Upload
Login or register
x

yea! science, bitch!

he attic
ctw_ aderp:
think uad:
Here is a Science fair project presented a girl in a
secondary wheel in Sussex - in it she took fitter's water and
divided it into two parts. The first part she heated to heiling in
a pan on the stove, and the second part she heated to heiling
in a microwave. Then after cooling she used the water
water two identical plants see if there would he any
difference in the growth between the normal hailed water and
the water hailee in a microwave. She was thinking that the
structure er energy m the water may be
class mates a number times and had the same result.
It has heen known fer some years that the problem with
microwaved anything is net the radiation peeple used to werry
about, it' s new it corrupts the DNA in the feed so the hwy can
not recognize it.
Microwaves den' t work different ways en different
substances. Whatever we put into the microwave suffers the
same destructive process. Microwaves agitate the mrtickles
to move faster and faster. This movement causes friction
which denatures the original makeout the substance- It
results in destroyed vitamins, minerals, proteins and
generates the new stuff called compounds. things
that are net mend in nature.
w the heey wraps it in tat cells to protect itself from the dead
feed er it eliminates it fast. Think ell all the Mothers heating
up militia these 'Satie' appliances- What eheut the nurse in
Dames that warmed up bleed fer a transfusion patient and
accidentally killed him when the bleed went in dead. But the
makers say it' s safe. But proof is in the pictures living
plants dying!
NO, YOU GRANT A STWIPES.
SOME KID' S CLASS PROJECT IS NOT REAL SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH. HEARD OF "DOUBLE BLIND", RIGHT?
CALL ME WHEN IT' S PUBLISHED IN NATURE.
the structure er energy the water
what the **** tithes that even mean we realize that a water
molecule is made up m three ******* atoms and it we rearrange it
it isn' t water anymore and we would ******* nitice
the problem with microwaved anything is not the radiation
Here is a handy diagram I drew m all the different types
radiation:
Microwaves i: nuclear reactors, so calm your tits.
it' s how it corrupts the DNA in the feed so the hwy can net
recognize it
we understand what DNA is and hew eating works? DNA is
a Jemmie protein in the middle bf each cell and it tells the cells in
that particular organism hew to make more cells. Your hwy flees
not care eheut whether your feed has any DNA in it er net. The
chemicals it cares eheut are things like vitamins and sugars, as
well as inorganic **** like salt.
You can denature DNA try heating it or using chemicals like urea.
It is like what happens when we try an egg, which is basically a
big glee strands break apart and it leeks like tiny
white strings. Very wet}
l. -.just. - .that is the ******* hf heat, whether we' re
heating something ever a dame er in a microwave er using the
sun. The difference is that microwaves mostly affect the water
mrtickles in your feed and they dent need to use as much heat.
Water hells at tee" c, which is just ahmet as hot as water can get
refere itjust turns into steam; hut that' s like the lowest setting on
your oven. every er feed tastes different partly
becaise it uses higher temperatures and partly because heat is
transferred in a different way
This movement causes friction
That' s not what fraction is.
It results in destroyed vitamins, minerals, preteens and
generates the new stuff called compounds, things
that are net found in nature.
LETS take these one at a time.
o Vitamins are classified as or . So
seeking things in water will disserve the waterbottle
vitamins re and all the B' s). Just plain heat deosn’ t m that,
SO / kaeps the water hals
actually a healthier eption.
o Preteens: Breaking the chemical heme in proteins
denaturing) is a part m any seeking- However, denatured
protein is still ' s why we can meet your
protein intake with feeds like fried eggs and baked chicken.
o Minerals amidst chemical elements, like eff the periodic
hen, potassium- [vitamins and proteins are
very complex elements.)
Which brings me to the " compound" ******** . When we
talk eheut wreaking apart, say, '' re talking eheut wreaking
dawn the we atoms themselves. Which is a whole let different
than wreaking the hands between atoms. It takes hells radiation.
The need **** like gamma OAOH SCARY NUCULAR
we' already m not cemo trom your
microwave.
things that are not mend in nature
What the **** dew that even mean? The all knew radioactive
elements occur in nature, right? In reds and also in living cells.
That' s right, we have this radioactive kind careen INSIDE YOU.
we get it by eating these delicious plants. We can tell new leng
age samething died by new much tot l is left
Tons **** that occurs naturally is horribly had fer we- And tons
**** that never existed until we seeked it up is great tor you-
like the chemical compounds in a let medication's.
PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THIS **** ARE WHY CHILDHOOD
DISEASES THAT CAUSED SERIOUS ILLNESSES AND/ OR
DEATH THAT WE NEARLY ERADICATED WITH VACCINES
ARE NOW COMING BACK AND WHY CONSPIRACY THEORIST
WHATS ARE ASKING CITY COUNCIL NOT TO FLUORIDATE
THE WATER AND WHY GLOBAL WARMING WILL WRECK
OUR ******* PLANET.
LEAN 2 . Think refere we regler. And microwave your
veggies.
This was incredibly amusing to read. Thank you much fer sciencing.
Scie nce achieved
recaps trong post
62, 650 notes at
...
+2391
Views: 68207
Favorited: 451
Submitted: 02/09/2015
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to bakinboy

