1 hour ago, Koni said:

THANK You !!!... for asking Me !!!...

(1) The "Hydrogen-Bonds" inside a "TRIPLE-Base" !!!... have the same function as inside a "DOUBLE-Base" !!!...

(2) The matter is on the three-"3" !!!... ( "Hydrogen-connected" ) "Bases" !!!...

(3) Their ( 2:1 ) and ( 1:2 ) relationship ( to "each-other" ) !!!...

(4) which could make two(2) "different" !!!... "Moleculare-Pathways" : <one> ( 2:1 ) - ( r-RNA/t-RNA) !!!... and <one> ( 1:2 ) - ( r-RNA/t-RNA) !!!... ( with two(2) !!!... "different" !!!... "Ribosomes" !!!... ( perhaps ) !!!... )

(5) which can lead to "different-Amino-acids" and "Proteins" ( perhaps ) !!!...

(6) and as You can "see" !!!... ( in the Image "P3270213 3.JPG ) ... THERE is "only" !!!... "ONE" way !!!... THAT the three(3)-"D.N.A."-"Bases" !!!... can be "connected" together !!!...

(7) This WAS the "difficult" !!!... to make a "TRIPLE-Base" !!!... "suitable" !!!... for a "TRIPLE-"D.N.A."-Helix" !!!...

(8) The "reason" for the "nead" of a "TRIPLE-Helix" !!!... can be on the "more" existing Pyrene( C16H10) molecules !!!... ( as Benzene( C6H6) molecules) !!!...

(9) and !!!... the "very" HOT !!!... "Enviroment" of a "Planet with Life" !!!...

(10) because !!!... : ( 3*3 ) = "nine(9)" !!!... "Hydrogen-Bonds" !!!... are "better" !!!... THAN "only" three(3) !!!... "Hydrogen-Bonds" !!!...

(11) and to "answer" to Your "Last" (probably) "Question" : "WHY" ???... "would" ???... "Life" !!!... "do" THIS !!!...

the "answer" is !!!... "because" LIFE "try" !!!... "everything" !!!... every "possiblity" !!!...

THANK You !!!...

Kosta - GREECE

and !!!... "IF" !!!... "Biochemistry-Scientists" !!!... make My "TRIPLE-Base" !!!... and My "TRIPLE-D.N.A."-Helix" !!!...

THEN !!!... :

(1) We can "compare" together !!!... our "Double-Helix" !!!... with mine "Triple-Helix" !!!...

(2) "IF" we make an "artificial-Cell" !!!... we can make it with My "TRIPLE-Helix" !!!... to "prove" THAT it WAS made by "Intelligent-Desing" !!!... ( and "NOT" !!!... on "existing-Life" !!!... )

(3) The "TRIPLE-Helix" !!!... can be "used" to "store" inside "Codet-DATA" !!!... "better" !!!...

"because" is is "NOT" LIFE from "our" Earth !!!... ( and "our" !!!... "Proteins-Enzymes" !!!... "cannot" !!!... "connect" !!!... (easily) !!!... to the three(3) "artificial-Bases" !!!... )

THANK You !!!...

Kosta - GREECE

or ???... I can be "wrong" !!!... ( by some "aspects" !!!... )

( The ( Cyclic-Melamine cyanurate ) "6-Bases" Molecule !!!... as "Base" for My "Hexal-Bases" !!!... :

"each" ONE !!!... ( of My "Six(6) !!!... ) "Hexal-Bases" !!!... has the INFORMATION !!!... ( of the "other" five(5) "D.N.A."-Bases" !!!... )

"because" !!!... THERE is "only" !!!... "ONE" way !!!... THAT My Six(6)-"D.N.A."-"Bases" !!!... can be "connected" together !!!... ( Like a "Puzzle" !!!... )

Edited June 2Jun 2 by Koni

THERE is "only" !!!... "ONE" way !!!... THAT My Three(3)-"D.N.A."-"Bases" !!!... can be "connected" together !!!... ( Like a "Puzzle" !!!... )

Edited June 2Jun 2 by Koni

and !!!... ( for "Joke" !!!... ) "THESE" could "be" !!!... the three(3) !!!... "Aliens-D.N.A." !!!...

🙃😃🫠

Edited June 2Jun 2 by Koni

3 hours ago, Koni said:

and !!!... ( for "Joke" !!!... ) "THESE" could "be" !!!... the three(3) !!!... "Aliens-D.N.A." !!!...

