User talk:Valich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Valich, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Vsmith 00:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your big quotes, personally I see no big problem (but some picky wikiers will probably object). The only problem is the introduction of technical jargon in some that need explanation. So you may need to summarise and paraphrase some of them. Gotta go now, done wikied too much :-) this morning. Vsmith 14:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I need to organize the Slave craton article, add one on the Rae craton, and elaborate on the Pilbara and Kaapvaal cratons and the Archaean rocks in the greenstone belts. There has to be a connnection to all those early Archaean ca. ~4.0 Ga rock assemblages - an earlier proto-supercontinent before Vaalbara? Don't know.Valich 19:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Doing great. Some may complain that your edits are too technical, but I like 'em and we'll add clarification later for more general readership if we need to. Sure would be nice to have at least a sketch map of the Superior and other areas. Don't know of any that are free to use on wiki - will do some looking around. Trouble is school starts next week and I'll be torturing chemistry students again - less wiki time, my summer went fast :-)
Couple of pointers: I notice that your edits are all marked as minor - which probably means you have the box in your preferences checked for marking all edits as minor. Would be good to uncheck that, as minor edits are supposedly only for spelling, punct., grammar and link fixes - and most of your edits aren't minor. Also, as you may have noticed, I've been doing some reducing overlinking - Wiki Manual of Style suggests only linking to another page one time - or at least only once per section for a long article. No biggy. Cheers, Vsmith 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The cratons are subdivided by domains, subdivisions, blocks, margins, belts, rifts, crust formation eras, volcanism, and proto-cratons. I'm having a difficult time trying to figure out how to organize these seperate subsections of the articles into the most coherent way for the reader. The more I become familiar with their evolution and the compositional parts, the more I'll be able to go back and paraphrase the quotations so that the articles flow better. Still, as the craton articles stand right now, I know of no other more complete informative source that attempts to piece it all together. Thanks for your encouraging words, advice, editing and proof reading. By the way, what was your primary area of interest at UofA? Cheers! Don Valich 00:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Copper. I was briefly a porphyry copper "expert" and then "boom" - US copper died due to the big mines in Chile ... I was involved in the development stages of the Red Mountain deposit just south of Patagonia when "suddenly" in 1977 it became uneconomic. I wonder what is happening to it now with the recent upswing in copper price? Vsmith 23:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Vsmith: I would appreciate any comments that you have on the Superior craton article because once I start on the Slave craton again, it will be much more indepth and harder to organize. I'll be entering an uncharted domain trying to piece it all together. I also start school in two weeks so it will be a side venture, but with great dedication and interest. I feel that I am putting together the results of the researchers out in the field in order to make sense of it all. I strongly agree in what we are doing. Comments please.Valich 06:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Will give it another read. I don't always read for content when proofing. Still hoping to find a map source - maybe I can create one - don't expect anything soon or great :-)

I see you made a stub for syenogranite - after I re-linked it to syenite. Guess i'd best change it back. Also, left a note at Talk:Leucogranite regarding a missing element, I don't have access to the ref to fix it. Cheers, Vsmith 23:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, think I confused things there :-) I should have said Patagonia, Arizona (about 15 km or so north of Mexico) - not the one in Argentina. And the big copper mines in Chile and elsewhere in South America caused a decline in copper prices in the 70s which lead to the closing down of most of Arizona's copper mines.
Don't worry too much about those red links for various terms, red links inspire others to write the article and make 'em blue. As for syenogranite, I hadn't redirected the article - just the link in the Churchill craton article. Your redirect to syenite is OK for now - until we can write more than just a stub. Vsmith 02:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Map

This map is exactly the type of map that I need to write articles on the Noth American cratons. How can I get the rights and links to post it, or how can I draw one myself? [IMG]http://www.jamestown-ri.info/north_america_1bya.gif[/IMG] Source: http://www.jamestown-ri.info/prelude.htm Valich 04:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