Comments(405):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
[ 405 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
158 comments displayed.
User avatar #82 - bakinboy [OP]ONLINE (02/10/2015) [+] (30 replies)
stickied by bakinboy
tldnr: poster1: microwaves make your food poopy
poster2:no, ur dumb, here is science to show why you are wrong and dumb
poster1: but..
poster2:shutup dummy, heres more science to drive you into the ground
#5 - sinery (02/09/2015) [-]
So why did the plant die?   
Sciencexplain.
So why did the plant die?
Sciencexplain.
User avatar #46 to #5 - colossusshadow (02/09/2015) [-]
My assumption would simply be that the purified boiled water was better for the plant than the microwaved water because the purified water boiled away some of the stuff that was in the original water?
Basically I'd assume the microwave isn't BAD but that sanitizing the water was GOOD.

That's my own thought
User avatar #87 to #5 - jdborchardt (02/10/2015) [-]
my guess? the retard was boiling the water and putting it in the pot while it was still boiling ******* hot like a dimwit. causing the plant to burn.
#98 to #5 - anon (02/10/2015) [-]
The actual way to run the experiment would to have 4 groups of 8-12 plants. Each one is being supplied by water from the same source. 1 group gets no water(to measure growth from potential water in the soil), 1 group gets unmodified water, 1 gets microwaved water, and 1 gets boiled water. They should all be set in exactly the same room and the water should be given at the same temp to make the variables as close together as possible. Then progress of each plant should be noted each day as well as the number of times watered. THEN after 2-3 weeks you take a look at the AVERAGE growth/success of each plant and you could POTENTIALLY draw a conclusion of the data. reduce the variables as much as possible and make small adjustments, that is what sciences is boring but empirical.
#103 to #5 - anon (02/10/2015) [-]
non sterilized microwave perhaps? or the container it was microwaved in or any of hundreds of unknown variables
#161 to #5 - Bacabed ONLINE (02/10/2015) [-]
My guess? They microwaved it in something that wasn't microwave safe. If I remember correctly there are some materials that can break down in the microwave, if they used one of those it could contaminate the water.
#171 to #5 - anon (02/10/2015) [-]
My best guess would be that because the microwave is not heating the water up to the higher temperature required in a boiling scenario, some harmful bacteria in the water may not have died. The plant isn't dead, its simply taking longer to grow. I guess it would depend on where they got their water from
#193 to #5 - froggernaught (02/10/2015) [-]
because the little girl didn't love that plant as much as the other one
User avatar #6 to #5 - wedgehead (02/09/2015) [-]
It's called deviation.
One should always have several parallel experiments like 5 plants with "pure" water and 5 with microwaved water to get more realistic results.
If a single experiment is used, a bad seed, an insect that only ate from one of the plants or whatever could have led to that result.
User avatar #41 to #5 - TheOriginalNerd (02/09/2015) [-]
from what i found either they didn't actually let the water cool or they probably boiled off water and the concentration of ions in the water was too high (too much fluoride or iron because high fluoride content is a problem in some people's water)

im gonna go with the first one because they are dumbass 2nd graders
User avatar #145 to #5 - demigodofmadness (02/10/2015) [-]
The student likely gave the microwave water plant less love.

