Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You have my utmost respect for the research on Alzheimer's disease. I watched both my grandfather and mother in law die from this horrid disease. Arigato Ursus sanYep! I graduated from University of Birmingham in the UK and came to Japan on a scholarship a year ago. Currently researching Alzheimer's disease at RIKEN, Japan's premier research institute. It's fun. : D
You have my utmost respect for the research on Alzheimer's disease. I watched both my grandfather and mother in law die from this horrid disease. Arigato Ursus san
おめでとうございます。 グレイディはあなたの言葉への答えを持っていません
What evidenceそうだね！笑
けれど、面白いだので、続けましょう。　；）
This thread is going off topic.
Where all the evidence for design at?
This stuff is such basic chemistry that you can find it in textbooks. Any undergraduate chemistry textbook worth its price will have info on chiral-specific catalysis in it.
I found these:you can't even google search it:
chiral-specific catalysis
nothing comes up with that name exactly.
see here:
chiral-specific catalysis - Google Scholar
I found these:
Catalytic Asymmetric Synthesis - Google Books
Chemical & Engineering News: Cover Story - CHIRAL CATALYSIS
Enantioselective synthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1023 (1983): Chiral Symmetry Breaking in Nonequilibrium Systems
http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v1/n6/full/nchem.339.html
I don't think chiral-specific catalysis does what you think it does.
maybe any scholarly articles on it?
Neither of those sources are valid. They are both lying creationist sources.
Your personal opinion is noted but they remain valid sources.
Valid only for creationists, other people justYour personal opinion is noted but they remain valid sources.
If they are full of lies they cannot be valid. Unless the evidence for design is lies. : P
Did you get that ED? they are fooling you for either your money, your vote, or your belief, or all three.I mean deliberate misrepresentation of scientific understanding in order to mislead people according to a vested interest, be it political, fiscal or religious.
I am absolutely positive that it does. Check a textbook. If you REALLY want a scholarly article, here. First synthetic chiral catalyst, won the developer a nobel prize as up until then all our known chiral catalysts were proteins (DNAPolymerase) and couldn't stand the conditions present in industrial chemical production. The precise identity of the first chiral polymerisation catalyst is unknowable, but we don't need to identify it. The fact that a simple biomolecule can do so utterly demolishes your claim that chiral selection is impossible without complex biomolecules.
And as this has been protracted so long, I'd appreciate you admitting that I've made my point before you make your next.
Neither of those sources are valid. They are both lying creationist sources.
ED is right, they are valid. Your just out of ammo and have started swinging again.
ED is right, they are valid. Your just out of ammo and have started swinging again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?