) make nine(9) „Hydrogen-Bonds“, and the „TRIPLE-D.N.A.-Helix“ more “durable” to High Temperatures.

(4) The „TRIPLE-Helix“ can also be used to store data with more safety because it is NOT a product of Natur to interact with „Earth-Life“.

( on the Image You can "see" also the "EVOLUTION" from three(3) "identical" Bases

( FA≡FA≡FA≡FA ) = ( FA≡BC≡DE≡FA )

to three(3) "different" but "similar" Bases).

You can also “see” the ( 1:2 ) & ( 2:1 ) relationship “between” the three(3) “Bases” !, ( which complicates the simple ( 1:1 ) relationship of (m-RNA ≡ t-RNA) ! )

(Τhe big <problem> with the "TRIPLE-Helix" of "D.N.A." is that the "DOUBLE-Helix" can <unfold> "easily" its two(2) "Helices" and "open" !... so that the "proteins" can have "access" to <bind > on its "4-Bases" !... ) "while" the "TRIPLE-Helix" !... with the three(3) "Helices" !... "seems" like a "straight-stretched-stick" !... ( which does NOT <open> "easy" !... )

Besides (for six(6) “Bases”), the "TRIPLE-Helix" with ("two"-"triplets") of "Bases" ( 2*3=6 )!, can "easy" !... also be done with a "DOUBLE-Helix" with ("three"-"double") "Bases" ( 3*2=6 )!...

a (LA≡BC≡DE≡FG≡HI≡JK≡LA) “HEXAL-D.N.A.-Helix”, with 3 * two(2) “similar” Bases, the “one” with “Oxygen” (=O) and the “other” with “Nitrogen” (-NH2) : (LA≡BC≡DE≡FG≡HI≡JK≡LA ), is very difficult to make !, because if You make two(2) “Hexal-Bases”, they transform their “Bonds” to “each-other” very “easy” !...

 

 

 

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachimoji_DNA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid_analogue

External links

The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology (by Pier Luigi Luis

an "Imaginary" TRIPLE-Helix-"D.N.A."

5 hours ago, Koni said:

<< Can you explain how your first diagram follows the normal rules of valency ?>>

It seems to Me !!!... THAT the "valency" is o.k. on My "TRIPLE" & "HEXAL" Cyclic-Molecules !!!... ( ??? )

BUT "IF" !!!... I have made a "Mistake" !!!... "please" !!!... "correct" ME !!!...

I asked you to explain the valency, not tell me that it is 'OK'.

Specifically at these points indicated in the diagram you posted.

A What is type of bond does the broken line represent ?

B What is located at the triple junction ?

C Again what is located at the triple junction ?

D How are these nitrogens trivalent ?

Please use the quote function in future when responding to queries.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I asked you to explain the valency, not tell me that it is 'OK'.

Specifically at these points indicated in the diagram you posted.

A What is type of bond does the broken line represent ?

B What is located at the triple junction ?

C Again what is located at the triple junction ?

D How are these nitrogens trivalent ?

Please use the quote function in future when responding to queries.

I assume the dashed lines are H bonds.

But it's all gobbledegook and this poster has started at least 2 previous threads on this topic over the years, none of which seem to make much sense. All of them seem to be about this notion of a triple helix, which makes little sense to me as the whole idea of the double one is to unzip it to make copies, so what would be the use of a 3rd strand?

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I asked you to explain the valency, not tell me that it is 'OK'.

Specifically at these points indicated in the diagram you posted.

A What is type of bond does the broken line represent ?

B What is located at the triple junction ?

C Again what is located at the triple junction ?

D How are these nitrogens trivalent ?

Please use the quote function in future when responding to queries.

I told You !!!... THAT these two(2) "Molecules" !!!... are NOT "mine" !!!...

BUT I found them in the "Internet" !!!...

(A) What is type of bond does the broken line represent ? = "Hydrogen-Bonds" : (=O ... H-) !!!...

(B) What is located at the triple junction ? and (C) Again what is located at the triple junction ? and (D) How are these nitrogens trivalent ? = These are NOT BLUE-Nitrogens !!!... BUT are BLACK-Carbons !!!... atoms !!!...

2 hours ago, Koni said:

I told You !!!... THAT these two(2) "Molecules" !!!... are NOT "mine" !!!...

BUT I found them in the "Internet" !!!...

So you posted them without attribution, or noting at the outset that it isn’t your work.

You need to 1) provide a link to the source, 2) do a lot more to explain what your own drawings represent, and 3) not post DNA stuff here, since you have a thread for that

3 hours ago, Koni said:

Why are you posting an image of melamine cyanurate?

You call this a "cyclic" structure, whereas it's an extensive two-dimensional network. However, by replacing all the hydrogen atoms that are not indicated to be hydrogen-bonded in the above diagram (that's two hydrogens on the melamine and one hydrogen on the cyanuric acid) with methyl groups, the resulting complex should be cyclic. However, it may be possible by using chiral substituents instead of methyl groups to obtain a helical structure.