Seriously. She set out to show that microwaved water would be worse for a plant than boiled water, had they been equal her project would be boring. So I see one of four things being the case.

1) She subconsciously killed the microwaved water plant by not giving it sunlight, putting it in worse dirt, using the seed that looked less healthy, etc etc
2) She consciously sabotaged the microwaved water plant by not giving it sunlight, using worse dirt, using the seed that looked less healthy, and possibly by not even watering it or drowning it. And possibly did the experiment multiple times and picked the results that looked the best for her.
3) Or the student is young, and decided to try to prove their point exceptionally well. They figured if they gave the microwave water plant a ton of water and the other one a moderate amount if the microwave water plant died it would be without a doubt proof.
4) The results were genuine, microwaved water is indeed worse for plants than boiled water, or the results were just a coincidence.

For truly accurate results the experiment would need to be repeated dozens of times without the experimenter being aware of which type of water each plant was getting, and it would need to be done by someone with no bias towards either side. Because anybody that looks for a certain result will find it, which is why people believe vaccines cause autism, because they google, "Proof vaccines cause autism", visit pages that agree with them, and then eventually google corrects itself to show them pages that state that vaccines cause autism.
User avatar #392 to #145 - scorcho (02/10/2015) [-]
i'd put my money on 1), this stuff happens all the time with school projects. but 2) seems likely aswell
#148 to #5 - anon (02/10/2015) [-]
There is a theory that is gaining support, and it is actually about the structure of water.

water is not just one molecyle when it is togheter with allot of water molecules.

it is theorised that water under different/special circumstances might bind togher at moleculelevels and form different patterns, that in return might be beneficial in a wide range. (called hexagonal water or structured water (GOOGLE) )


also a study shown how water that are being hated on vs water that is loved (nutured with posetive/negative thinking) , crystalises diffrently. the negative ones get ugly and posetive ones become beautiful. (google)


but my guess is that the water is kinda hot from the microwave, with a combination of the above.
User avatar #223 to #148 - rockamekishiko (02/10/2015) [-]
i don't think that's correct. When water is vapor the molecules are over the ******* place and when it's in liquid state, they aren't exactly structured.
plus, the first line from wikipedia: "Hexagonal water is a term used in a marketing scam[1][2] that claims the ability to create a certain configuration of water that is better for the body"
#402 to #223 - anon (02/11/2015) [-]
water having structure and memory should not be so weird. it has a solid state that varies from different factors, in my mind it would be frequencies around the water affecting it, and since it is a proven fact that frequencies affect different matter, why not water, and since pioneers actually are researching these "Phenomenon" we will just have to wait and see who is right.


just look up sound vibrations on youtube.
User avatar #404 to #402 - rockamekishiko (02/11/2015) [-]
yeah i know. different frequencies make different waves of water. The thing is that they don't change the structure of water molecules
#155 to #148 - anon (02/10/2015) [-]
And also the guy is a uneducated dick. **** him.
#351 to #148 - anon (02/10/2015) [-]
you are stupid as **** if even believe anything of that sort.
#403 to #351 - anon (02/11/2015) [-]
They said the same about the round earth theory aswell.

#16 to #5 - lostabyss (02/09/2015) [-]
seeing as how dumb the experiment was in the first place, if i had to guess, they probably boiled the ******* water in the microwave and poured it on the plant.

but seriously it could have been anything including a faulty experiment
User avatar #18 to #16 - kompel (02/09/2015) [-]
This was exactly wat I was going to post.
User avatar #9 to #5 - goodhomer ONLINE (02/09/2015) [-]
That is an unknowable variable because there are so many reasons why the plant would die.

Off the top of my head?