See Image:North america basement rocks.png. Seems it's already available in commons - from a USGS site. Vsmith 11:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I placed the map on all the craton articles that are listed on the map. I'm a bit perplexed as to how to present a division of the North American craton and the Canadian Shield into the individual cratons that accreted to form it, yet still maintain their integrity. The same problem exists with the Wyoming craton and the accretion of the Mojave, Yavapai, and Mazatlan Provinces and the Grenville Belt. In the former case, the accretion of these provinces contributed to the origin of the Grand Canyon, yet some geologists refer to the entire area as the Wyoming craton? These are issues that I have to research to find a happy medium so as not to cause any conflicting views, yet still present the historical sequence of events and delineate the stratigraphy. I need to consult with other geologists who are researching the Grand Canyon lower 2.0 Ga Visnu Group to get the contemporary views on this accretionary process and how they refer to the accretioned continental landmasses. No one is referring to them as cratons.Valich 03:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For the table

Help:Editing#Images,_tables,_video,_and_sounds

Experiment to make it do what you want it to. I'm copy-pasting here.

This is
a table

You can also save it as an image then upload it, I guess. Maybe copyright issues? --\/\/slack (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick helpful response. I'm already in the sandbox experimenting with the codes. I think it be easier for me to just make one than to worry about the copyright restrictions.Valich 00:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Good examples of a multi-column multi-row tables at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organelles Valich 01:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geology of the Grand Canyon area

Nice edits! If/when you add new info, please cite that in the wikitext. Journal cites are especially good ones to have. --mav 18:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. What I was talking about is our meta:Cite/Cite.php functionality where you put <ref> tags around inline cites. I too would like some software that can be used to create diagrams but don't know of any programs that are free. --mav 14:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] African Shield

Hi,

I'm fairly sure that this is a plate (although could quite easily be wrong) - please could you update the article a bit to explain what it is - otherwise many people, myself included, will have no idea what the article is about... Having looked through your edits you're a credit to Wikipedia - keep up the good work! Dave 00:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dave! I completely revised the shield (geology) article. You have to differentiate the shield from a platform and its basement which could all be said to comprise a plate - or the cratons that partially make up a tectonic plate. Geologically you can interpret a landmass or continental crust with a tectonic interpretation or in a geomorphological interpretation. If you look at the map under the shield (geology) article you can see where the African Shield (sometimes called the Ethiopian Shield) and all the others are located. The shields on this map are in orange and the platforms are violet. The African Shield is on the lower eastern portion of the horn of Africa. If you were to compare this geomorphological map to a plate tectonic map you can see how the two interpretations work. To illustrate what I mean by this, consider the East European Craton. In a geomorphological formula, the East European Craton = the Baltic/Fennoscandian Shields, Ukrainian Shield, and the Voronezh Massif and Russian Platform. But in a tectonic formula, the East European Craton = Fennoscandia + Sarmatia + Volgo-Uralia.

I punctuated the African Shield article and the others as only being a geo-stub, because I just don't have time to research more details for them right now for any completion. I think the shield (geology) article is now complete so I removed the geo-stub label, but of course, as all articles are, it is always open for better revisions. :) Valich 02:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Valich 02:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sciforums

A tag has been placed on Sciforums, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Sciforums. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Адам12901 Talk 06:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with sciforums. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.

[edit] SciForums

A tag has been placed on SciForums, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:SciForums. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Адам12901 Talk 06:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] response to your comment on my talk page

  • Instead of deleting the speedy deletion tag, you need to place that onto the talk page of these articles and place {{hangon}} onto the top of the page of the article. I have told you twice before. --Адам12901 Talk 06:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sciforums

Hi! Okay. Per instruction, {{hangon}} tag has been added and discussion is now addressed to Talk:SciForums. Sorry, this procedure took me by surprise - thought the deletions were vandalism. I'm an active writer on Wikipedia, and have written many scientific articles, but am also an active user of SciForums' science forums. They have occasionally given me much inspiration and insight.

