Re: Chemical bonding inside living vs non-living things

From: Scott Coutts (scott.coutts_at_med.monash.edu.au)
Date: 12/03/04 

Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 10:22:25 GMT

mark_tarka@yahoo.com wrote:
> GOOGLE'S IMPROVED COMMUNICATION
> MODE IS QUEER-AGENDA CRAP :-) I know,
> it's free, why complain -- I'm just laughing at
> the words the idiot used to explain its changes.
> BTW, I had to _search_ to find sci.chem, it's
> not listed in the science and technology ... hey,
> I just checked, the old format is back. Google
> is baaaad, man, real baaad! :-)
>
> AA, the covalent and ionic bonds in living
> things are the same as in the corresponding
> non-living things. It's the subtle bonds that
> distinguish them.
>
> The clearest indication of the failure of folks
> to understand this, as I've seen, is the laughable
> seminar presentations by clowns with grants or
> other support for drug development -- armed
> with the latest graphical modeling software
> they somehow are unable to explain e.g. how
> the drug interacts with the supposed "pocket"
> or "functional group" (an equivalent situation
> to my statement about the drunk's explanation
> of DNA helical structure) under actual physio-
> logical conditions :-) More Vioxx, anyone?
>

You're not doing too good a job of explaining your theories either.

Scott.