It was diseased, it was weak and going to die anyway, it was kept in slightly different conditions, it had a genetic disorder, the handlers manipulated the experiment on purpose, the handlers manipulated the experiment by accident, tainted water, tainted soil, insects ate it, someone broke in and took all the leaves and shoved them up their ass.
User avatar #229 to #9 - lapsushominum (02/10/2015) [-]
It's gotta be the last one. Next experiment should control for this unknown variable by keeping the plants in a secure location.
#36 to #5 - drpeppyone (02/09/2015) [-]
I repeated the same experiment for a project, and didnt get the same results as they did
#151 to #5 - chism (02/10/2015) [-]
it is tumblr, they could have just found the picture and made up some ******** . picture related, another time they did that.
#353 to #151 - rollfourexplain (02/10/2015) [-]
**rollfourexplain used "*roll 1, 0-9999*"**
**rollfourexplain rolls 9,063**

I read that picture before I read your post and was about to get upset at you.
#71 to #5 - crimsonballs (02/10/2015) [-]
i lost grip of my cute bally and it rolled over the plant   
   
sory
i lost grip of my cute bally and it rolled over the plant

sory
User avatar #187 to #5 - bipolarprobe (02/10/2015) [-]
It's entirely likely that it had to do with the container used to heat the water, if they used anything that can be damaged by the heat from microwaving it would leave traces of things (possibly like plastic) Which may have caused it. However without more info on the experiment there's no way to know
User avatar #391 to #5 - scorcho (02/10/2015) [-]
repeat the experiment within a controlled environment where each plant has exactly the same conditions.
Add a control group for which you don't know if it's recieving mw water or just water.
That should give you different results.
User avatar #170 to #5 - dadukesta (02/10/2015) [-]
The real reason is that Microwaves don't boil water, they vaporize water. So when she microwaved the water she ended up with less water and micro gas bubbles inside weren't released. The water boiled on the stove was heated enough to not lose as much water while burning out the micro gas bubbles.

Moral of the story is that you can't boil water in a microwave.


#307 to #5 - anon (02/10/2015) [-]
It's tough to discern why without a close examination of the methodology section of the original publication.
#109 to #5 - anon (02/10/2015) [-]
It was probably falsified. Tumblrinas aren't above doing shady **** like that for attention.
#280 to #5 - anon (02/10/2015) [-]
They put boiled water on it.

or it was a BS picture to get reblogs. Like the "black burned guy with white skin transplants" that turned out to be a horse dildo.
User avatar #101 to #5 - miilkbone (02/10/2015) [-]
You cant really argue it was the different water that affected them in that way. For one, as sciencexplain already said, its not a reliable result until its been replicated and some sort of correlation becomes evident. That being said, there are a lot of issues surrounding the experiment environment and extraneous variables which can also affect the plant.
#271 to #5 - hazelnutqt (02/10/2015) [-]
Mythbusters tested this, the microwaved plant was the healthiest.
User avatar #89 to #5 - penileburglar (02/10/2015) [-]
It's just one plant.

If you've ever grown anything in your life, you know that all plants don't grow equally.

If you wanted to really do this test, You'd need to do it with many plants, keep all other conditions equal (preferably even do it double-blind), measure each plant somehow (height, weight, or color), and then perform some form of two sample hypothesis test with your sample data to test the claim that the microwave-water plants are, on average, less healthy than stove-water plants.

Explaining how that test works would take a while (If you're that nerdy, just look up 'comparison of means hypothesis test') so to put it simply--the more the plant's livelihood naturally varies within the individual groups, the harder it is to make a meaningful statement about the difference between the two, because you're weighing the difference you find against the chance that that difference occurred naturally. The more data you collect, the more likely you are to have a meaningful answer.

Basically, if you're trying to prove a coin is rigged, 6 heads and 4 tails doesn't mean **** , because that can happen naturally--you're not going to get a perfect 5-5 split every time even if your coin is fine. Likewise, some plants can be naturally healthier than others. But if you get to 600 heads and 400 tails, you can be PRETTY sure something is up with that coin, right? Same thing here--one comparison doesn't mean anything, but with enough samples you could start to make some statements.

