Great jumping Jesus on a pogo stick. How hard is it to type a capitalized word followed by some other words then conclude with a period or a question mark if applicable? Example:

Instead of

3 minutes ago, Koni said:

. 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" !!!...

You write this

I cannot have evidence about my triple bases and triple DNA (which I imagined) until a biochemist makes them in laboratory.

If you're really "very sorry" about your idiotic writing style then you can easily just stop and write ordinary sentences. Grow TF up.

10 minutes ago, Koni said:

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" !!!...

The Benzene(C6H6)-Ring !!!... WAS also a "Dream" !!!... ( The "evidence" came "after" !!!... )

THANK You !!!

Kosta - GREECE

Just now, Koni said:

The Benzene(C6H6)-Ring !!!... WAS also a "Dream" !!!... ( The "evidence" came "after" !!!... )

Oh come on, that was most unscientific and against all the evidence.

Benzene was a very well know substance years before there was even a question about its structure.

The dream only occurred after it was realised that benzene did not appear (to people at the time) to follow the rules of valency.

Edited June 3Jun 3 by studiot

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Oh come on, that was most unscientific and against all the evidence.

Benzene was a very well know substance years before there was even a question about its structure.

The dream only occurred after it was realised that benzene did not appear (to people at the time) to follow the rules of valency.

Ohhh !!!... But "THIS" !!!... have We learned in the High School !!!...

I have another "example" !!!... : << The Genetic-Laws of "Mendel" !!!... with the "Beans" !!!... >>

( He didn't "knew" (THEN) !!!... WHAT ???... "Chromosomes" ???... "are" !!!... )

https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/bio103/chapter/mendelian-genetics/

and So !!!... ( Today !!!... ) We don't know "nothing" !!!... about the "Biology" and "Biochemistry" !!!... "outside" !!!... our "Earth" example !!!...

Edited June 3Jun 3 by Koni

<< and So !!!... ( Today !!!... ) We don't know "nothing" !!!... about the "Biology" and "Biochemistry" !!!... "outside" !!!... our "Earth" example !!!... >>

But "now" !!!... ( as You have "seen" !!!... ) THEY are two(2) "others" !!!... THEORETICAL "possible" D.N.A.'s !!!...

4 hours ago, Koni said:

<< and So !!!... ( Today !!!... ) We don't know "nothing" !!!... about the "Biology" and "Biochemistry" !!!... "outside" !!!... our "Earth" example !!!... >>

But "now" !!!... ( as You have "seen" !!!... ) THEY are two(2) "others" !!!... THEORETICAL "possible" D.N.A.'s !!!...

Lui Pasteur : ("In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind")

Moderator Note

This is a science DISCUSSION forum. We discuss ideas by asking about them, contrasting them with accepted concepts, and making reasoned observations and criticisms using evidence to either support or falsify such ideas. The person who had the idea then defends it based on the criticisms, hopefully adding evidence to support it. If they can't, they should be able to at least see the reasoning, and concede that the idea may be wrong. The whole idea behind discussion is that you may be right, and if you can use persuasive arguments to convince us, we can help you continue to firm the concept up. But it's more likely you're wrong, in which case we want to point out where, and see if you can fix it. If you can't, then your idea is wrong, like MOST ideas.

Unfortunately, understanding is crucial to discussion. Right now, your threads start with your idea, then get requests for clarification, to which you respond with more parts of your idea, accompanied by unlabeled pictures that further confuse us. Talking this out with you isn't working, since you just keep repeating yourself and showing us more pictures, and most of us don't much like the style you find so fun. It's a bit crazy looking, and completely ruins the potential for understanding that the written word represents. I think you're old enough to know how unserious it looks when talking about serious subjects.

I don't know if you'll get anything from discussion if you aren't willing to communicate your ideas without preaching or soapboxing. I just know that you aren't moving this speculative discussion along by explaining yourself to the other members. You had 4 pages for persuasion, so this is closed. Please don't bring it up again.