Talk:DNA/Archive 12

Featured on MediaWiki:April 25 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

Is this page protected from editing ? 09 march 2004

No. Please, just have the best of time on this page from now on.
Following some private discussions, I will just dare to remind you that no encyclopedic article is "done" on Wikipedia, and that no vote made a couple of weeks ago by 5 people, justify that a preambule stays frozen for the months to come. The discussions below suggest me, that some editors do not perceive the current "community" version as necessarily the best ever. I hope it improves :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing 17:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

[P0M:] Smarting a bit after 168's remarks that seemed to include me among "people who were not around during the discussions long ago [and] think they understand what is going on and they don't... [and should take it to heart that] Zen and pop psychology don't trump ignorance," I went back and read through the archives. I think it is clear that Lir has achieved a stunning victory against all others by playing "let's you and him fight," and I can understand why 168 does not like to be in the position of dealing with his victory. I don't think anybody else should be happy with that victory either. If anything has emerged from these discussions its seems to be a consensus regarding Lir's edits. That consensus should not, IMHO, argue in favor of any of the other candidate passages. P0M 06:14, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Intro passage fact by fact

First paragraph:

DNA should not be defined as "the primary chemical component of chromosomes". Prokaryotes don't have chromosomes and they make up two of the three major lineages of life. Bensaccount 15:35, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
DNA should not be defined as "the material from which genes are made" since DNA also is the material from which other things (intron etc.) are made. Bensaccount 15:39, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Defining DNA as "the molecule of heredity" is only half right. DNA also has other functions which should be listed (DNA determines the structure and functions of the cell). Saying that DNA is the "molecule of heredity, structure and function of the cell" sounds bad. (Also I believe it has already been said that DNA is a macromolecule.) Bensaccount 15:50, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Above are the three facts from the first paragraph, all incorrect. The problem appears to be that this paragraph is too specific. It constrains the actual properties of DNA. What is needed is a more general, less constraining introduction. Bensaccount 15:54, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you think any of the three sentences are actually correct, you have to prove me wrong (and I dont want to try and make sense of an essay so keep it breif).

Heres my suggestion for the first paragraph:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (abbreviated DNA) is a macromolecule that encodes heritable biological information of a cell. It determines the structure and functions of the cell.

This is only two sentences and it doesnt constrain the meaning of DNA and it actually includes more information than the previous paragraph. Bensaccount 16:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Second paragraph:

"In bacteria and other simple or prokaryotic cell organisms, DNA is distributed more or less throughout the cell. In the complex or eukaryotic cells that make up plants, animals and in other multi-celled organisms, most of the DNA resides in the cell nucleus. ". Firstly, in prokaryotes ("prokaryotic cell organisms") DNA is found in the nucleoid region. Seconly prokaryotic and eukaryotic DNA demand their own subsections and should not be part of the intro.
"The energy-generating organelles known as chloroplasts and mitochondria also carry DNA, as do many viruses. ". Firstly chloroplasts and mitochondria are in cells so this is already covered (put it in subtopics). Secondly, there is some info here that should be included so:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (abbreviated DNA) is a macromolecule that encodes heritable biological information of a cell. It determines the structure and functions of the cell. DNA can also be found in viruses.

If DNA can be found outside of cells in other forms, list them after virsuses.

All that information has been compacted into two sentences. I want a comment mainly from 168. If anyone else is likely to revert this sentence if it is used I want their comment as well. Bensaccount 16:07, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] The formulation looks pretty good to me, but following the links to "biological" and "information" would not be helpful to novice readers. Probably it would be better either to just remove those links and supply an explanation of what you mean by "biological information" later in the article, or else put the explanation in a separate linked article called "biological information." I seem to recall discussions on this page about what "information" "really means," so (even that terms makes sense to me) you may find that it is controversial. P0M 17:24, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Deoxyribonucleic acid (abbreviated DNA) is a macromolecule that encodes the structure and functions of a cell. This biological information is heritable, hence the common phrase molecule of heredity. DNA can also be found in viruses.

