Talk:DNA/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old Discussion

Genetic Code of Life, a Metaphor

I have replaced the first paragraph with:

Thankyou for all your help, Lir. While we await the forthcoming revert, maybe you can write some text for the section entitled, "More on DNA replication". Stewart Adcock 00:23, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You know, there is no reason to be rude. No one has raised any reason why this article, unlike other articles, should fail to mention (within the opening) the alternate "names" of DNA -- in particular, "genetic code of life". Lirath Q. Pynnor

I am sorry for sounding rude. As penance, I'm going to author an entire new article before I return to this talk page. Stewart Adcock 00:32, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I haven't been participating much with this endless debate until now, but I can see at least one good reason not to call it the "genetic code of life" in the intro paragraph; it's wrong, or at least very misleading. DNA is a chemical that can and often does serve as the medium in which genetic information is encoded, but it is not itself a code any more than a sheet of paper and a bottle of ink is a language. This distinction may be worth discussing further in a later section of the article, but the intro paragraph should avoid ambiguities and complications like this as much as possible IMO. Bryan 00:38, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
having written my new article, I am back here again. Byran, you are complete right, but we have told Lir this many many times. I for one have given up repeating that fact. Stewart Adcock 02:19, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree, except that it isn't our job to determine whether the term "fits"; I personally do not view DNA as either information, instructions, or a code; however, many people do refer to it as the "genetic code of life" -- as noted in the archives, I can found sources from schools, textbooks, mass media outlets, and celebrities -- all of which use the term. My paragraph is very clear to state "sometimes", we should assume the reader is capable of understanding that this is an illustrative metaphor -- not a technical scientific term. I will even compromise, I will add the word "metaphorically" to the sentence, so that the reader is left with no doubts that DNA is not actually the result of cryptography. Lirath Q. Pynnor

This is why I suggested that it could be valuable to discuss the term later on in the article. However, the fact that it is a commonly used phrasing doesn't mean it's a correct phrasing. An encyclopedia should try to explain what DNA is, and calling it "the genetic code of life" right off the bat like that can give the reader a misconception that may interfere with understanding. There are plenty of other articles about subjects where the popular conception is wrong, and it's entirely appropriate for Wikipedia to point that out. As for your compromise, from what I can see in the vast history of this talk: page the current version is already the compromise that seems most widely accepted by the editors here. Bryan 01:00, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
We agree again Stewart Adcock 02:19, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] I agree with what Bryan said first above. An encyclopedia article should avoid repeating oversimplifications produced by people who are incompetent to formulate technical matters coherently. But maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps we should let Captain Kirk-Shaftner write the articles on interplanetary travel, rocket propulsion, etc. Or perhaps there is some talking head who would vociferously defend accounts not in the least grounded in science. Perhaps the world belongs to those who are uncompromising in their attacks on others. Perhaps there is no percentage in compromise.

It is a metaphor, metaphors are not supposed to be "correct phrasing". This is not an elitist scientific encyclopedia, this is an encyclopedia which contains common English naming conventions. I have no objection to your writing a paragraph about why the metaphor is "inaccurate"; but you are not justified in removing it, it is used and we are to report what is used. Perhaps both of you would be happier submitting articles to Nupedia. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Dispute about the overview passage

To start the ball rolling, the 2nd disputed portion is listed below. Please state clearly and succinctly the issues you have with this version. Stewart Adcock 17:16, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Although sometimes called "the molecule of heredity," pieces of DNA as people typically think of them are not single molecules. Rather, they are pairs of molecules, which entwine like vines to form a double helix (top half of the illustration at the right).
Each vine-like molecule is a strand of DNA: a chemically linked chain of nucleotides, each of which consists of a sugar, a phosphate and one of four kinds of aromatic "bases." Because DNA strands are composed of these nucleotide subunits, they are polymers.

1. [P0M:] Sentence (1) above says DNA = pairs of vine-like molecules, but (2) says a strand of DNA = a [single?] vine-like molecule. Would it clarify things to say that two DNA strands entwine to form a chromosome, and that each DNA strand is a chain of nucleotides? P0M 22:02, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would. Stewart Adcock 23:53, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
You can say that each DNA strand is a chain of nucleotides, but saying they form a chromosome would be incorrect because they dont always do this.

