Jump to content

Talk:DNA/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:DNA

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peak (talk | contribs) at 09:36, 9 January 2004 (response to response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Protected

I have protected this page. Full disclosure: I have edited this page. My last edit to it was on August 18. If anyone feels this disqualifies me from being disinterested enough to mediate this page, I will unprotect it and involve myself no more.

The disagreement seems to focus on two paragraphs: the introductory paragraph and the lead paragraph under the heading "Overview of molecular structure". Let's focus on the introductory paragraph first.

Version Q:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the basic biochemical component of chromosomes. This nucleic acid is the primary mechanism of genetic inheritance; it is transmitted to offspring, via reproduction.

Version Z:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the chief chemical component of chromosomes and is the material of which genes are made. Parent organisms transmit copied portions of their DNA to offspring during reproduction. This transmission is the primary mechanism of biological inheritance.

What are the reasons for prefering one version over the other? Start discussing here. -- Cyan 03:28, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest that Version Q is better due to two issues. 1) It is much more concise and easier to read, yet has almost exactly the same information content. 2) In my view, the presence of a genes is a property of certian stretches of DNA rather than, as version Z suggests, a gene is made of DNA. Either way, it is nothing more than splitting hairs. Stewart Adcock 03:53, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC) (I'll also add the disclaimer that I haven't studied biology since I was 13, i.e. I'm no expert).

Admirably modest to offer that disclaimer, but based on your Web page, I'm thinking it might be more accurate to describe your expertise in biology as "patchy." Proteins intersect with biology in my book and I think they do in most other people's too. If I were in your place, I would consider that disclaimer to be skirting a little too close to inviting any person who has a vivid memory of being 13 and who has grade 11 bio under his belt to revert at will anything I might write about proteins. On the Internet, nobody knows you're being modest. 168... 16:13, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


I think I'm probably mostly responsible for version Z, and as can probably be deduced from the page history I prefer this version over Q. In general, I favor succinctness, but not with these two choices. I don't like Q's use of the semi-colon, which I think makes for a clunky and hard-to-read sentence. Re: your point #2, "gene" has many meanings, but in what I think must be the primary molecular biological sense of the word, a gene is a piece of DNA. Hence, DNA is the material of which genes are made. Because "gene" is a culturally important word, and because many people have only a weak mastery of, and because I think to speak of genes being made of a material is cool and provocative and instructive, I like seeing this idea expressed explicitly. Q's construction, "component of chromosomes and genes", doesn't express it explicitly. Z's construction does and, although it's longer than Q's, I think it reads even better; partly for being less abstract and partly for being less dense.168... 04:10, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As an editor, you have certain responsibilities. That means, if you don't like my use of the semi-colon...then you edit my semi-colon. A semi-colon is not grounds for reversion. The same goes for whether one says "made of" or "composed of". Lirath Q. Pynnor

Let us bring the topic of discussion away from what people should have done in the past and focus on what we are going to do in the present. Lir, could you make some comments about the differences between versions Q and Z? -- Cyan 04:41, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Z is excessively long and wordy. It neglects to note that DNA is a nucleic acid. Q could better illustrate that genes are a "chunk" of DNA (although, thats probably not necessary in the first paragraph); however, I was hoping someone else would make that edit (rather than reverting). Since chromosomes are formed of genes are formed of DNA, its not necessary to explicitly refer to genes in the first paragraph; although, Q does refer to "genetic inheritance". Lirath Q. Pynnor

[Peak:] Firstly, I would like to say that it is indeed appropriate that these kinds of issues be discussed on the Talk page. If someone finds that his or her "improvements" to an article are not generally seen as such, then that person should be encouraged to explain their position on the Talk page rather than persistly making numerous changes on the main page, especially when it is evident that a considerable amount of work and care has already gone into an article.

[Peak:] Secondly, I would like to point out that the choice being presented above (Q vs Z) trivializes the situation a bit. Here is the preamble as it was at 19:38, 4 Jan 2004:

Version J:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the chief chemical component of chromosomes and is the material of which genes are made. It is sometimes called the "molecule of heredity," because parents transmit copied portions of their own DNA to offspring during reproduction, and because they propagate their traits by doing so. This transmission of DNA is the primary mechanism of biological inheritance.