[edit] User Page Help Request

Hi, about you're question on the User Page Help page, I don't the linking of your signature is connected to your new User page. The reason using four tildes no longer links to your user page would most likely be that you have accidentally checked the "Raw Signature" box on your "Preferences" page. If you check that box, you can customize your signature like what some users (including me :) do.
For more help on that you can check out Sign your posts on talk pages#Customizing your signature. But right now unchecking the box should make your signature link back to your user page.
Hope that helped. If not feel free to contact me again. Cheers! --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 03:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taxonomy Parameters

see Wikipedia:Taxobox usage for all parameters for phylum, class, order, species, and subdivision labels Valich 23:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

Thanks for doing the references correctly in the article. I spent hours fixing them, so that they were readable, and usable. Orangemarlin 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I spend tons of time researching these subjects and then writing the articles - sometimes staying up days on end with no sleep - and am still getting used to the wiki "ref" tags. I prefer the APA style better as it creates a permanent citation. But when writing, I just can't put down all those tags and still keep the thoughts going. I'm getting the hang of it though. I suppose it's less distracting for a fast read by the common user. Looks like we have some common interests. Go Wiki! Valich 02:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope you didn't misunderstand. I was thanking you for doing the cites correctly!!!! I too am getting the hang of it, but honestly, I practiced on some really bad articles, and now I'm pretty good at it. And it's amazing how much I've learned about the articles from reading the cites. Of course, you can't believe how many cites had nothing to do with the articles, and I eliminated them. You're doing a great job, and yes Go Wiki!!!!! Orangemarlin 02:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Evolution and Natural Selection

Just wondering, but do you actually have any idea what the discussion you were commenting on (from more than 3 months ago) was even about?--EveRickert 05:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Three months ago is a drop in the bucket. I'm commenting on what is posted. If you think that the comments posted are too antiquated, then delete them. I've edited articles where messages were left for two years, but, after a year of waiting, the same messager [sic] posted: "Hello? Is anybody out there?" And I was the only one to reply and answer the question (see Talk:Red Panda, but it looks like someone cleaned it up). I may not be able to review these articles again for another three months unless a message is left for me. Other priorities. :) Valich 05:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Except it wasn't an article you were editing, it was a discussion between two individuals, where you clearly had not read the other parts of the discussion (on the Evolution Talk page, now archived, and on Adam Cuerden's Talk page).
And by the way, please do not accuse me of vandalism. I take verification of citations seriously and yours did not check out with what you wrote. At best, your addition was OR.--EveRickert 06:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you're doing that? Then you're not even reading what I post: you're just acting on some sort've ingrained biased impulse. Remenber, science is progressive. Try to be open minded about it, aye? I'm really busy and spend only a small portion of my life editing, checking for vandalism like that, and writing many new article (over 100 now I think?, with way over 500 edits). That has to be included because it is the most up-to-date scientific viewpoint on the subject. Read Lake then comment back. Most of my time I spend researching, reading and working, and that's where I'm going right now. Gotta sleep a little, okay? Cheers Valich 07:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You should be careful about accusing people of vandalism, especially someone like EveRickert who has been editing some of these articles for awhile. I agree with her on this particular edit and reference, it does not substantiate the point being made. Rather than get into a revert war (which will not be pretty), you should take your points to the discussion page. If you gain consensus, then go forward. But there are a lot of smart people editing these articles--you are one of many. Orangemarlin 07:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I said I thought it was vandalism. I didn't accuse anyone. After supplying 7-8 sources, it's a little ridiculous to insert a tag stating {citation needed}. Apparently EveRickert believes that all reference sources need to be fully available to everyone for free on the internet in order to be used. Unfortunately, most all journal articles, and books, are not posted online, and available for free to the general public. Doolitle's article is a case in point. He states numerous times in his article that there was no last universal common ancestor. I hope you kept the UCLA Report, Lake's articles and Doolittle's article as references because they contain diagrams of the Ring of Life and further explanations. Doolittle and Yi Chuan directly state this. As I said in the talk section, its unreasonable and innapropriate to post the entire source journal article on Wikipedia, nor can you just keep adding an endless array of citations.