Ok by getting rid of some redundancy I made room to include "molecule of heredity" which is more a stylistic point but doesn't do any harm as long as everything else is clear. Bensaccount 18:04, 7 Mar 2004

[P0M:] "Molecule of heredity" is not a clear formulation. I think I can figure out what those words are intended to convey, but our goal should always be to say things cogently in the first place. IMHO, some of the bad edits in the history of this page have come as a result of a certain individual harvesting all manner of inexact formulations from mass media sources and insisting that they be used because they had previously been used. See Slrubenstein's comments below.

(UTC)

I hate to step into the middle of an edit-war, as I have been in some myself in the past and know not only how heated passions may get, but how hard it can be to deal with new substantive issues. I genuinely hope that the involved parties can resolve their current dispute. I have looked over the recent history only cursorily but it appears to me primarily to be a matter of style (if I am misunderstanding someone's point, I apologize -- I am NOT attempting to get involved in this particular issue. At all.) I am concerned with one phrase in the intro, and my concern is for substnative reasons. Given the current state of affiars I will not make any changes to the article but I really would appreciate some reasoned discussion of this issue and perhaps soon we can make an acceptable change. I take issue with this: "because they propagate their traits by doing so." There are many people today who are not well-trained in the biological sciences who believe that genes or DNA determine the nature of the organism, and I fear that those people who read this phrase will have their mistaken belief reaffirmed. Perhaps the author of this phrase, in writing "propogate thier traits" simply meant "traits of the DNA" i.e., specific nucleotide sequences. However, I think most people will read this and think "traits of the organism." This is a mistake. Yes, DNA plays a major role in the reproduction of the organism and thus in the traits of the organism. Emphasis on "role." I object to the languate "propegate their traits" because I believe too many will infer that DNA does this by itself, and completely. In fact, DNA cannot propegate traits by itself, it require many other chemical and biochemical processes in addition (so we could say that they play a role in propegating traits?). Moreover, other things besides DNA affect the traits of the organism -- environmental and developmental processes both within the cell during the process of replication; within a zygote and embryo, and later in the life of an organism. So I think the language here must be more specific and more constrained. I beg others like 168 and Mav and Lexor who have been more active on this page to suggest alternatives and maybe we can come up with something we can all agree to. Slrubenstein

I second your request that things "be more specific and more constrained. P0M 18:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good point (though long winded). Heres the current proposition (see above):

Deoxyribonucleic acid (abbreviated DNA) is a macromolecule that encodes the structure and functions of a cell. This biological information is heritable, hence the common phrase molecule of heredity. DNA can also be found in viruses.

I think what you are referring to is the central dogma of molecular biology. It should definately be included. I also took out the heredity stuff which the more I think about the more unscientific it seems. If you want to know about heredity, make it a subtopic or better yet a whole different article, because it is much more complicated than saying that DNA is a molecule of heredity.

Deoxyribonucleic acid (abbreviated DNA) is a macromolecule that encodes the structure and functions of a cell. It is the first component in the central dogma of molecular biology (DNA → RNA → protein). DNA can also be found in other entities such as viruses. Bensaccount 18:20, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] The above formulation mixes universes of discourse. Is DNA a molecule or is it a tenent is some dogma?

It is both (and its not just some dogma its the central dogma to molecular biology). Bensaccount 18:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Should we include incorrect phrases if they are common?