🙃😃🫠,

"DOUBLE" & "TRIPLE" & HEXAL" !!!... "D.N.A." !!!... :

8 hours ago, Koni said:

(2) The matter is on the three-"3" !!!... ( "Hydrogen-connected" ) "Bases" !!!...

Yes I fully understand that, but you can't just slap on an extra strand (if 3 then why not 4, 5......?) without consequences.

I'm sorry to report that chemical bonding theory is not yet sufficiently advanced to predict those consequences.

Even with your solid model colour diagrams that theory is far behind molecular orbital theory, which itself is still in its infancy.

In atomic terms we can only solve the Wave equation for Hydrogen.

So what we do for more complicated atoms is to use the Hydrogen solution orbital structure and try to modify it for more complicated atoms.

This works reasonable well for the lightest elements ( s and p orbitals) but starts to go awry when d, f etc orbital are brought into play and becomes quite unmanageable for the most complicated atoms.

For bonding the first attempts were to combine the modified hydrogen orbitals for the bonding atoms.

This is called the Linear Combination of Atomic Orbitals method (LCAO).

Subsequently the idea was to define orbitals for the whole molecule rather than for the participating atoms.

These are called molecular orbitals and again they work well for simple molecules and have been called sigma and pi bonds.

However I am not aware of any extension to superlarge molecules such as RNA etc.

This follows the same pattern as for atomic orbitals but lagging by half a century.

Perhaps one day Chemists will be able to calculate these things.

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yes I fully understand that, but you can't just slap on an extra strand (if 3 then why not 4, 5......?) without consequences.

I'm sorry to report that chemical bonding theory is not yet sufficiently advanced to predict those consequences.

Even with your solid model colour diagrams that theory is far behind molecular orbital theory, which itself is still in its infancy.

In atomic terms we can only solve the Wave equation for Hydrogen.

So what we do for more complicated atoms is to use the Hydrogen solution orbital structure and try to modify it for more complicated atoms.

This works reasonable well for the lightest elements ( s and p orbitals) but starts to go awry when d, f etc orbital are brought into play and becomes quite unmanageable for the most complicated atoms.

For bonding the first attempts were to combine the modified hydrogen orbitals for the bonding atoms.

This is called the Linear Combination of Atomic Orbitals method (LCAO).

Subsequently the idea was to define orbitals for the whole molecule rather than for the participating atoms.

These are called molecular orbitals and again they work well for simple molecules and have been called sigma and pi bonds.

However I am not aware of any extension to superlarge molecules such as RNA etc.

This follows the same pattern as for atomic orbitals but lagging by half a century.

Perhaps one day Chemists will be able to calculate these things.

THANK You (again) !!!... "very-very" much !!!... for Your kind "Support" !!!...

EXCEPT "Biology" !!!... ( by which I have read about ( 100-Biology-Books ) !!!... ( in Six(6) Years !!!... )

I know a (little) about "Chemistry" and { s, p, d , f } "Orbitals" !!!...

BUT I still "want" to read "more" !!!... ( about the thinks You are "writing" !!!... )

Have You ( "please" ) !!!... a GOOD "Chemistry-Book" !!!... THAT I can buy ???... ( from "Amazon" ) ???...

THANK You (again) !!!...

Kosta - GREECE

6 minutes ago, Koni said:

THANK You (again) !!!... "very-very" much !!!... for Your kind "Support" !!!...

EXCEPT "Biology" !!!... ( by which I have read about ( 100-Biology-Books ) !!!... ( in Six(6) Years !!!... )

I know a (little) about "Chemistry" and { s, p, d , f } "Orbitals" !!!...

BUT I still "want" to read "more" !!!... ( about the thinks You are "writing" !!!... )

Have You ( "please" ) !!!... a GOOD "Chemistry-Book" !!!... THAT I can buy ???... ( from "Amazon" ) ???...

THANK You (again) !!!...

Kosta - GREECE

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/31189/what-is-spdf-configuration

Edited June 2Jun 2 by Koni

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Yes I fully understand that, but you can't just slap on an extra strand (if 3 then why not 4, 5......?) without consequences.

I'm sorry to report that chemical bonding theory is not yet sufficiently advanced to predict those consequences.

