/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1057959


>does not understand what dictates a "similar class of " MOLECULE.

as this is wholly a matter of terminology, you must understand that in discussing biochemical macromolecules, you DO NOT use the term "structurally related" or "structural analog" when discussing the PRIMARY structure of oligomeric or polymeric nucleotide or amino acid.


a strand of DNA is BY ITS VERY NATURE, essentially a completely unique molecule in every way.


the DNA itself is defined by the primary structure (as all DNA adopts its OVERALL structure as a helix, even with dimples and twists at certain points).


but because the primary structure differs, so too does the BACKBONE OF THE FUCKING MOLECULE.


"humans share 0.XXXXX% of their DNA between different ethnicities"

the molecules themselves are still COMPLETELY FUCKING DIFFERENT.


"structurally related/similar" molecules share a core functionality that is identical or similar:

as in the example I gave, all molecules in each share the same core functionality (an aromatic with a substituted ethyl amine substituent)


DNA, RNA and Proteins are NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT structural analogs.


they are compositional analogs.


they are made out of the same discrete building blocks, but NOT in the same order.


in incredibly rare cases, there may be examples of structural isomers of DNA shared between different (but similar) organisms.