As many sources refer to DNA as the "genetic code of life" or as something which contains, transmits, or carries the "genetic code of life" -- I feel that phrase should be part of this article. Furthermore, it should be just as prominently displayed as "molecule of heredity,"; since such "alternate names" are traditionally placed within the first paragraph -- that is where "genetic code of life" should be placed. Lirath Q. Pynnor

This should not be done because:

You are only adding these phrases because you think they are common.
"Genetic code of life" is very abstract and can refer to much more than DNA.
"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)

Regardless of your personal pov, the phrase "genetic code of life" is used by a significant number of textbooks, academics, celebrities, television programmes, and websites. Lirath Q. Pynnor

You just proved point number 1 above. Bensaccount 01:33, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are you disputing that the phrase is used? Lirath Q. Pynnor

No im saying you are only adding the phrase because you think its commonly used. This doesn't make a phrase correct. Ex: Lakes and oceans are blue because they reflect the blue sky (not true). Bensaccount 04:10, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is your personal POV that the phrase is incorrect. People do use the phrase in reference to DNA; thus, the article should include it. Lirath Q. Pynnor

What you just said was basically: The phrase is correct because it is common (AGAIN). (and yes my POV is to disagree with you because of the 3 reasons above). Bensaccount 16:28, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, I never said the phrase was correct. What I said is that the phrase is sufficiently common, and thus the article must include it. You appear unaware that the Wikipedia maintains a policy of not determining what is and isn't correct -- we try to include all points of view. Lirath Q. Pynnor

It is acceptable to include all points of view when the correct one is in doubt. It is not acceptable to include points of view that have irrefutably been proven incorrect. Bensaccount 23:06, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It does not matter whether, or not, the phrases are correct. Regardless, since they are used, they must be included here. Lirath Q. Pynnor

You think we should include incorrect phrases? How about calling it deoxynucleic acid its also a common mistake. Bensaccount 23:55, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. As you can see here [1] Hartnell College has intentionally used the term "deoxynucleic acid" in reference to DNA. It is our job to list and report all such usages, regardless of whether we personally believe they are technically appropriate. Naturally, you should feel more than free to write in the article why the term might be considered inappropriate -- however, I am merely asserting that the terms should be mentioned as part of the article. If you don't believe that this is standard wikipedia policy, you might wish to ask about this at the mailing list.Lirath Q. Pynnor

Ok I can understand how it could be useful to include incorrect items as long as they are:

Not included in the introduction as a correct description.
Corrected (or at least classified as incorrect).

Therefore I propose creating a section entitled Common mistakes or somesuch name.Bensaccount 02:03, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That would not be acceptable because it is our personal opinion that it is a mistake to use these terms. We must maintain an objective viewpoint. It would be appropriate to state, "Some people describe DNA as the "genetic code of life"; however, others object to this term because of..." Lirath Q. Pynnor

If you must include a line like "Some people describe DNA as "deoxynucleic acid" because of a typo, however, everyone who knows the real name of DNA object to this term because it is a mistake." it would go in the section entitled common mistakes. There is no reason to put this in the intro. Bensaccount 15:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your problem is that you can't accept something as being a fact unless it is commonly accepted. This is absurd. How would you describe even the simplest things like the shape of a square? "Some people describe the shape of a square as square; however, others object to this term because they think a square is a circle. In conclusion, a square may be shaped like a square or a circle." Bensaccount 16:03, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Even if more people think a square is a circle, it remains a square, so an article about a sqare shouldn't say that people think a square is a circle, it should say that a square is a square. (A completely different article could address the popular opinion that a square is a circle). Bensaccount 16:07, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A square is not a circle because more people think it is a circle. A square is still a square. DO NOT ARGUE THIS POINT!. (It will make me very angry).

It is the duty of every article about something real (encyclopedia or not) to report what is fact. Anything otherwise is a form of a lie. Bensaccount 16:15, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Allow me to simplify for everyone:

Everytime you write something, you know if you are telling the truth or lying. If you dont, you shouldn't be writing about it, you should be reading about it. There are times when lying is acceptable. This is not one of them. Popular opinion plays no part in this. Bensaccount 16:35, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How many times must I repeat that I am not asserting that DNA is properly known as deoxynucleic acid or that it is properly described as the "genetic code of life". My sole assertion is that a significant number of people do refer to it as such; and thus, the article must report it in accordance with the basic guidelines of the wikipedia.
- Deoxynucleic acid is not a typo, there are people who deliberately use that term. The information should be at the beginning of the article, because in all articles we attempt to list alternate names/nicknames/metaphors at the beginning.
- As you stated, our goal is report what is fact. It is fact that people refer to DNA as deoxynucleic acid and as the "genetic code of life". Thus, we must report it. Lirath Q. Pynnor