I am not saying this is perfect, but it does introduce the idea of DNA being the "molecule of heredity", a phrase which is used later in the article. My suggestion is that we use this Talk page constructively to attempt to devise a formulation that is better than J, Q and Z. Peak 06:02, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Who refers to it as the "molecule of heredity"? I think if a user makes edits, and you don't like them; YOU need to go to the talk page, instead of reverting. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Who?These people 168... 06:28, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh, so if I find a list of people who refer to DNA as the "genetic code of life"; does that mean I can include it too? Lirath Q. Pynnor


Of course, so long as they are reliable people. 168... 06:35, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well there you go: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22genetic+code+of+life%22&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-tab-web-t&n=20&fl=0&x=wrt

On a quick skim, I didn't see any reliable sources for your assertion. Only one I saw was academic. None used the word DNA in close connection with the phrase as you propose to do. 168... 06:45, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, your quick skim isn't exactly appropriate. Please do not waste my time arguing with me, if you can't be bothered to act appropriately. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Just pick your favorite piece of evidence and I will be happy to take a careful look at it. I was just telling you that from skimming I don't expect that you'll be able to find even a single piece of evidence that I regard as good. But I would encourage you to try and then to show it to us.168... 15:47, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Okay after making my comment, I went away for a while thought about other things. Later, without reference to the original passages (other than anything I could remember), I wrote what I think should be the opening passage:

S:Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the biochemical constituent of chromosomes, the biomolecules in which genes are encoded. During reproduction, parent organisms transmit copies of their DNA to their offspring and this process is the primary mechanism for biological inheritance.

This short summary introduces the fact that DNA is some kind of biomolecule, and that it is involved in inheritance. What else would you possibly want in the introductory paragraph? Hmmm, actually, it seems closer to version Z. Any waffle about "molecule of heredity" belongs in the body of the article. Just my 2 cents. Stewart Adcock 06:29, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


One problem with that version is that genes are not encoded by anything. Genes encode other things. Other things don't encode genes. 168... 06:33, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We will have to disagree on that point. Since there isn't a universally agreed definition for gene, there's not much we can do about that. I say that genes are encoded, by the nucleotide alphabet, in the chromosomes. Stewart Adcock 07:42, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(moved subsequent niggling to my Talk page)168... 01:55, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Another problem is that DNA is one of many biochemical constituents of chromosomes as they normally appear in eukaryotic cells...not "the biochemical constituent". I also think the word "biochemical" is obscure and that its chief and perhaps only legitimate usage is different from the use that you are making of it. I think it's a bit of vocabulary that isn't helpful to what this article is explaining and having it as a link makes it look important and threatens to lead people on an unnecessary excursion. Overall, I think the paragraph is more abstract and less engaging than either Z or the pre-Z version with "molecule of heredity" in it. 168... 07:16, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So what is the only legitimate usage of "biochemical" then? Maybe I'm being hopeful, but perhaps a lay person could indicate whether "biochemical" is any more obscure than "chemical". Both words could be said to be correct, but "biochemical" is far more precise. Stewart Adcock 07:48, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I suspect the only legitamte usage of "biochemical" is to mean "relating to biochemistry." You seem to be using it in the sense of "what biochemical is in this beaker?" Although that usage exists for "chemical," I think "biochemical" used this way is a neologism.168... 15:44, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I possibly conceed that point although only in the sense that what I'd written obviously wasn't unambiguous. I was using the "constituent" to mean "chemical" as saying "biochemical chemical" is just silly. Hence in "biochemical constituent", I was using "biochemical" in the sense you describe. Stewart Adcock 20:23, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Sorry. Now that I look again I don't get the impression you were using it in the beaker-of-biochemicals sense. I read the sentence now as "constituent to do with biochemistry" and making conventional use of "biochemical." So my objection really is just that I consider the word obscure and distracting.168... 20:47, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Discussion of the composition of chromosomes belongs at chromosome, not at DNA. So the first sentence is too wordy. The rest of it is also too wordy, see my version above. Lirath Q. Pynnor