Edited May 30May 30 by KJW

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

I assume the dashed lines are H bonds.

But it's all gobbledegook and this poster has started at least 2 previous threads on this topic over the years, none of which seem to make much sense. All of them seem to be about this notion of a triple helix, which makes little sense to me as the whole idea of the double one is to unzip it to make copies, so what would be the use of a 3rd strand?

So did I but I wanted to check for the reasons below, which I'm sure you appreciate.

4 hours ago, Koni said:

I told You !!!... THAT these two(2) "Molecules" !!!... are NOT "mine" !!!...

BUT I found them in the "Internet" !!!...

(A) What is type of bond does the broken line represent ? = "Hydrogen-Bonds" : (=O ... H-) !!!...

(B) What is located at the triple junction ? and (C) Again what is located at the triple junction ? and (D) How are these nitrogens trivalent ? = These are NOT BLUE-Nitrogens !!!... BUT are BLACK-Carbons !!!... atoms !!!...

If you don't understand them or want to say anything about them why did you post them?

A Do you know what a hydrogen bon is and why it is not part of valency calculations ?

B & C Yes if you are using the conventions that carbons are not explicitly labelled. However that does not explain why site B is trivalent and site C is quadrivalent.

D on nitrogen is allegedly divalent and the other allegedly trivalent and connected to another allegedly trivalent carbon.

As noted by exchemist, a load of gobbledegook.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

So did I but I wanted to check for the reasons below, which I'm sure you appreciate.

If you don't understand them or want to say anything about them why did you post them?

A Do you know what a hydrogen bon is and why it is not part of valency calculations ?

B & C Yes if you are using the conventions that carbons are not explicitly labelled. However that does not explain why site B is trivalent and site C is quadrivalent.

D on nitrogen is allegedly divalent and the other allegedly trivalent and connected to another allegedly trivalent carbon.

As noted by exchemist, a load of gobbledegook.

"IF" one "Planet" has "more" "Pyrene"-(C16H10)-"molecules" !!!... than "Benzol"-(C6H6)-"molecules" !!!... it will probably make "Life" from "them" !!!...

and "IF" the "enviroment" is Like "boiling-water" !!!... the nine(9) "Hydrogen(≡)Bonds" of a "TRIPLE-Helix" !!!... are "better" !!!... from the three(3) "Hydrogen(≡)Bonds" of a "DOUBLE-Helix" !!!...

So you don't understand valency.

So why don't you just ask ?

1 hour ago, studiot said:

So you don't understand valency.

So why don't you just ask ?

Valency is the number of atoms of a particular element that is combined with one atom of another element to form a molecule.

So ???... WHAT ???...

WHERE ???... Is the "Mistake" ???... ( Image )

Edited May 30May 30 by Koni

( The "correlation" to "each-other" !!!... )

Edited May 31May 31 by Koni

"COLOR-Codet-(Circles) =

YELLOW = (1-Hydrogen)

BLUE = (2-Hydrogens)

YELLOWGREEN = YELLOW and BLUE (togehter)

RED= (1-Hydrogen)

GREEN = (2-Hydrogens)

PURPLE= RED and GREEN (togehter)

Edited May 31May 31 by Koni

14 hours ago, KJW said:

Why are you posting an image of melamine cyanurate?

You call this a "cyclic" structure, whereas it's an extensive two-dimensional network. However, by replacing all the hydrogen atoms that are not indicated to be hydrogen-bonded in the above diagram (that's two hydrogens on the melamine and one hydrogen on the cyanuric acid) with methyl groups, the resulting complex should be cyclic. However, it may be possible by using chiral substituents instead of methyl groups to obtain a helical structure.

Ah so that's what it is. Well done. I didn't recognise it.

Our friend seems preoccupied by the fact that this 2D array has hexagonal symmetry, for some reason.

There may be a very confused link to this kind of thing, which I found on a quick internet search: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-57059-3. But what he says is so garbled and uncommunicative that it is hard to tell.

Edited May 31May 31 by exchemist

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-57059-3

Thanks. +1

I have an interest in supramolecular chemistry, in particular, host-guest chemistry.

The Three(3) "Images" :

(1) = "tautomerism" on the "TRIPLE-Bases" !!!...

(2) and (3) = "Hexal" & "Triple" & "Double" view from the "3-Helices" !!!...

four(4) "Images" :

<< From the "starting" IDEA !!!... ( Images 1 & 2 ) !!!...

until the "final" IDEA !!!... ( Images 3 & 4 ) !!!...

it took Me !!!... Six(6) Years !!!... of trying with "Mistakes" !!!... >>

Moderator Note

When I asked you to explain your drawings, I was hoping for labeling, not a contradictory color-code legend. (hydrogen is yellow, but also red? Be consistent) Using copyrighted images in them doesn’t clear anything up, and is also a rules violation (which requires removal) Not providing a link to where you got the images that aren’t yours is another.

Your drawings may be clear to you, but you are falling woefully short of explaining them to others. That might be one reason that nobody “takes it serious”