So you think this article should not be about DNA but rather about what has been commonly said about DNA? If this is the article you are looking for, you are on the wrong page. Go edit some page like "What Watson and crick have said about DNA" or "What people who can't spell have said about DNA" Bensaccount 23:48, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you review the numerous pages on what sort of information the wikipeda wishes to include. Lirath Q. Pynnor

This article is about DNA not about what has been commonly said about DNA. Bensaccount 00:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Summary

Should we include incorrect phrases if they are common?

No we should try and get rid of or correct incorrect phrases.
Being common is not a reason for inclusion; this article is about DNA not about what has been commonly said about DNA. Bensaccount 21:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The "genetic code of life" and "deoxynucleic acid" and "molecule of heredity"

Allow me to clarify something for you, Bensaccount. Those of us who have been trying to make progress on this passage already know the realive merits and flaws with this phrase (refer to the archives). I, for one, would prefer if it wasn't used but it was included as a compromise to Lir. Stewart Adcock 17:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We shouldn't lie to compromise with Lir. Bensaccount 17:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] At this point I'm not clear which phrase is "this phrase." When people like the writer at Hartnell make a mistake and write "deoxyribonucleic" as "deosribbonocleric" ;-) or whatever, the usual way to to deal with it, if we are required to quote the mistaken passage for some reason, is to follow the error with the Latin word "sic" in parentheses. Ordinarily there would be no reason to catalog every misspelling and beginner's mistake in an article devoted to explaining something.

[P0M:] If we are now actually talking about the "genetic code of life", then I can happily agree with both Lir and Bensaccount. The idea of a "hereditary code-script" has historical importance because it appeared in a seminal book by a physicist, Schrödinger, that got the bio-chemical researchers on the right track. So the idea has to be in the article at the appropriate point. That being said, I started objecting to several things in the introduction a very long time ago (in subjective time) and most of what I said was scrambled in the recent cataclysms. One of the things that I did not like in the introductory passage was this very phrase "genetic code of life". I object to it because it is not the most apposite way to explain what is going on. Now you are probably going to ask me why I have not provided a more apposite way and I will be frank and tell you that I have been discouraged from doing so in part because of the intrinsic difficulty of the task and in part because of the intense partisan attitude that even attempts to provide "a gentle response" have sometimes met on this talk page. P0M 18:42, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Summary

Deoxynucleic acid - This is a common incorrect phrase therefore it should be corrected before inclusion (see above).
Molecule of heredity - Appeared in a seminal book by a physicist, Schrödinger, that got the bio-chemical researchers on the right track. Therefore should be included in the history subsection.
Genetic code of life - Common, but misleading & therefore incorrect, therefore it should be corrected before inclusion (see above).

The Two-Thirds Majority Version

Some newcomers may not realize that a consensus-building process has already 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. Until a majority vote approves a different version, this is the version that should be posted. It is as follows:

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.

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

There are many things wrong with these two paragraphs but here are the main ones to begin with:

They fail to quickly intoduce DNA so that it can be subcatagorized throughout the article. (They try and cover too many aspects).
Once again, genetic instuction is too vague. (see above).
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.
"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)
The central dogma of cell biology (DNA replication, transcription, translation) is not even mentioned (although part of it is).

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)

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 and suggested a new intro based on the problems and achievements of the old intro. Here it is: Prove me wrong.