A big problem I see, though, is that the dish you heat things in would be impossible to keep consistent. I can't think of any dish that's both microwave AND stove-top safe, since stove-top pots tend to be metal (obviously.) Perhaps you'd have to bake the water instead, because while tedious, that would allow you to use the same kind of container for each test. If *anything* is inconsistent between the two tests OTHER than the variable you are trying to make a statement about, then your data becomes worthless.
User avatar #233 to #5 - butiloveu (02/10/2015) [-]
It's a tumbler post.
So lying , making BS Story's for attention would be also a big option.

Anyone remember tho wyman who faked a black eye to be a public hero and to portray men as violently.
lgbtpeopleagainstsjws.tumblr.com/post/92211261042/dear-laurie-maylon-that-woman-who-faked-a-black
User avatar #86 to #5 - cackrel (02/10/2015) [-]
Because all the other kids bullied the other plant so it committed seppuku.
#217 to #5 - anon (02/10/2015) [-]
Did she put the hot water directly onto the plant before letting it cool?
User avatar #37 to #5 - helpmedudes (02/09/2015) [-]
It could be something as simple as a bad seed, the other pot blocking the sun, or she could have fed it hot water
#210 to #5 - hurzg (02/10/2015) [-]
If he microwaved in a wrong cup some chemicals might get intı the water. I'm not sure though.
#29 to #5 - anon (02/09/2015) [-]
Well, to me it looks like the dead plant was cut, maybe the day prior to the picture was taken, hence the withered look.
User avatar #207 to #5 - baditch (02/10/2015) [-]
The dumb cunt posted a picture and lied about the context
User avatar #10 to #5 - sciencexplain (02/09/2015) [-]
One can't be absolutely sure. To test to see if it was for a real reason instead of a purely chance result, repeat the experiment several times. Using a single experiment without any reinforcement results to back up the point just means the point is not proven or assisted by the data.
#31 to #10 - aibu (02/09/2015) [-]
Maybe she forgot to water the microwave plant, causing it to die of dehydration.
#180 to #31 - wagastragas (02/10/2015) [-]
she microwaved the water not the plant. if you microwave anything alive you are killing it...
#202 to #180 - overlordnick (02/10/2015) [-]
Are you sure? We can't just go around saying things without scientific testing.

Hey Wiskers
#258 to #202 - emiyashirou ONLINE (02/10/2015) [-]
Microwaving things alive, you say? Couldn't find a decent picture of any of the gellified people, so have gelbana instead.
#289 to #202 - anon (02/10/2015) [-]
when i heard a story like that i was really depressed for a week or 2
#375 to #180 - aibu (02/10/2015) [-]
Did you not read?
She forgot to water the ******* plant that was meant to be watered by the microwaved plant.
The microwave plant is the one that's supposed to get the microwaved water. But it looks like it didn't get ANY water at all.
User avatar #106 to #10 - whtkid (02/10/2015) [-]
You're supposed to do that, you're science explain.

Post results
#169 to #106 - hokeymon (02/10/2015) [-]
It's takes at least hundreds of tests before a hypothesis is proven. Not really sure if I'm correct there from my vague memory in high school.
User avatar #230 to #169 - iridium (02/10/2015) [-]
It kind of depends on what is being studied.

It's not so much hundreds of tests in some cases, but hundreds of test SUBJECTS. You need a large sample size, or an uncharacteristically large deviation, before you can make claims about anything, and even then it only helps to perform the experiment multiple times, especially if you're making a very bold claim (i.e. correlation between Vaccines and Autism, which even if there happened to be a correlation it is not causation).
User avatar #197 to #169 - redeadhunter (02/10/2015) [-]
Doesn't the amount of tests needed have something to do with the amount of factors affecting the outcome? Like say you did multiple experiments, altering factors such as soil makeup, sun exposure and actual quantity/frequency of watering. The scientific method as we know it is a shining example of "easier said than done".
User avatar #199 to #197 - hokeymon (02/10/2015) [-]
Yup, takes a lot of controlled setups and a lot of equipment to get it right. Most likely they need an greenhouse large enough to hold hundreds of plants at the same time and maybe proper air conditioning, and soil composition by the gram. Those school projects are mostly already proven and tested experiments that only shows how it's done with the same results as the ones practiced by actual scientist. If they're trying to prove something with that minimal effort and written data it's just kids trying to boost their self esteem. 100% ******** factor.
#296 to #10 - anon (02/10/2015) [-]
Also the problem could straight up be variables. Her control was regular distilled water and the experiment was microwaved water. Here is a small list of what else could have gone wrong.