Even with your solid model colour diagrams that theory is far behind molecular orbital theory, which itself is still in its infancy.

In atomic terms we can only solve the Wave equation for Hydrogen.

So what we do for more complicated atoms is to use the Hydrogen solution orbital structure and try to modify it for more complicated atoms.

This works reasonable well for the lightest elements ( s and p orbitals) but starts to go awry when d, f etc orbital are brought into play and becomes quite unmanageable for the most complicated atoms.

For bonding the first attempts were to combine the modified hydrogen orbitals for the bonding atoms.

This is called the Linear Combination of Atomic Orbitals method (LCAO).

Subsequently the idea was to define orbitals for the whole molecule rather than for the participating atoms.

These are called molecular orbitals and again they work well for simple molecules and have been called sigma and pi bonds.

However I am not aware of any extension to superlarge molecules such as RNA etc.

This follows the same pattern as for atomic orbitals but lagging by half a century.

Perhaps one day Chemists will be able to calculate these things.

4 hours ago, Koni said:

THANK You (again) !!!... "very-very" much !!!... for Your kind "Support" !!!...

EXCEPT "Biology" !!!... ( by which I have read about ( 100-Biology-Books ) !!!... ( in Six(6) Years !!!... )

I know a (little) about "Chemistry" and { s, p, d , f } "Orbitals" !!!...

BUT I still "want" to read "more" !!!... ( about the thinks You are "writing" !!!... )

Have You ( "please" ) !!!... a GOOD "Chemistry-Book" !!!... THAT I can buy ???... ( from "Amazon" ) ???...

THANK You (again) !!!...

Kosta - GREECE

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/31189/what-is-spdf-configuration

4 hours ago, Koni said:

THANK You (again) !!!... "very-very" much !!!... for Your kind "Support" !!!...

EXCEPT "Biology" !!!... ( by which I have read about ( 100-Biology-Books ) !!!... ( in Six(6) Years !!!... )

I know a (little) about "Chemistry" and { s, p, d , f } "Orbitals" !!!...

BUT I still "want" to read "more" !!!... ( about the thinks You are "writing" !!!... )

Have You ( "please" ) !!!... a GOOD "Chemistry-Book" !!!... THAT I can buy ???... ( from "Amazon" ) ???...

THANK You (again) !!!...

Kosta - GREECE

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/31189/what-is-spdf-configuration

4 hours ago, Koni said:

THANK You (again) !!!... "very-very" much !!!... for Your kind "Support" !!!...

EXCEPT "Biology" !!!... ( by which I have read about ( 100-Biology-Books ) !!!... ( in Six(6) Years !!!... )

I know a (little) about "Chemistry" and { s, p, d , f } "Orbitals" !!!...

BUT I still "want" to read "more" !!!... ( about the thinks You are "writing" !!!... )

Have You ( "please" ) !!!... a GOOD "Chemistry-Book" !!!... THAT I can buy ???... ( from "Amazon" ) ???...

THANK You (again) !!!...

Kosta - GREECE

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/31189/what-is-spdf-configuration

4 hours ago, Koni said:

THANK You (again) !!!... "very-very" much !!!... for Your kind "Support" !!!...

EXCEPT "Biology" !!!... ( by which I have read about ( 100-Biology-Books ) !!!... ( in Six(6) Years !!!... )

I know a (little) about "Chemistry" and { s, p, d , f } "Orbitals" !!!...

BUT I still "want" to read "more" !!!... ( about the thinks You are "writing" !!!... )

Have You ( "please" ) !!!... a GOOD "Chemistry-Book" !!!... THAT I can buy ???... ( from "Amazon" ) ???...

THANK You (again) !!!...

Kosta - GREECE

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/31189/what-is-spdf-configuration

<< However I am not aware of any extension to superlarge molecules such as RNA etc.>> ΤΗΕΝ !!!... How ???... Do ???... "BIO-Chemistry-Scientist" ???... "calculate" ???... with "Computer-Software" ???... the "Structures" of the "Proteins" !!!...

If you are any good with spoken English

~This 8 minute video lecture about 'supramolecule chemistry' may be of interest, especially their first example.

Otherwise

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

Supramolecular chemical biology:...

Supramolecular chemical biology: designed receptors and d...