Deoxyribonucleic acid (abbreviated DNA) is a macromolecule that encodes the structure and functions of a cell. It is the first component in the central dogma of molecular biology (DNA → RNA → protein). DNA can also be found in other entities such as viruses. Bensaccount 18:20, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

Other issues

[Peak to Bensaccount:] You may be well-intentioned, but you are clearly ill-informed about the amount of effort that many people, including some very smart ones and some experts, have invested in the effort so far. Yes, that means a lot of time has been spent doing the things you ask for: discussing details, disproving ideas, and attempting to get people to accept facts. If you read the archives, you will see that serious problems arise when a someone (e.g. a sysop or a subvandal) insists that UNANIMITY is required. This is an invitation for subvandals to create havoc. (E.g. in the present case, a very valuable contributor (168...) has (at least for now) quit Wikipedia.) So there are much larger issues here than the wording of one particular preamble. Peak 18:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] I believe it has been shown possible for one person to insist that his/her take on reality is superior to all others, to change the text, and then to systematically revert all attempts by others to alter this perfect piece of writing. I don't recall having seen Peak take this attitude, nor have I seen him use demeaning language toward other, or characterize the positions as not being worthy of consideration (without offering a reason why some position won't work), but his attitude seems to be a rarity on these talk pages. Problems seem to arise when one person can establish and defend by revert a position that other have good reason to oppose, but problems also arise when one person can veto a change on the grounds that a unanimous vote to change is necessary. I suspect these two things are both versions of the Molly Sugden syndrome. She's the lady who always ends a fiat with the words, "I am unanimous in regard to that issue."

[P0M:] Another thing that I have noticed (and have commented upon before) is the frequency with which the techniques of verbal assault are substituted for reasoned analysis by some participants in debates. Criticisms of content are frequently prefaced by unflattering characterizations of the authors of said content.

[P0M:] A third tendency I have noticed is the frequent use of the technique of refusing to answer a major point that someone has raised by attacking something that is not of central importance. P0M 20:11, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[Ant to Bensaccount] Do not feel discouraged :-) If you find a better phrasing or content for the preambule, just do it :-) Otherwise, just let the time do its affair. It will depends on whether 168 chooses to come back or not. FirmLittleFluffyThing

Edit Boldly Where Angels...

[P0M:] For many actions one may take, the social context is vitally important. Changing any line in an article written by one of the Lords of the Universe is asking for an instant revert with a snotty "summary" message to the effect that sophomoric attempts by lesser beings are reprehensible. Some of my edits have met that response. On the other hand, editing a line written by an objective writer who can see the advantage to the new formulation can sometimes even yield a commendation. On the third hand, editing a line or a block of text that has been a focus of irrascible debate for the past several weeks or months is an exercise in futility. It may even be an exercise in futility if one gets the formulation exactly right -- because people are incapable of being objective. Getting it exactly right involves writing with a physicists sense of elegance. I don't know of any renown physicists who dare characterize their own work -- in words or in formulae -- as elegant. Perhaps it is part of the training in objectivity that does it. Perhaps it is the unsympathetic response of experiments to fervent entreaties that does it.

[P0M:] We are advised to "edit boldly". I've been criticized (mildly) for bringing something up on a talk page instead of just jumping in and changing something. I've also been told, when proposing a change (in outline) on a talk page, "Just you try it, and see what I will do about it." (I'm paraphrasing, and maybe bringing into my paraphrase some of the emotion that stuck to the written message as a result of preceding acrid remarks from that contributor.)

[P0M:] Personally, I'm not eager to waste everybody's time, and to have my actions entail confusion to the general reader who finds a different article every time 'e returns to it. I would rather take the proposed change to talk page and hash it out -- even though my efforts may be characterized in various unflattering ways. If I can make my point clearly enough, I seem to be able to change other people's opinions or see the light in regard to what others have said.

[P0M:] I think the main problem with the precious preamble, over which so much virtual blood has been spilled, is that nobody is clear on what ideas need to be conveyed. If one does not have a clear intention, a clear mental picture, of what needs to be conveyed, no amount of skill, no accumulation of paraphrases, no... Nothing is going to help. We have been arguing about buzz words and catch phrases, but we have failed to nail DNA.