With respect to the first sentence, this is exactly what makes the DNA so interesting/important. The remainder may be too wordy, but it is clear and unambigous. Your final sentence is far more concise and provides almost exactly the same information... but at the cost that it increases the required reading age significantly. Stewart Adcock 07:42, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC) (Your version is the most efficient in terms of bytes that need to be downloaded ;-) )

If anything, my version is less hard to understand; most readers are turned off by the number of words, not by their so-called "complexity". "interesting" is POV, and is not a suitable reason to mention genes within the opening paragraph...of course, we could refer to genes instead of chromosomes; but, since Q refers to "genetic inheritance"; there is no need to do that. There is no need to remind that reader that "parents" produce offspring. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I am truely baffled... :-/ Stewart Adcock 20:23, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[Peak:] Lest my silence be misinterpreted, please note that I remain in agreement with 168... on every point. For those who don't see the point about the phrase "genetic code", please see the Wiki article at genetic code. Some consideration should be given to 168...'s evident expertise and superlative track record. Peak 09:57, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, no need to build a religion or anything around me. Oh well, all right. Fasting is on Fridays. Wear no green on St Patrick's Day. Dot your i's with a little heart and you go straight to Hell. That is all.168... 15:44, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, we've brought up some different versions, and discussed their perceived advantages and disadvantages. The next step is to try to come up with a consensus introductory paragraph.

Version T (for temp):

DNA is, like, this cool goo, okay?

When this version has been altered to a form that has the approval of every person on our "resolution of conflict" committee, I will place it in the article. Let the compromising begin! -- Cyan 17:58, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am OK with the current version of the article, in which "molecule of heredity" does not appear until paragraph 3. I also liked the earlier version of the intro paragraph when the phrase appeared in there too. Actually, my impression is that the current version already is a compromise. Does this version bother anyone besides Lir? If indeed lots of other people are OK with it, and now that some arguments in favor of it have been spelled out, would Lir be willing to go along with it? 168... 18:23, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am also happy with the current version in the article. One minor nit-pick is that I think "chief" should be replaced by something like "primary". When I read it, as it is, I get the feeling that the writer intended to imply that the DNA is in charge/in control. You may argue that is true, but I don't think that's really what was intended. "most significant", "most abundant", maybe. Ignore this point if you like. Stewart Adcock 20:23, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I changed it to "chief" when I introduced a sentence using "primary" later in the same paragraph. I was trying to avoid an echo. "Primary" was my first choice, but "chief" strikes me as just fine. The sentence doesn't look at all metaphorical to me, so I think readers are unlikely to read the word in the sense you are worried about. And as you say anyway, it's not as if that other sense creates a lude or obviously incorrect image. 168... 20:38, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough. Stewart Adcock 00:28, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, Lir is busy in a fuss over Socialism, so I'm just going to unprotect the page. I'll be watching to see if another edit war breaks out. Cheers, Cyan 18:15, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Protected again. That didn't take long at all... -- Cyan 19:34, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It brings to mind the words of Rodney: "Can't we all just get along?" Gandhi would probably have something to say about this too. Anyway, that's where I'm going for inspiration in this time of conflict.168... 20:10, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Okay, so judging by that farce, Lir isn't happy with that version. I've looked at the edits by Lir and 168 and after applying a single-point genetic crossover to those versions I get this:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the primary biochemical component of chromosomes and genes. Parent organisms transmit copied portions of their DNA to offspring during reproduction. This transmission is the primary mechanism of biological inheritance.

I propose this version as T2. I think both Lir and 168 can accept the first sentence, although 168 would prefer the term "chemical component" instead of "biochemical component". (I'd prefer "biochemical constituent", but I won't push this issue). This brings us to the second portion. Lir will say that it is too wordy. I definitely don't agree with that. But if Lir can suggest an alternative version that contains the same information, and that isn't, "This nucleic acid is the primary mechanism of genetic inheritance; it is transmitted to offspring, via reproduction." then maybe we will have something that we can agree on? The ball is firmly in your side of the court. Stewart Adcock 22:38, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

