Talk:Universal genetic code

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Jonathan Wells and the Edwards source

Jonathan Wells is an ID proponent, and that Edwards' attack on the Genetic code is a mildly famous Discovery Institute stunt. it isn't at all a reliable source, and really shouldn't be used. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Adam, Yeah, sorry for overriding your deletion: didn't mean to. I just hadn't finished the article yet and didn't have time to see your edits in the history section. I agree, Edwards was a bogus source and I certainly don't want to advocate ID. That's deleted and then why not delete this discussion section too in a couple of days to make a fresh start at new relevant discussion. I do expect to catch a lot of flak on this article, but I also feel that if you're going to call something "universal," it aught be inclusive of all the variants. I agree with those whom I cite that the term "universal genetic code" is not synonmous with the "standard genetic code" and that it is not, and no longer, "universal." A distinction should be made between the two terms. I'm also working on a table the lists all the variants. I envision a more inclusive article with references to the trial and error codes that led up to the double helix, including mention of the proposed codes and developments by Friedrich Miescher, Maurice Wilkins, Linus Pauling and Chargaff, as well as reference to speculations about the future evolution of genetic code with more than 20 amino acids. Apparently, there's now 21 in some corners of debate.Valich 02:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)