Supramolecular chemistry focuses on the study of species joined by non-covalent interactions, and therefore on dynamic and relatively ill-defined structures. Despite being a well-developed field, i...

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

If you are any good with spoken English

~This 8 minute video lecture about 'supramolecule chemistry' may be of interest, especially their first example.

Otherwise

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

Supramolecular chemical biology:...

Supramolecular chemical biology: designed receptors and d...

Supramolecular chemistry focuses on the study of species joined by non-covalent interactions, and therefore on dynamic and relatively ill-defined structures. Despite being a well-developed field, i...

THANK You !!!... very much for the Video-Lesson !!!... of "Supra-molecular-Chemistry" !!!...

Do You know ???... "someone" ???... "Bio-chemist" ???... Who ???... "would" try !!!... to make My "DNA-Molecules" ???...

( My "Dream" is !!!... of an "ALL-Word-Programm-Experiment" !!!... to make a "Living-Cell" !!!... from "simple-molecules" !!!... )

and my thought is !!!... THAT "IF" we can build a "laboratory" without "microbes" !!!... We would succeed!!!...

because it is very sad !!!... THAT 99% of 8.500.000.000 Humans !!!... stil "think" !!!... THAT the Univerce WAS made by "Gods" !!!...

"IF" a 🧬"TRIPLE-Chromosome" !!!... splits in three(3) 🧬🧬🧬"Chromosomes" !!!...

"THEN" a 🦠 "Cell" !!!... could split in three(3) 🦠🦠🦠"Cells" !!!...

"IF" a 🧬"HEXAL-Chromosome" !!!... splits in six(6) 🧬🧬🧬🧬🧬🧬"Chromosomes" !!!...

"THEN" a 🦠"Cell" !!!... could split in six(6) 🦠🦠🦠🦠🦠🦠"Cells" !!!...

THIS would be !!!... "rapid-Evolution" !!!...

Until !!!... We "NOT" try !!!... "EXO-Biology" Molecules !!!... of our "Imagination" !!!...

We cannot "say" !!!... "something" about OUR "Life" !!!...

( as "example" ) the two(2) !!!... "different-Amino-Acids" !!!... ( in the [ Image ] !!!... )

Edited June 2Jun 2 by Koni

For the love of...could you please use standard English syntax, case and punctuation so that everyone may follow what you're saying? Your "style" is beyond annoying and just rude.

( C≡C' ) !!!... The [START> !!!... of "Life" !!!... ( from the "Cytosine" Base ) !!!... = (C4N3O1H4) ≡ (C4N3O1H6)

19 minutes ago, TheVat said:

For the love of...could you please use standard English syntax, case and punctuation so that everyone may follow what you're saying? Your "style" is beyond annoying and just rude.

Sorry !!!... But "THIS" is My "personal" !!!... "writing-styl" !!!... and I "LOVE" it !!!...

Edited June 2Jun 2 by Koni

40 minutes ago, Koni said:

Sorry !!!... But "THIS" is My "personal" !!!... "writing-styl" !!!... and I "LOVE" it !!!...

Do you write this way in Greek, or just English?

"D.N.A."-Bases !!!... and "Amino-Acids-Code" !!!... :

"EVOLUTION" !!!... is for "Followers" !!!... ( and "NOT" !!!... for "Traditional-people" !!!... )

"so" !!!... IF "YOU" !!!...the "Gods" of OLYMPUS !!!... you "prefer" to "deal" with my "graphic character" !!!...

and to "underestimate" the "content" of my "words" for my "DNA"-Bases !!!...

so let's be it !!!... IT DOESN'T "bother" Me !!!... because !!!... I DON'T "CARE" !!!...

Edited June 2Jun 2 by Koni

"D.N.A." !!!... makes three(3) jobes !!!... :

(1) it stores "Information" !!!...

(2) it makes "copies" !!!...

(3) it "copy" itself !!!...

The "FIRST" !!!... The "SECOND" !!!... and The "THIRD" !!!... "IDEA" !!!... :

"reverse" EVOLUTION : 🫠😃😉

.

Edited June 3Jun 3 by Koni

It’s getting very hard to detect any meaning in this thread.

16 hours ago, Koni said:

Have You ( "please" ) !!!... a GOOD "Chemistry-Book" !!!... THAT I can buy ???... ( from "Amazon" ) ???...

THANK You (again) !!!...