Distilled water got contaminated
Less microwaved water was used than plain distilled (since some of it could have evaporated)
Soil nutrients weren't consistent
One plant received more sunlight than the other due to positioning
Child has a cat and it ate one of the plants
Dad peed in one of the plants when he came home drunk from the bar. No one was told.



and that's just a few things.I'm pretty sure some people could come up with more. The fallacy that correlation = causation is why Anti-Vaxers exist. Just because event A happens, doesn't mean that Event B happens. If you take Event A away and Event B still occurs, then event A isn't the cause of event B. Its very important to limit your study to one variable being tested.... which is hard to do in a science fair setting.
#19 to #10 - toohntown (02/09/2015) [-]
if the initial post was honest, then it said an entire class redid the experiment on their own repeatedly.
User avatar #20 to #19 - sciencexplain (02/09/2015) [-]
Yes, but where are the results of it? It doesn't say whether the dead plant was anomalous or not.
#21 to #20 - toohntown (02/09/2015) [-]
all it really gave us to work with is one plant that looked like the top was cut off and some information that an entire class replicated the experiment and found the same result
User avatar #22 to #21 - sciencexplain (02/09/2015) [-]
www.snopes.com/science/microwave/plants.asp

Took all of 5 seconds to google, and I trust snopes to disprove this kind of **** . I know, it's a cheap shot of an answer by googling it, but do you really need anything else? It was implausible to begin with, and was explained by a Tumblr user.
User avatar #212 to #22 - Pena (02/10/2015) [-]
Hi,

I didn't actually read the link, but from the original post it isn't very clear in what container the water was boiled in. I think it is fairly safe to assume it was a plastic container, and if it was, the reason the plant died could be poisonous chemicals that can in some cases get into your food (and water in this case) from the plastic when heating things in the microwave (there's some research about it which advices food to be heated in a glass container instead of a plastic one). Some plants are very sensitive to chemicals, but I can't say for certain if it would be enough to kill it.

However I'm only guessing here so take this with a hint of salt. I don't know how poisonous those chemicals are to plants and I don't even know what plant that is so anything I say is far from trustworthy.
User avatar #157 to #22 - taniv (02/10/2015) [-]
Essentially just, there were like 0 controls and they had a insignificant sample size?
User avatar #90 to #19 - haroldsaxon (02/10/2015) [-]
Tumblr usually make stuff up to further their agenda. Usually means more often than not.
#287 to #10 - apolloeighteen (02/10/2015) [-]
dat p value tho
User avatar #188 to #10 - TheTurnbull (02/10/2015) [-]
I tried it a while ago both were fine
#182 to #10 - anon (02/10/2015) [-]
I'm going to say it. I hope everyone else has been thinking it.
What if this guy here is actually Bill Nye and he just secretly has a Funnyjunk account?
User avatar #177 to #10 - cdmin (02/10/2015) [-]
exactly. but there is a part where she said (strange, that you almost cant read the most important part), that "the experiment was repeated by her classmates a number of times", with the same results.

and exactly there is the whole thing that makes your comment completely wrong. because if like 15 people did the same thing, and it turned out like this 15 times, something might be wrong.