2. Its pointless for me to discuss the 2nd disputed portion when what goes in the rest of the article depends on what is at the beginning. Lirath Q. Pynnor

okay. Stewart Adcock 23:53, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

3. I see no reason to quote "bases". Stewart Adcock 23:53, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

4. I think the first sentence sounds kludgy and could be clarified. Maybe, we could use: The pieces of DNA that people think of are not single molecules, despite sometimes being termed "the molecule of heredity". Stewart Adcock 23:53, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Stuff that should be included in the first paragraph

I am very surprised that in an introduction, there is no mention of the structure of the DNA in double helix, with the 4 bases, adenin, thymin, cytosin and guanin. Because if there is one thing that springs in most minds (with a mimimum of education probably) is this visual of the double helix. Compared to the lack of reference to that helix vision that most people probably have, the mention of the presence of DNA in chloroplast and mitochondria (organels that very likely means nothing at all for all those non biologist) seem rather curious. Just my opinion :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing

the structure of the DNA in double helix - because that's not necessarily the structure. with the 4 bases, adenin, thymin, cytosin and guanin - the link to nucleic acid does this. organels that very likely means nothing at all for all those non biologist - organelles were covered in my school syllabus at the age of 13 or 14 so I'd antipate that most people have at least heard of them, and they are wikilinks if not. Stewart Adcock 22:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Suit yourself. That was just a thought :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing

The Two-Thirds Majority Version

A consensus-building process has taken place. A two-thirds majority agreed to the version which then became the posted version from 14 February to 6 March, as well as at various times before and since those dates:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid which carries genetic instructions for the biological development of all cellular forms of life and many viruses. DNA is sometimes referred to as the molecule of heredity as it is inherited and used to propagate traits. During reproduction, it is replicated and transmitted to offspring.
In bacteria and other simple cell organisms, DNA is distributed more or less throughout the cell. In the complex cells that make up plants, animals and in other multi-celled organisms, most of the DNA is found in the chromosomes, which are located in the cell nucleus. The energy generating organelles known as chloroplasts and mitochondria also carry DNA, as do many viruses.

Comments on this version

I do not think there is a hurry. There would be a hurry if the current version was factually wrong, or pov. This is not the case. So, rather, let's try to focus on the brand new version :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing
{Peak to Anthere:] Actually, the first sentence is partly incorrect, or at least misleading, because of the use of the word "primary". This was discussed earlier on this Talk page, and my recollection is that this was one of the main reasons for seeking consensus on an improved version. (Ultimately, this led to the "near-consensus version" that you are treating so unkindly.) Here is an extract from Talk:DNA/arhive_2#5:
  1. isolated chromosomes (metaphase) approx. 15% DNA, 12% RNA 70% protein
... There is indeed lots of gunk to hold the chromosomes together. Your source is almost certianly correct. Stewart Adcock

Pros and Cons

  1. DNA is not introduced quickly so that it can be subcatagorized throughout the article. (They try and cover too many aspects). Bensaccount
    • This asserts that the preamble fails to introduce DNA quickly enough, but that could be said of any preamble to a complex topic. User: Peak
  2. Once again, genetic instuction is too vague. (see above). Bensaccount
  3. Developmental biology has to do with the development of organisms. DNA is in no way limited to this. It codes for ALL the structure and functions of organisms. Bensaccount
    • is misdirected criticism as the first sentence specifically mentions viruses. User: Peak
      • That is not what I mean - follow the link to developmental biology. Bensaccount
  4. "Molecule of heredity" is not an alternate name for DNA. It is a vague misinterperetation at best. "Molecule of heredity" should be a redirect to heredity because the typer has made a mistake (there is no such molecule). Bensaccount 22:40, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • is irrelevant as there is no claim that the phrase is an "alternate name." User: Peak
      • See updated problems with molecule of heredity above. Bensaccount
  5. The central dogma of cell biology (DNA replication, transcription, translation) is not even mentioned (although part of it is). Bensaccount
    • asserts that the "central dogma" should be mentioned in the preamble, but there are many good reasons for not doing so. Basically it introduces a whole "can of worms" where it is least needed. (Like most dogmas, the (original) central dogma proved wrong.) Peak 05:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In the second paragraph DNA is dichotomized into prokaryotes and eukaryotes. If you are going to dichotomize DNA do it in the subcatagories, not the intro.Bensaccount 16:12, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[Peak:] DNA is not dichotomized in the second paragraph.Peak 05:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes it is. If not prok vs. euk, then in as location. Bensaccount

All the comments that were disproved were left out of the propositions as of 10/03

Other

Also if you are going to propose a whole new intro, first you have to prove there is something wrong with the old into. I have done this above (archive 9) and suggested a new intro based on the problems and achievements of the old intro. (This is my version in the proposals as of 10/03)

Who was involved in this vote? Bensaccount 22:01, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is in the archive Bensaccount. FirmLittleFluffyThing

All the comments that were disproved were left out of the propositions as of 10/03

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DNA/Archive_7&oldid=96179917"