I think what you are looking for is "what the preamble is". It is a definition (a simple association). I hope nobody want to argue about this because I am sick of sidetracking. Bensaccount 00:37, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] Edit boldly? Well, o.k., but how about thinking clearly and how about being aware of the inevitable consequences of some actions? P0M 23:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, until someone disagrees with the current proposed version of the preamble, the idea of which ideas need to be conveyed is now clear. Bensaccount 23:34, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] The above declaration is a non sequiter.

Ok it may not be 'perfectly clear', but it is the clearest and least disputed version as of yet. Bensaccount 00:24, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It does not follow logically from "nobody has disagreed with the current proposed version of the preamble" that "the idea of which ideas need to be conveyed is clear", nor does it follow that "the idea of which ideas need to be conveyed is relatively clear." P0M 00:50, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And believe me it wasn't easy to get this far so I dont like the latest unexplained revert by Peak. Bensaccount 23:42, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And you've been here how long? Lirath Q. Pynnor

How to Discuss DNA

I think its important to address one point at a time, starting with the first sentence. Until we do so, we will just keep running in circles and archiving endless pages of concurrent debates. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I agree. Bensaccount 23:25, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(This start-to-finish style of article construction disturbs me slightly but...) In the interest of making progress, I'd recommend that you consider the first paragraphs fixed for now. We all know that they aren't perfect (a symptom of consensus editting) but, optimistically, they can be fixed with iterative editting once the more important problems have been ironed out of the remainder of the article. Stewart Adcock 17:24, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Theres no harm in fixing up the rest of the article first so you can go ahead, but I want to fix the beginning because it is incorrect (and is the most important part in my opinion). Bensaccount 17:56, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My sole interest here is in addressing the beginning. Once that has been done, I plan to move on to some other article. Lirath Q. Pynnor

The propositions as of 10/03

First paragraph

(The first paragraph is a definition (simple association).)

Option 1
Deoxyribonucleic acid (abbreviated DNA) is a macromolecule that encodes the structure and functions of a cell. This biological information is heritable, hence the common phrase molecule of heredity. DNA can also be found in viruses.

- : "Molecule of heredity" is not a clear formulation and rather mass media information (see pom)

I agree. But, at least that sentence isn't wrong. Stewart Adcock

The sentence is misleading. It should be moved to the history subsection (see above). Bensaccount 22:23, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

- : "Biological information" is unclear.

+ : I think the link macromolecule is important

Why? Stewart Adcock

It is good to associate DNA with what it is (a macromolecule). More specific would be to say its a nucleic acid. Bensaccount 00:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please tell me if I'm wrong, but haven't we been over this before? My prefered choice has been nucleic acid for a while. Stewart Adcock 00:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) (In fact, Nucleic acid was selected in majority version of the intro. Stewart Adcock 01:39, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC))

Option 2

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.

- :Lack of clarity around propagate traits (see slru)

It seems perfectly clear to me. I'm not adverse to someone suggesting an alternative wording though. Stewart Adcock

The sentence is misleading (same as heredity above). Bensaccount 22:23, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

- : "Genetic instructions" is unclear

- : "Biological development" is only a fraction of what DNA codes for.

- : "Molecule of heredity" is misleading

- : DNA replication is less than 1/3 of the role of DNA. If you include it you should include the central dogma first.

Option 3
Deoxyribonucleic acid (abbreviated DNA) is a macromolecule that encodes the structure and functions of a cell. It is the first component in the central dogma of molecular biology (DNA → RNA → protein). DNA can also be found in other entities such as viruses.