and i guess sinery wants to know if the person on tumblr lied or if you can explain i.t
#173 to #10 - anon (02/10/2015) [-]
My best guess would be that because the microwave doesn't have to heat the water up as much to make it boil, some of the bacteria in the water that may be harmful in the plant may not die. The plant isn't dead, it's just growing at a slower rate. Where you got the water for the experiment (the tap, a river, still water, etc.) could test that theory
#35 - patdunn (02/09/2015) [-]
"DNA is a jumble of protein"
User avatar #184 to #35 - jwash ONLINE (02/10/2015) [-]
I joined the Army after high school at age 17, am now 29, and I still raged at that. That's literally 6th grade **** .
User avatar #191 to #184 - butterduck (02/10/2015) [-]
I didn't learn this in 6th grade ;-;
User avatar #301 to #184 - neokun (02/10/2015) [-]
How was the army thing relevant?
User avatar #357 to #301 - Blarghfreat (02/10/2015) [-]
maybe what he's trying to say is that because he joined the army at 17, he didn't go onto higher education, but i could be wrong, i can't speak for the OP
#111 to #35 - anon (02/10/2015) [-]
>Nucleic Acid
>DNA
>Deoxyribonucleic Acid
>It's literally in the name and they ****** it up
User avatar #25 - sandmansniper (02/09/2015) [-]
DNA IS NOT PROTEIN YOU ****
#49 to #25 - hongkonglongdong ONLINE (02/09/2015) [-]
Yeah, but I understand why she got that mixed up.
User avatar #74 to #49 - justaperson (02/10/2015) [-]
I don't, that's first week Biology. Tbh a lot of the stuff he said was wrong, especially about DNA. Keeping it simple; DNA is definitely not a protein, and it's function isn't coding for cells it's coding for proteins (there's more to it then that but like I said keeping it simple)
#76 to #74 - hongkonglongdong ONLINE (02/10/2015) [-]
Yeah, exactly. They simplified a ******** of stuff, so I'm not surprised they mixed NA up with Proteins, considering they're often taught together and this person looks like they have about A-level knowledge.
User avatar #295 to #76 - sandmansniper (02/10/2015) [-]
It's literally middle school science. Anyone who is that ******* stupid should not be allowed anywhere near other people.
#386 to #295 - hongkonglongdong ONLINE (02/10/2015) [-]
It's not middle-school science where I live
User avatar #396 to #386 - sandmansniper (02/10/2015) [-]
If it is higher that's sad, considering I live in the US.
0
#395 to #386 - sandmansniper has deleted their comment [-]
#387 to #386 - hongkonglongdong ONLINE (02/10/2015) [-]
What the fuck is happening to my text...?
#203 to #25 - anon (02/10/2015) [-]
Shhh, let's just be happy that someone on tumblr at least understands the concepts behind science.
#33 - anon (02/09/2015) [-]
yeah so it got somewhat better and he got some points right but there's still a lot wrong like for examples DNA IS NOT ******* PROTEINS!
#50 to #33 - anon (02/10/2015) [-]
no, but it is a polymer like proteins. Theyre similar enough to behave in the same general way IE changing nature when heated/chemical'd/etc.
#150 - dorfdorfdorf (02/10/2015) [-]
there is nothing in any universe more glorious than someone who knows what they're talking about smacking down someone who doesn't.   
   
i need a cigarette.
there is nothing in any universe more glorious than someone who knows what they're talking about smacking down someone who doesn't.

i need a cigarette.
#53 - emipr (02/10/2015) [-]
-"DNA is a jumble of protein..."

Couldn't go on after that
#38 to #24 - eddytheanon (02/09/2015) [-]
tried cleaning it up without glow. left the pop corn all pixly, luh chu bb gurl. hope you like my version
User avatar #88 to #38 - theprogramer (02/10/2015) [-]
Awesome! Thank you so much!
#1 - xskullgirlsx (02/09/2015) [-]
Someone on Tumblr actually knows what the **** he/she is saying?