Excerpt from The New Chemistry - Edited by Nina Hall - Cambridge University Press - p360, the chapter on Supramolecules.

It might be said that Physics is a quest to understand the Universe and Biology is a quest to understand Life. For any Scientist engaged in the transformation of matter, meanwhile, there are no preordained goals. Chemistry as a whole is perhaps unique in that it is able, indeed it is compelled, to set its own goals.

Whilst I think that Mathematics is in the same boat is Chemistry as regards goal setting both are very broad based disciplines that feed into other areas.

A small note about Supramolecules.

The largest molecules by far are those formed as lumps of metal and due to metallic bonding.

DNA and the like, although much larger than oxygen or nitrogen, are still in the province of the electron or X-ray microscope, whereas you can (and do) hold a lump of metal inyour hand and look at it.

Metallic bonding has been traditionally largely treated as a separate area in Chemistry, that of Metallurgy.

This view is now changing ( The chapter - What is a Metal - in the book referenced above is interesting is this respect.

However that side of Chemistry, along with sevaral other areas is of little interest to you.

Accordingly I have assembled some books at various levels from very basic to advanced that provide a wide chemical background to your interest in Biology.

Some may be available in Translation.

They are all modern or have modern editions.

Some are much larger than others.

Edited June 3Jun 3 by studiot

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

It’s getting very hard to detect any meaning in this thread.

FIRST !!!... it WAS "only" a "Joke" !!!... about the "reverce-Evolution" !!!...

and with My [ Picture ] You can "see" !!!...

THAT the "Chimpanzees" !!!... ( "OUR" !!!... - "Evolutionary-Cousins" ) !!!...

should have !!!... "more" D.N.A. !!!... and "more" children !!!... from "US !!!... ( "today" ) !!!...

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Whilst I think that Mathematics is in the same boat is Chemistry as regards goal setting both are very broad based disciplines that feed into other areas.

A small note about Supramolecules.

The largest molecules by far are those formed as lumps of metal and due to metallic bonding.

DNA and the like, although much larger than oxygen or nitrogen, are still in the province of the electron or X-ray microscope, whereas you can (and do) hold a lump of metal inyour hand and look at it.

Metallic bonding has been traditionally largely treated as a separate area in Chemistry, that of Metallurgy.

This view is now changing ( The chapter - What is a Metal - in the book referenced above is interesting is this respect.

However that side of Chemistry, along with sevaral other areas is of little interest to you.

Accordingly I have assembled some books at various levels from very basic to advanced that provide a wide chemical background to your interest in Biology.

Some may be available in Translation.

They are all modern or have modern editions.

Some are much larger than others.

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Whilst I think that Mathematics is in the same boat is Chemistry as regards goal setting both are very broad based disciplines that feed into other areas.

A small note about Supramolecules.

The largest molecules by far are those formed as lumps of metal and due to metallic bonding.

DNA and the like, although much larger than oxygen or nitrogen, are still in the province of the electron or X-ray microscope, whereas you can (and do) hold a lump of metal inyour hand and look at it.

Metallic bonding has been traditionally largely treated as a separate area in Chemistry, that of Metallurgy.

This view is now changing ( The chapter - What is a Metal - in the book referenced above is interesting is this respect.

However that side of Chemistry, along with sevaral other areas is of little interest to you.

Accordingly I have assembled some books at various levels from very basic to advanced that provide a wide chemical background to your interest in Biology.

Some may be available in Translation.

They are all modern or have modern editions.

Some are much larger than others.

It’s getting very hard to detect any meaning in this thread.

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

Whilst I think that Mathematics is in the same boat is Chemistry as regards goal setting both are very broad based disciplines that feed into other areas.

A small note about Supramolecules.

The largest molecules by far are those formed as lumps of metal and due to metallic bonding.

DNA and the like, although much larger than oxygen or nitrogen, are still in the province of the electron or X-ray microscope, whereas you can (and do) hold a lump of metal inyour hand and look at it.

Metallic bonding has been traditionally largely treated as a separate area in Chemistry, that of Metallurgy.

This view is now changing ( The chapter - What is a Metal - in the book referenced above is interesting is this respect.

However that side of Chemistry, along with sevaral other areas is of little interest to you.

Accordingly I have assembled some books at various levels from very basic to advanced that provide a wide chemical background to your interest in Biology.

Some may be available in Translation.

