Talk:Genetic code

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in gene.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genetic code article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	MCB Portal This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Signal transduction.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of Top-importance within molecular and cellular biology.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) high school/SAT biology content - this is so central to molecular biology that I think it should be rated top rather than high - tameeria 15:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Genetic code (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

/Archive 1: Oct 2001 - Sep 2006

Contents 1 2 Tables? 2 Suggestions 3 "God did it" 4 Codons

[edit] 2 Tables?

It seems rather redundant to have both - I undestand the reasons for setting up the table both ways but I don't think it adds much to the article to include the 2nd table. If there are no objection, I'll remove it. Hichris 18:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And then there's the lack of pretty pictures, but I suppose that isn't really correctable :) Chris Cunningham 18:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not really redundant. For me (and hopefully for others) this table is a valuable resource that may be used for designing mutagenesis primers when exchanging amino acids by PCR. May I ask you to put it back, please? This message is encrypted! You'll need a brain to decode it. 14:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

While maybe useful to some (I do mutagenesis and haven't found any need for both, but thats me) I don't feel it adds to the article. The information is already there. I'm sure you can find the same sort of table in Text book or elsewhere online, so I'd vote no on putting it back. However if there is a lot of support for putting back then you can do so.

I actually like the circular version of the code, which can be read in both directions (see www.medigenomix.de/pics/molbio/codon_sonne.gif) If someone knows of good image like that, I'd be all for replacing the current table. Hichris 16:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the inverse table is relevant and I replaced it. The Dutch version of this artikle (click on the interwiki link 'Nederlands') has a circular table. Maybe someone knows how to copy that table to this page? 132.229.169.132 09:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

I just started reading the article so I am hitting points as I go. The age of the genetic code is estimated to be about as old as the earth itself.Eigen M, Lindemann BF, Tietze M, Winkler-Oswatitsch R, Dress A, von Haeseler A.How old is the genetic code? Statistical geometry of tRNA provides an answer. Science. 1989 May 12;244(4905):673-9. PMID: 2497522 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

The standard genetic code is universal but there are some modification in mitochondria, chloroplast, some organisms like yeast, etc. Oops! its already there.GetAgrippa 22:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've read the article, kudos to the authors. Excellent article!GetAgrippa 05:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "God did it"

...is being repeatedly added as an "alternative explanation" of how the genetic code came to be, and the explanation of why it should be added is based on editor bias or supression of alternative viewpoints. So let's figure it out:

1. Is the page about a scientific topic, and are the other (non-theistic) explanations within the bounds of mainstream science and well-cited by WP standards? yes
2. Is "God did it" within the bounds of mainstream science? no
3. Is there any extraordinary evidence given to support this fairly extraordinary/non-mainstream-science claim? no
4. Are there any citations being provided that support this alternative viewpoint at all? no
5. Does Gdi it even qualify as a scientific theory? Does not appear so.

Conclusion: does not belong. DMacks 19:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments DMacks. Your are correct! I have removed it two or three times. I call it vandalism. Well POV pushing for sure, since it is a belief and not a verifiable scientific fact. GetAgrippa 20:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree with DMacks. With all my respect, the Bible is not a scientific source. Still there is an option for the supporters of the devine origins of everything. In Cosmology exists something called Anthropic principle. As it says in the dedicated article here in Wikipedia, this is a collective term that attempts to explain the structure of the universe by way of coincidentally balanced features that are necessary and relevant to the existence on Earth of biochemistry, carbon-based life, and eventually human beings to observe such a universe. There is a lot of serious science standing behind it and it is probably the only point at which religion and science get at a shouting distance from each other. I can hardly be more politically balanced.
GGenov 20:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the God did it with references. This is not science as ruled in court cases (contrived dualism argument). This is not NPOV, but POV pushing. I believe there is some scientific credence to the notion of an extraterrestrial origin of life on earth, but this is a horse of a different color. I have noted on this editors Talk that he has a problem with POV pushing and failing to take the rules seriously. GetAgrippa 21:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Frank needs to make a case on the Talk page. His statment is not NPOV, because we would have to include other faiths-God is only the Abrahamic faiths. Further, nowhere in the JudeoChristian bible does it say God (Yahweh, etc.) created the genetic code. The article is about the genetic code. GetAgrippa 22:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No God mention in my last edit, and I retitled the section to say "Scientific theories of the origin of the genetic code". This should be a good compromise. As for vandalism accusations, that violates WP:AGF. NPOV does not equal SPOV, but if you want this to be a science only article then the section heading change is in order. A link to the controversy somewhere should be put in, as it isn't neutral to state only science explanations for the genetic code, but title the section as if it was all inclusive. --Frank Lofaro Jr. 23:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a science article. NPOV is per subject not in general. GetAgrippa 00:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The editors on this page might be interested in reading Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. JChap2007 23:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Codons

Codon redirects here, but this is not very useful if you more or less know what the genetic code is and are wondering what the heck a codon is. I mean, is it a real physical structure, or is it just a scientific convention? in the first paragraph you get the idea that its a physical structure, later on you learn it can be read from any of three ways. If you chop a strand and have no start/stop sequence do its codons cease to exist? It could use its own article, even if its a short one.Brallan 17:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)