I think this website can still be saved
#369 to #159 - cigma (02/10/2015) [-]
wasn't that the joker in a lapsus of sanity?
#379 to #369 - bioconstriculative (02/10/2015) [-]
I'm pretty sure its from The Killing Joke, actually.
0
#378 to #369 - bioconstriculative has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #178 to #1 - lordcuntdestroyer (02/10/2015) [-]
It's sorta like finding a shiny pokemon
User avatar #211 to #1 - Sperit (02/10/2015) [-]
one piece of corn in a **** is still ****
#43 to #1 - anon (02/09/2015) [-]
Meanwhile, I think the exact opposite every time I see you and your comments.
User avatar #44 to #43 - xskullgirlsx (02/09/2015) [-]
Meanwhile you act like a bitch to a woman online
User avatar #135 to #44 - sonicschall ONLINE (02/10/2015) [-]
Gender doesn't matter one single bit here.
#125 to #44 - perzona (02/10/2015) [-]
Yeah, we should just not be mean to someone because they're a girl...
#45 to #44 - anon (02/09/2015) [-]
I don't give two ***** about what's between your legs, you're still an asshole.
#120 to #44 - anon (02/10/2015) [-]
>implying there are girls on the interwebs
hue
#267 to #44 - riddari (02/10/2015) [-]
hurk durk ima gurl plz dont disagree wit me ima gurl btw
hurk durk ima gurl plz dont disagree wit me ima gurl btw
#330 to #44 - fancymanntango (02/10/2015) [-]
The only relevant gif I have to this situation might be classed as mildly 			****		, I don't know, gonna do it anyways
The only relevant gif I have to this situation might be classed as mildly **** , I don't know, gonna do it anyways
#154 to #44 - gaem (02/10/2015) [-]
...what?
User avatar #2 to #1 - brewswillis (02/09/2015) [-]
who are you kidding. get out, i cant even.
#34 - sirfurnace (02/09/2015) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #117 - enkmaster (02/10/2015) [-]
Microwaves cant melt steel beams.
User avatar #185 to #117 - Lolzster (02/10/2015) [-]
Sounds like you need a better microwave.
User avatar #99 - vycanismajoris (02/10/2015) [-]
>tfw I'm a dumbass
>tfw i wouldn't have realised the first post was wrong without the second one to disprove it.
#253 - codfourmotherfkers (02/10/2015) [-]
"It's how it corrupts the DNA in food so your body ca not recognize it"  mfw the stupidity
"It's how it corrupts the DNA in food so your body ca not recognize it" mfw the stupidity
#225 - ludislavonac (02/10/2015) [-]
However I'd still like to know why the plant that's watered with only microwaved water doesn't really grow
However I'd still like to know why the plant that's watered with only microwaved water doesn't really grow
User avatar #256 to #225 - heartlessrobot (02/10/2015) [-]
Well, it probably did, but the plant in the pic looks like it's been cut.
User avatar #228 to #225 - midnighteyes ONLINE (02/10/2015) [-]
My guess is that the microwave is not purifying the water as much as boiling it on the stove.

I'm probably wrong, but I figured someone would correct me if so.
#23 - shadowkingdr (02/09/2015) [-]
<everyone who read this
#303 - askafj (02/10/2015) [-]
guess I'll stop microwaving my water before watering my flowers then
guess I'll stop microwaving my water before watering my flowers then
User avatar #315 to #303 - Whaaaaaaaaa (02/10/2015) [-]
Did they water the plants with the freshly heated microwave water? because I did the same experiment in high school to disprove some hippie bitch. I let the water cool to room temp.
#72 - mcburd (02/10/2015) [-]
Talk **** get hit
#240 - brothergrimm (02/10/2015) [-]
that was so beautiful that i only have one thing to say...... Owned
that was so beautiful that i only have one thing to say...... Owned
#224 - lizardonfire (02/10/2015) [-]
Anyone has the &quot;Stop it, the 13th amendment makes it illegal to own 			******		 like this&quot; pic?
Anyone has the "Stop it, the 13th amendment makes it illegal to own ****** like this" pic?
User avatar #241 to #224 - brothergrimm (02/10/2015) [-]
i would also like to have this pic
User avatar #242 to #224 - brothergrimm (02/10/2015) [-]
i would also like to have this pic
#275 to #224 - willindor ONLINE (02/10/2015) [-]
Here you go and for brothergrimm too
#400 to #275 - lizardonfire (02/11/2015) [-]
Thank you good sir
Thank you good sir
[ 405 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)