They are all modern or have modern editions.

Some are much larger than others.

"THANK You" !!!... "YOU" !!!...

You "take" me "SERIOUSLY" !!!...

( BUT "others" !!!... "NOT" !!!... ) and THIS !!!... is "sad" !!!...☹️

Edited June 3Jun 3 by Koni

Just now, Koni said:

"THANK You" !!!... "YOU" !!!...

You "take" me "SERIOUSLY" !!!...

( BUT "others" !!!... "NOT" !!!... ) and THIS !!!... is "sad" !!!...☹️

I know that the Greeks invented Theatre, but there is only a minute amount of use for it in serious Science.

I also understand your three-way idea though I am no biologist and you haven't answered exchemist's question about of what relevance is this to biology and DNA as we know it.

Nor do I think Biology is anywhere near advanced enough to implement it.

Your proposals with the melamine and cyanuric acid complex is at the very forefront of current capability and research, but it is much simpler (for most) to use simplified diagrams to explain what is going on.

Workers are only just doing much simpler tasks with this (p 334 - 337 of The New Chemistry)

33 minutes ago, studiot said:

I know that the Greeks invented Theatre, but there is only a minute amount of use for it in serious Science.

I also understand your three-way idea though I am no biologist and you haven't answered exchemist's question about of what relevance is this to biology and DNA as we know it.

Nor do I think Biology is anywhere near advanced enough to implement it.

Your proposals with the melamine and cyanuric acid complex is at the very forefront of current capability and research, but it is much simpler (for most) to use simplified diagrams to explain what is going on.

Workers are only just doing much simpler tasks with this (p 334 - 337 of The New Chemistry)

<< and you haven't answered exchemist's question about of what relevance is this to Biology and DNA as we know it. >>

Exactly "THAT" !!!... "as we know it" !!!...

My two(2) "D.N.A."-"Molecules" !!!... have to do !!!... with the "Univerce" - "EXO-Biology" !!!...

and as "D.N.A.-"Bases"-Molecules !!!... THEY have to do a "lot" !!!... with "Biology" !!!... and "Evolution" !!!... and "Life" !!!...

( and "serious Science" !!!,,, has "always" a "Minute" !!!... for a "Joke" !!!... )

Kosta - GREECE

14 hours ago, Koni said:

"EVOLUTION" !!!... is for "Followers" !!!... ( and "NOT" !!!... for "Traditional-people" !!!... )

"so" !!!... IF "YOU" !!!...the "Gods" of OLYMPUS !!!... you "prefer" to "deal" with my "graphic character" !!!...

and to "underestimate" the "content" of my "words" for my "DNA"-Bases !!!...

so let's be it !!!... IT DOESN'T "bother" Me !!!... because !!!... I DON'T "CARE" !!!...

You're trying to explain something to me, but you don't care that your writing style is confusing and keeps me from understanding your content?! It does matter, my friend.

I'd have the same problems if you were writing in Greek, but at least I could use a translator. I'm so sorry you don't understand the connection between "graphic character" and "content of my words". You're insisting that others try to understand you while you don't care that they find it difficult. It doesn't seem to be working well for you.

1 hour ago, Koni said:

Exactly "THAT" !!!... "as we know it" !!!...

In science, "as we know it" is backed up by mountains of evidence from observation and experimentation. It's not just a guess.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

You're trying to explain something to me, but you don't care that your writing style is confusing and keeps me from understanding your content?! It does matter, my friend.

I'd have the same problems if you were writing in Greek, but at least I could use a translator. I'm so sorry you don't understand the connection between "graphic character" and "content of my words". You're insisting that others try to understand you while you don't care that they find it difficult. It doesn't seem to be working well for you.

In science, "as we know it" is backed up by mountains of evidence from observation and experimentation. It's not just a guess.

o.k. !!!... I understand now !!!... and I am very - very sorry about my writting - styl !!!...

<< In science, "as we know it" is backed up by mountains of evidence from observation and experimentation. It's not just a guess. >> about this !!!... you have right !!!...

But !!!... I cannot have "evidence" about My "TRIPLE-Bases" !!!... and "TRIPLE-DNA" !!!... ( which are product from my "Imagination" !!!... )

Until !!!... some "Biochemist" !!!... make them in his "Laboratory" !!!...

THANK You !!!

Kosta - GREECE