Well, biochemists do know the structure of amino acids, so it’s technically correct. The fact they know more makes this situation even more probable.
Comment on PROTEIN BRO
MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca 6 days ago
That’s not a biochemist, memorizing the amino acids is literally biochem 1 on college. Most people with a biology undergrad take that.
Being a biochemist is more about understanding the whole system of how proteins interact, and not really about memorization of any specific protein.
angrystego@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Chakravanti@monero.town 5 days ago
You’re the clown.
MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca 5 days ago
The sad part is that there isn’t any real answer, like a lot of fundamental things in science we don’t really know how it works and won’t for decades. My personal theory is more along the lines of the whole tearing muscles concept is crap and exercise is basically just a signal for your body to make more muscle and doesn’t directly cause anything.
Chakravanti@monero.town 5 days ago
So…basically science don’t know shit but can’t stop speaking like it does.
seeigel@feddit.org 5 days ago
True, but it sounds so hostile that I almost agree with the downvotes.
Chakravanti@monero.town 5 days ago
Most people can’t handle the Clown.
I handle the Clown like a priest. Be careful of what the priest says. It may completely disfigure that of the not-fully-developed such. Here’s the real kicker. None of you can be unless you accept that as a fact.
To iterate furrher, in a true invocation, science is an art of language. Not far from “religion” to say so. In one invokation, it is the picture we can reproduce based on the image it depicts into understanding of reality.
To make the other, I’d like to reference Joao Magueijo’s Faster than the Speed of Light book. This book demonstrates how we can both be right and wrong in an alternative perspective of what is real.
This, like, “The Big Bang” theory is some kind of similar notion to the Speed of Light the way he is sort of correcting but sort of saying that’s right in the same painting he is writing.
Of course its right. Of course its wrong. I’ll do that in a simple few paragraphs.
What happens when a black hole is large enough to make the wavelength it generates out large enough to be matter?
That’s a big bang. It’ll probably eat more matter than is in our current visible 'verse to capitualate such a scenario but the visibility of our 'verse doesn’t make the end of it. There are more “Big Bangs” than there are visible stars in any and every method we may peecieve such. In fact, I can articulate that there are infinate such “Big Bangs”.
Prove me wrong.
BussyCat@lemmy.world 5 days ago
I had to take a 300 level biochem class and 2 semesters of O Chem and we didn’t have to memorize the structures of all the amino acids. Like we had to know glycine and we had to know about the different amino acids like how proline has a rigid structure but we were never expected to be able to draw an amino acid from memory
somethingp@lemmy.world 5 days ago
This may be a university to university and course to course difference too. My intro 3000 level biochem class didn’t have us memorize structures but my 5000 structural biochem class did and certain nucleic acid structures and stuff. Can’t remember shit now but I definitely had to memorize them at some point in undergrad.
BussyCat@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Maybe our universities handled numbers differently but 300 level classes we’re never considered intro level classes but were instead classes usually taken in your 3rd year of school with a heavy amount of pre requisites and a 500 level would be a graduate class
somethingp@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Sorry, just meant that for biochemistry it was the “lowest level” you could take. It was usually a 3rd or 4th year class. Anything 4000+ level for us was a graduate school level class. I was just saying I had the same experience as you to some degree but it’s possible different schools/professors have different expectations.