Evolution is the change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals that leads to survival of the fittest, where fitness is measure in the number of offspring produced. Eventually, as the species population changes through time, this can result in the development of new species. New species normally evolve from a common ancestor. Forces that change gene frequencies in a population are natural selection, migration, adaptive radiation, founder effect, bottlenecks, genetic drift, genetic flow, mutations, and gene transfer in unicellular organisms.

As Rivera and Lake (2004) point out: In the microbial world things are different, and various schemes have been devised to take both traditional and molecular approaches to microbial evolution into account. Unknown to Darwin, microbes use two mechanisms of natural variation that disobey the rules of tree-like evolution: lateral gene transfer and endosymbiosis. Lateral gene transfer involves the passage of genes among distantly related groups, causing branches in the tree of life to exchange bits of their fabric. Endosymbiosis -- one cell living within another -- gave rise to the double-membrane-bounded organelles of eukaryotic cells: mitochondria and chloroplasts. At the endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria, a free-living proteobacterium came to reside within an archaebacterially related host. This event involved the genetic union of two highly divergent cell lineages, causing two deep branches in the tree of life to merge outright. Instead of a tree linking life's three deepest branches (eubacteria, archaebacteria and eukaryotes), they uncover a ring.Valich 22:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common descent

I've reverted your changes here: They're just a little too dismissive, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Instead, I propose a large new section, dealing with all the things that can muddle with it in detail, e.g. HGT, fusion origin of Eukaryotes, hybridisation, etc. Adam Cuerden talk 11:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also simplified the Evolution lead, trying to keep the main point, while not making it sound - which I'm sure you didn't intend, like something out of Baraminology. Being all too aware of the common mmisunderstandings is useful. I've also removed three references, but will re-add them in a revision of the Gene flow section. Adam Cuerden talk 11:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Common descent is generally accepted by biologists, and a "last universal common ancestor (LUCA or LUA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms, is believed to have appeared about 3.5 billion years ago" is also generally accepted by biologists. But there was no LUCA or LUA in the prebiotic soup, or the early primordial sea. In this sense, without any reference to the inclusive multiple origins, the LUCA theory is innacurate, antiquated and misleading. Also, the origin of life occurred 3.9-4.1 Ga, not 3.5. 3.8 Ga. stromatolites from Cyanobacteria at from Shark Bay, Australia and the biologically processed carbon in the banded iron formations and greenstone belts from [Isua]] in Southwestern Greenland.
The problem of gene transfer in having, or more accuratel, not havin a LUCA is apparent from the numerous studies of bacterial genomes, such as E. coli and Salmonella. Lawrence and Ochman (1998) conclude that, "since diverging from a shared ancestor 100 million years ago, at least 10% of the E. coli genome has been acquired in somewhere in excess of 200 horizontal gene transfer events." Therefore, both E. coli and Salmonella have no LUCD. The further back in time you go in evolutionary divergence, the greater the likelihood that any given gene in a genome has been transferred from another genome and this undermines phylogenetic tree reconstructions at deep divergences. At its deepest level, between primitive cells and more complex cells, between the first biological cells and the appearance of multicellular fungi, plants, and animals, the tree of life is a web, and that web cannot be untangled and rooted in any one LUCD.
Doolittle states: "In general, the current situation concerning the evolutionary "tree of life" is as follows: The conceptual tree-like structure with discrete branches is retained at the top of the eukaryote domain, and also retained is the idea that eukaryotes obtained mitochondria and chloroplasts from bacteria. But the lower parts of the tree are now seen to involve an extensive anastomosis of branches -- branches joining other branches in a complex network of intersecting links -- resulting from extensive horizontal gene transfer of single or multiple genes, the horizontal gene transfer known to be common in unicellular organisms. Thus, the "tree of life" lacks a single organism at its base, and that "the three major domains of life probably arose from a population of primitive cells that differed in their genes."Valich 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree and disagree: It is more complicated than LUCA can implied, but the main point, that all life is