New rule: if someone proposes a change, and 24 hours passes without comment, silence will be considered assent by me. Starting... now! -- Cyan 02:08, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Addendum: a response that doesn't include a progressive counterproposal will also be considered assent. And I decide if a counterproposal is progressive. I call this style "progress by brute force". -- Cyan 02:15, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)


The paragraph uses "primary" twice. I think the first instance should be changed to chief. Yes, I strongly prefer chemical, as Stewart anticipated, but if that turns out to be the only thing holding us back I will accept biochemical. I liked "material of which genes are made" a lot, but I could give it up as well. 168... 02:31, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. Stewart Adcock 02:45, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But in the event that Lir decides to just walk away in frustration, as seemed to happen before, my progressive proposal is to keep the current protected intro paragraph.168... 02:37, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I also agree with this suggestion (other than changing chemical to biochemical ;-) ) Stewart Adcock 02:45, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Please note that there is a simple solution to the 'chief/primary' problem: use 'main' and then 'primary'. I agree with 168... that 'biochemical component' is completely inappropriate here. However, I don't think that any version that implies that genes have something besides DNA is acceptable. Ergo T4 below. Peak 07:35, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Version T4

For rationale, please see all the comments above :-) In particular, I agree with Lir that using the word 'genetic' obviates the need to include 'gene' in the preamble. T4 does not include 'chromosome' either -- that can be explained elsewhere.

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the chemical that carries the genetic instructions for making all living organisms. Parents transmit copied portions of their DNA to offspring during reproduction. This transmission is the primary mechanism of biological inheritance.

Peak 07:35, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

T4 is just begging for that common quote, "DNA is the genetic code of life".

Fortunately, it's not so common: Google gives 4 hits. "DNA is the secret of life" has 45 hits :-) Perhaps you or someone else would like to make use of this formulation:
Each gene, a segment of DNA, encodes the instructions for building a single protein.
Peak 07:56, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Each gene, a segment of DNA, encodes the instructions for building a single protein. -- I'm not sure whether you were being serious or not, but I just want to make it clear that this is very wrong! (a) Many genes encode RNA that is never translated into a protein (an obvious example being the RNA genes) and (b) Through alternative splicing most genes provide instructions for many more than 1 protein (which is why as a human, you have 200 000 different proteins but only about 30 000 different genes (of course depending upon how you define gene)). Stewart Adcock 17:43, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I assume, now, that you were joking. (I'm not too smart at this time in the morning) Stewart Adcock 18:20, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You haven't looked very hard. lots of hits

Could you give us a specific piece of evidence to look at?
[Peak:] Lir - As has already been emphasized, the phrase "genetic code of life" is perfectly valid, and there is a fine Wiki article on the genetic code, so your query is totally irrelevant. Once the fog lifts, perhaps you will be able to tell us whether or not the confusion here is the result of confusion about the difference between the noun "code" and the verb "encode". Peak 17:59, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

T5

Here are my issues with that:

  • "Facilitating" does not give DNA enough credit for its role in reproduction and doesn't tell readers anything about what its role is.
  • "genetic instructions" uses a lot of syllables to be a lot less explicit than "gene"
  • "carrying" is abstract and conveys less than "made of" or "of which...are made"
  • "transmit" sounds complicated and doesn't explain
  • "nucleic acid" appears in the bold face word Deoxyribonucleic acid and so is, if not completely then at least partially redundant. Also "nucleic acid" is a name archaic in origin which doesn't convey much about what we now think of as important about DNA, and since often it doesn't even come up in discussions of DNA, I think it doesn't deserve to take up space in the intro.
  • "inheritance" is ambiguous ("you mean my mom's diamond ring?") and is a weak guide for the reader. "Heredity" is better.
    • My mistake. I was reading in the edit mode and somehow didn't register the word "biological." So I don't find that ambiguous and just consider heredity a strong and folksier concept that it is worth mentioning in addition, if not instead.168... 19:09, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • "replicated" is not a part of common speech and I believe will make the sentence hard for a naive reader to understand. I think DNA replication is a subject in itself and one that doesn't absolutely have to be touched on in the intro, especially since somebody who doesn't know what DNA is will know nothing at all about replication. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing a link to DNA replication worked in invisibly, for example, like this: "copied portions of their DNA"
  • "biochemical" is redundant and to the extent it's not redundant it's uninteresting. If DNA is a component of the chromosomes then of course it is addressed by the science of biochemistry. At least, it wouldn't be surprising to a reader who knows that DNA is a chemical and knows that it is involved in biology. Even if they don't know that it is a chemical, I suppose being told that it is addressed by biochemistry might allow a naive but astute reader to deduce that it is a chemical. But that is assuming they know what biochemistry is. However, if they know what biochemistry is they probably know what DNA is. We want this article to be understood by people who don't know what DNA is, don't we? 168... 18:31, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Whoo! So we are out of compromising mode then? I agree with a lot of what you say, but most of it is just being obstinate. Anyway, one-by-one:
  • "Facilitating" is fine by me. It is just indicating that DNA is somehow involved, and since this is only an intro paragraph we can stick with that.
  • Upon consideration, I think the use of "genetic instructions" is better than gene, especially since great portions of the chromosomes don't encode ("make up", blah blah) genes.
  • Seems fine to me. Either way. Prefer "carrying", but this goes back to our gene definition discussion.
  • Wan't transmit in your version anyway?
  • Mention of "nucleic acid" is helpful, but only since it provides a convenient link to that article in a highly prominent position.
  • I agree fully.
    • I just changed my mind about the "inheritance" point. It's "biological inheritance", which probably isn't any more ambiguous than any phrase using "heredity". So I retract my "I agree fully" statement. Stewart Adcock 19:01, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • "replicated" is part of common speech although it does have a special, specific, meaning in this context which won't necessarily be understood -- but that's why the link is there. A good point, nonetheless.
  • You already know that I disgree on the "biochemistry" point, but not enough that I'd cry if this was changed.
Stewart Adcock 18:55, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)


How did you know I was just being obstinate?! That is impressive. Not! Although I acknowledge that it might feel like I'm just being obstinate to you.

  • Re: "transmit." Darn! you're right. I don't know if it was in the "molecule of heredity" version. I guess it's just context.
  • Re: common speech, perhaps I should have been more precise. What I mean is that most non-scientists would never spontaneously reach for the word "replicate" in constructing a sentence during a conversation. At least, that's what I believe, and I think that's a worthwhile standard to keep in mind in composing an introduction for a broad readership.168... 19:09, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Much better, but I offer a slight tweak: T5.2

Just easier to read and comprehend. Stewart Adcock 17:43, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I sense a total difference of writing philosophy lurking behind the paragraph suggestions that descend from Lir's early revision and paragraphs similar to the one that's up and protected right now. This potential difference in philosophy makes me worry that the intro paragraph is only the beginning, and that I am going to be asked to sign on to a complete recasting of every paragraph from the top to the bottom of this article. I think this article as it stands now carries just the right tone, has clear and engaging explanations, and embodies more or less exactly the philosophy that I would like it to. I suppose it's no suprise and not persuasive that I should feel this way, because this article has my fingerprints all over it. Yet despite being one of the most highly viewed pages on Wikipedia (according to a list I saw somewhere on the site), it has been stable for a long time. It's very tempting to make one's mark on an article about an important subject, and lots of people know what DNA is and so could indulge their desire to give in to temptation. I think the fact that it's remained more less unchanged for a long time shows that the vast majority of a large number of people must have found this article at the very least acceptable. It's even listed as Wikipedia: Brilliant prose, for whatever that's worth. So I would like to ask Lir in particular and anybody else who would care to chime in: Can you predict what your long-range approach to this article is likely to be? What do you think of it as it stands now overall, in particular with regard to its structure and tone? Do you expect to be pretty close to being satisfied after some changes are made to the intro? Or do you think the whole article needs a lot of work?168... 23:38, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Based on my vote at Wikipedia:Refreshing brilliant prose - Science, you can assume that I think the article, overall, is excellent. (Excluding the "More on DNA replication" section, of course!) There are a couple of mistakes in it though. "The role of the sequence" section needs an overhaul. Stewart Adcock 01:23, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[comment to the effect we're being silly removed]