- : the dogma is not something that is meaningfull to readers as a first sight on the topic. It should be in the body of the article itself

I agree. It belongs here no more than "molecule of heredity" does. The term "dogma" is misleading anyway. When Crick first formulated the idea back in the late 50s, he meant "dogma" as meaning "with no reasonable evidence". Luckily, most people read it as meaning "doctrine" instead. If, bensaccount, you think that it is important to introduce the central dogma in the preamble, then a third paragraph following this is probably the best place to do it.Stewart Adcock

If you don't want the central dogma in the definition I wont argue but you should not include ANY functions of DNA to be consistant. Bensaccount

Option 4

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA or deoxynucleic acid) is a nucleic acid that carries genetic "instructions" which play a significant role during the biological development of all cellular forms of life, and many viruses; it is, thus, sometimes said to metaphorically be the "genetic code of life". DNA is also 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. This macromolecule encodes the structure and functions of cells; it is the first component of the central dogma of molecular biology.

- :Genetic instruction again

- :Developmental biology again

- :"genetic code of life" is a metaphor for what? (unclear, see above)

- :molecule of heredity again

- :heredity and propagation of traits involves meiosis, genetics (mendels laws etc), the expression of traits (the central dogma) and so much more. DNA is just a nucleic acid.

+ :I like the last sentence Bensaccount 22:22, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Second paragraph

(Description?)

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.

- : This paragraph is an attempt to dichotomize prokaryotes and eukaryotes. It should be put into the subheadings. Bensaccount 18:01, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe that this paragraph is making such an attempt. It is stating the cellular locations of the DNA which is, of course, distinct accoss these cell types. Stewart Adcock 22:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well then it should go into the Location subheading. Bensaccount 22:33, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You looked up dichotomy on wikipedia because of this and put it on VFD didnt you? lol (I dont appreciate that - I created that entry) Bensaccount 04:37, 14 Mar 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

Revised paragraph(s) combining all the pros and not the cons

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid. It encodes the structure and functions of an organism. DNA can be found in all cells and many viruses.

Comments on revised paragraph

I think it should have one more sentence relating to its function (central dogma) and possibly one more relating to structure (deoxyribose). Bensaccount 22:48, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Article location

I would like to re-open the discussion of moving the content of this article to the title "Deoxyribonucleic acid", as Ben has suggested. The title "DNA" will redirect to "Deoxyribonucleic acid", so no links will be broken; we can leave the disambiguation note at the top of the article, in the same format as the disambiguation note at the top of Artificial intelligence. If no one objects, I will make the move in a day. -- Cyan 19:39, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Except since DNA is the most common name used to refer to this, that move would be a violation of the naming conventions. Lirath Q. Pynnor

True, but that's not necessarily a bad thing; exceptions are permitted when people agree to them. I put forth the suggestion that the setup for the AI set of pages would also be appropriate here; if you (or anyone) do not agree to the move, please state so clearly, and I will not move the article. -- Cyan 21:48, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think I just did state so clearly. Furthermore, DNA is also known as deoxynucleic acid (also DNA), so moving would be a violation of NPOV as well as the naming conventions. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[P0M:] Are you sure? Check for the two words in Google. They frequently occur in the same article, e.g., in list of chemicals preparations for sale, and appear to have different meanings. For instance, check out [[2]] P0M 04:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reversion by peak

This section is about the reversion to the oldest version from the newest version by user:Peak. (According to this discussion page the article is no longer protected.) Bensaccount

The opening section is protected. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Look at the protection as of March 9. (above) It is not. Bensaccount 23:23, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Archives

Is this page protected from editing ? 09 march 2004

Discussion

Intro passage fact by fact

Should we include incorrect phrases if they are common?

Summary

The "genetic code of life" and "deoxynucleic acid" and "molecule of heredity"

Summary

The Two-Thirds Majority Version

Other issues

Edit Boldly Where Angels...

How to Discuss DNA

The propositions as of 10/03

First paragraph

Second paragraph

Stuff that should be included in the first paragraph

Revised paragraph(s) combining all the pros and not the cons

Comments on revised paragraph

Article location

Reversion by peak