connected, shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater. I think that universal common descent is really usefyul, insofar as it sets up understanding of a lot of key biologcal concepts - the universal genetic code, for instance, and the single origin. There are confounding factors, but the fact we could never find the last universal common ancestor now does not undo the evidence - notably the universal genetic code that allows HGT - of its existance at one point. I think that trying to explain deep concepts like HGT muddling common descent before the simple ones would just cause misunderstanding, and it's not like LUCA is actually inaccurate, just heavily qualified. Adam Cuerden talk 01:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Ironically, Doolittle uses those exact same words. I agree, HGT should not be mentioned in the common descent article, but then neither should LUCA because this then touches on the subject of HGT, and begs for the need to mention how HGT affects it.Valich 02:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think it should be, just that it should come in last, and be explained in full. I don't think that HGT's effect on common descent is simple to understand, so I'm hesitant to say too much about it in space-constrained writing like the Evolution lead - better to just stake out ground that will be filled in later - or add it in too briefly, like your attempt in Common descent, as the last sentence of the article is no place to suddenly hit the reader with complex concepts that haven't even been hinted at before.
Also, while I understand the point of some of your attempts to describe it - it's to say you can't really decide how the deep connections between domains and kingdoms work, because they're all so muddled - I have to admit that the images I kept getting was of several different life-forms ancestral to the prokaryotes recombining repeatedly and some prokaryotes getting material from lifeforms that never interacted with the others. While this isn't impossible, without the Universal Genetic Code, it probably wouldn't have had an impact that lasted to this day, and if it had the universal genetic code, it probably had the same ancestor if you went farther back.
...This may just mean that I'm willing to expand my view of the word "ancestor" arbitrarily far, although finding a ribosome-like organism sans nucleic acids and a replicating RNA-like organism sans proteins would probably break it. On the other hand, it'd be really cool and help explain abiogensis, so, who'd really care? Adam Cuerden talk 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll work on how to introduce it into the other articles, and possibly into common descent. I've studied this concept pretty thoroughly in the past and now just take it for granted, as do colleagues. Yes it is complicated, and it does confound common descent in the Darwinian sense because this works at the single cell microbial level - and still does today! - and not at the higher levels of descent. It's well studied with bacterium. It's not perplexing to me. Read Lake and Doolittle. Also check out the Tree of Life diagram by Sogin at [[1]]. Notice that the both the Eukaryote Crown Groups and the 16s rDNA tree are not rooted. That's because they can't be rooted. Look at just about every phylogenetic tree and you'll see a different scale interpretation of the root, because they don't know where to put it, because it can't be rooted. The farther back you go, the more HGT took place, the more fuzzy the origin gets. Right now they're trying to calculate the smallest universal common genome that existed - about 260 genes - but not a LUCA beyond that. For a decent read as to how all three domains overlap, see [[2]] This topic is starting to be ancient history already - 8 years old. Wiki has to stay at the forefront of knowledge, groundbreaking. This is what bothers me about not including it. I do think that the common descent article needs major revision, and I'm considering it - even excluding HGT. Read what I posted in the discussion. I can either post a revision, or send it to members as an email attachment for correction and/or critique.Valich 04:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

Hmmm... I was answering James, La gloria è a dio adding of the term theory and why it should not be there, it was an answer to his argument to include the term theory. The guy was mediating an article involving me, and I have seen about his edit on the Evolution article from his talkpage, and I simply told him there why I believe the term theory does not fit where he added it. Not everyone will be reading discussion pages and faqs before editing, so few lines sometimes will be enough to show that person his edit should not have been done than sending him on faqs and past discussions that an occasional visitor to the article will probably not take the time to read. Fad (ix) 15:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution lead

You wrote "You wrote: 'Various processes can bring genes from species back together long after those species diverged.' I don't know what you are trying to say here?"