Ignoring, for the moment, the long-term fate of the article, I want to verify my understanding of the present state of affairs. 168 has brought up some issues with respect to version T5 which also apply to the tweaked T5.2. I'm assuming that these issues are not considered resolved by 168. If this is the case, I ask 168 to propose a further evolution to T5.2, one which moves towards being acceptable to all active parties. (Or if T5.2 suits you, leave a note to that effect.) -- Cyan 05:36, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand. According to your recipe, shouldn't it rather be up to Lir to propose a more acceptable step forward from T4, since I found T5 unacceptable (and indeed seemingly so did Stewart)? Or shouldn't we be going back to T4, since Lir didn't actually say anything against it that was implimented in T5, and neither did anyone else. Anyway, whatever the rules, I don't feel like wracking my brain for what for me will be an unhappy compromise if this compromise is to be just the thin end of a wedge. I will not be participating in the conversion of the article we have now to something approaching the style of T5, so why participate in even the first stage of such a process? I'd like to read what Lir says in response to my question before proceeding...which is why I asked it in the first place. 168... 06:06, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We can wait for Lir to respond, if you like. (In case it wasn't clear: when I say "ask", I don't mean "require". My style is autocratic, but not that autocratic ;-). -- Cyan 06:21, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Also, my ability to assume good faith wanes as Lir continues to ignore my efforts to pursue a discussion to a conclusion. Lir ignored my first request for a specific piece of evidence for "DNA is the genetic code of life" for days and has not yet responded to my recent repeat of the request, which I made after it became clear that Lir did not consider the matter resolved. Are we dealing with someone who can conduct a reasonable conversation or aren't we? 168... 06:29, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Pynnor and Addock agree

Mr. Addock's T5.2 is totally acceptable to me. There are two links to evidence that DNA is sometimes referred to as the "genetic code of life"; those links are found on this page, and are marked as such. I would probably edit "carrying" to "which carries"; but I doubt that is a serious issue. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Except we don't agree about my name! ;-) Stewart Adcock 08:02, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Peak and 168... agree

[Peak:] T5.2 is not horrendous but it is significantly worse than what's currently at DNA. I agree with 168...'s criticisms of T5.2, but perhaps it will help highlight the problems if we go through T5.2 sentence by sentence:

  1. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the primary biochemical component of chromosomes.
    1. Is this actually true? What percentage of a chromosome is DNA anyway? Who cares?
    2. Why the fixation on chromosomes in this very first sentence? Imagine reading an encylopedia article on Water that began: "Water is a chemical found in hoses." (Or as Lir would probably want us to say: In chemistry, water is an inorganic chemical often found, in its liquid state, in garden and fire brigade hoses; when the faucet (or tap) is turned to its on state.)
    3. Minor problem: biochemical
  2. DNA is a nucleic acid carrying genetic instructions.
    1. Since we've already said that DNA is "deoxyribonucleic acid" it's tiresome to have to read it again. But "carrying genetic instructions" is good :-)
  3. Organisms transmit replicated DNA to offspring, thus facilitating reproduction and biological inheritance.
    1. "facilitating" !?!?!

And is there anything in all this that even hints that there is DNA in many viruses, mitochondria, etc?

Please note that T4 was an attempt to think a tiny bit outside the box. If you don't like it, I invite you to improve it or to step even further outside the box (but watch out for the cliff over there :-) Peak 08:11, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

1 -- We care.

Well, what is the percentage? Peak

2 -- That is a personal attack, and is inappropriate.

It was not a personal attack on you (I don't even know you). It is a criticism of the havoc that the abstract entity known as Lir has wreaked on various well-written articles. Peak

3 -- Linking is an important part of the wikipedia.

The official wiki guidelines wisely state:
Use the links for all words and terms that appear in your article for which it could be worthwhile to read the linked article. However, don't overdo it.
Note in particular that it says to link the words in your article, not to rewrite the article to maximize the number of words that can be cross-linked. The "See also" section is the appropriate place for all those extra cross-references. Peak

4 -- Yes, facilitating. Without DNA, reproduction would be more difficult.

You can't have it both ways: either it facilitates, or it's essential. Peak

5 -- Yes, in paragraph 2.

2 != 1. Peak

Lirath Q. Pynnor

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DNA/Archive_12&oldid=2118211"