Talk:Arsenic biochemistry: Difference between revisions
→expansion: new section |
|||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
:I think the article needs expansion. The current article is solely about the new organism announced by NASA. But according to our own [[arsenic]] article, there are microbes that use arsenic in photosynthesis where arsenate replaces water. That should also be in this article. With that expansion, we can come up with a better name. "Arsenic DNA" is definitely bad, since even with the current article contents, it covers more than having arsenic in DNA. Arsenic in other biomolecules is already covered here. [[Special:Contributions/65.93.12.108|65.93.12.108]] ([[User talk:65.93.12.108|talk]]) 11:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC) |
:I think the article needs expansion. The current article is solely about the new organism announced by NASA. But according to our own [[arsenic]] article, there are microbes that use arsenic in photosynthesis where arsenate replaces water. That should also be in this article. With that expansion, we can come up with a better name. "Arsenic DNA" is definitely bad, since even with the current article contents, it covers more than having arsenic in DNA. Arsenic in other biomolecules is already covered here. [[Special:Contributions/65.93.12.108|65.93.12.108]] ([[User talk:65.93.12.108|talk]]) 11:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
== expansion == |
|||
This article is too focused on the new NASA organism. It should be expanded to cover the theoretical aspects of arsenic in life, substituting for some other chemical that most life uses instead. It should also cover other organisms. The [[arsenic]] article already mentions the use of arsenate in replacement of water for photosynthesis for [[Ectothiorhodospira shaposhnikovii]]. |
|||
Theoretical biology and astrobiology aspects need to be increased. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/65.93.12.108|65.93.12.108]] ([[User talk:65.93.12.108|talk]]) 11:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:35, 3 December 2010
Biology Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Template:WikiProject MCB Template:WikiProject Genetics
People
Please stop confusing "arsenic-BASED" life with single cell life that can utilize arsenic, possibly as a replacement of phosphorous. It is WILDLY inaccurate to state that arsenic formed a successful part of the "genetic" makeup or functional DNA of the bacteria.
The hype should stop. Please go get an education. And stop editing the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.111.34 (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree (mostly). This article is poorly titled (at least as far as it discussesGFAJ-1 rather than hypothetical extraterrestrial life-forms). GFAJ-1 isn't arsenic based. It's still carbon based. It uses arsenic instead of phosphorous in some circumstances, which is certainly a significant finding. Still, as with other terrestrial organisms, arsenic/phosphorous are a tiny chunk of the overall bulk of the organism. Maybe 0.5% of GFAJ-1 is arsenic (0.5% is roughly the amount of phosphorous in other organisms). 20% of GFAJ-1 is carbon, and the bulk of the remainder is water.192.104.39.2 (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would have to say wait... Please refer yourselves [to this page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GFAJ-1]. The community consensus is to wait for a few days to see how the news plays out. Mrld (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Let's be clear. That consensus is only on merging of the two articles. Renaming this article, to a name more appropriate and in-line with the verifiable sources to date, need not wait for the merger discussion to be completed. See the next comment below. N2e (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think someone knowledgeable ought to consider making a proposal to RENAME the article. If so, it should be done in a new section (below) on this Talk page. I would be inclined to support such a rename as there certainly doesn't seem to be reliable source verifiability for the claim implied by the current article title (Arsenic-based life). N2e (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- If the phrase "arsenic based life" is being used, its incorrect. I would recommend we let the scientific community come up with a name, which may be more like "arsenate substituted nucleic biology". arsenic based life is a phrasing equivalent to "carbon based life" which of course this org. is. we really dont need to ADD to the dumbing down of the population. Until we get a good name, i think a neutral term like "arsenic in biological processes" would work better. not as glamorous of course.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think someone knowledgeable ought to consider making a proposal to RENAME the article. If so, it should be done in a new section (below) on this Talk page. I would be inclined to support such a rename as there certainly doesn't seem to be reliable source verifiability for the claim implied by the current article title (Arsenic-based life). N2e (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Article title proposals
Let's started a list of proposals for renaming this article:
- Arsenic-accommodating organisms. This is my first proposal. --Thorwald (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- My proposal is
- Arsenic-DNA hoax
This is going to be a new Sokal affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredr (talk • contribs) 08:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Hoax" is a little presumptuous, but "Arsenic DNA" has a catchy terseness to it.--Sharonmil (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
On the name
Okay, I get why "arsenic-based life" is a bad name. It was both misleading and arguably wrong. On the other hand, it had the virtue of being widely used in the popular press (though not by scientists, as far as I could tell). I'm not sure where the name "arsenic DNA" came from but it seems to be almost a novel invention. Very few accounts seem to have adopted that compound noun, and I'm not sure any of those accounts use it to refer to both the DNA with arsenic in it and more generally to the ability to incorporate arsenic in other biomolecules, as this article currently tries to.
So, I don't think "arsenic DNA" is a good name either. Perhaps we need to settle on something longer and more descriptive? "Phosphorus replacement by arsenic", "Microbial arsenic substitution", "Arsenic-based biomolecules". Frankly, I don't know what the right title is, but I don't think that "arsenic DNA" is it. Dragons flight (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think the article needs expansion. The current article is solely about the new organism announced by NASA. But according to our own arsenic article, there are microbes that use arsenic in photosynthesis where arsenate replaces water. That should also be in this article. With that expansion, we can come up with a better name. "Arsenic DNA" is definitely bad, since even with the current article contents, it covers more than having arsenic in DNA. Arsenic in other biomolecules is already covered here. 65.93.12.108 (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
expansion
This article is too focused on the new NASA organism. It should be expanded to cover the theoretical aspects of arsenic in life, substituting for some other chemical that most life uses instead. It should also cover other organisms. The arsenic article already mentions the use of arsenate in replacement of water for photosynthesis for Ectothiorhodospira shaposhnikovii.
Theoretical biology and astrobiology aspects need to be increased.