I'm actually trying to be vague here: There's several important processes: HGT, hybridisation, viral incorporation, and fusion. I was trying to be broad enough to include all of them in one short statement. "Genes", because it's not always the whole genome that gets transfered - HGT can include plasmid transfer, after all. Adam Cuerden talk 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Be BOLD…"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles and expects everyone to be bold."[[3]]. Never, should we be vague - here or anywhere else. All Wikipedia articles should be concise, clear and accurate - drawing the reader in to learn and understand more. To allow them to see that Wiki is an accurate - not a vague - source of concise and clear scientific information. Studies show that we are on par with Brittanica. We need to uphold that standard and possibly go beyond it in scope and coverage. Wikipedia has no place for vagueness, and it's philosophy, as stated, is to encourage bold views, along with acccurate content.
In the introduction in that particular paragraph we are talking about speciation and a last common ancestor, not plasmid transfer. The concept that "there never was any last common ancestor" "at the microbial level," should be mentioned there, or somewhere in the introduction, to be "introduced" so that the reader can follow through on it in the article or in other articles, such as the (Speciation, Common Descent or Common Ancestor, and Last Common Ancestor articles. Wikipedia is not World Book Encyclopedia filled with nice pictures and simplified texts for children, and as I mentioned in the talk section, children today are exposed to genetics at a very early age, even in Elementary School, with some High Schools even conducting experiments involving PCR. The Evolution article is the technical article and we should be technical here at all levels. We already have a "non-technical" article at Introduction to Evolution.Valich 22:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
...Why on earth are you quoting me a DI source? Anyway, it's still called the Universal Genetic Code even in current university Biology classes - it's just clearly explained that it varies slightly in a few branches, notably mitochondrial DNA. It's largely universal. And plasmids can be incorporated into the circular DNA, so they are relevant. Adam Cuerden talk 03:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The quotation of significance that I cited is by Dr. Jonathan Wells of University of California, BerkeleyValich 05:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Wells is one of the major proponents of Intelligent Design. Not the best source on biology matters.

Let me be clear: I think that the ring of life and other such things should be fully discussed. Indeed, I did the revision of Gene Flow to include more on Hybridisation and interspecies transfer. I just think that putting a subject that complex in the lead is a bad idea. Let's face it, at the level of detail possible in the lead, we're looking at a quibble over whether horizontal transfer makes ancestry meaningless. I think both of us can agree that it's not at all likely that two organisms, identical enough to be able to swap genes, appeared completely independently through two seperate abiogenesis events. If we accept this, I don't see any problem with calling the first prokaryote the LUCA. And if there's quibbles over whether previous organisms could feed into prokaryotes, I'm quite happy to work backwards to the point where the genetic code came about, and call that the LUCA.

If you go back far enough, you can find a LUCA. It's just not possible to go back far enough with genetic tests: You'd need some very unusual microfossils. Adam Cuerden talk 05:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(Also, you write "nor is the Eukaryote Crown Group rooted to the Archaea and Bacteria Domains." - it is, actually: Look at the little image to the left. It's just that it wasn't rooted in the right image, to save space.) Adam Cuerden talk 05:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. Look at the little image to the left,[[4]] it has no LUCA. The "tree" on the left - and it's not even really a tree - has no root. All phylogenetic trees in the traditional concept are rooted. The right Eukaryote Crown Group diagram is also not rooted. At what point in the right diagram do you see a point where the eukaryotes there - and they are all eukaryotes - are, or could be, or even should be, connected to archaea or bacteria or to the tree on the left?Valich 05:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
In the centre or therabouts? Or am I just used to thining in 3D? Adam Cuerden talk 06:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It has no center. Read the caption on the bottom. It is has an "unrooted universal phylogeny." Compare the branchings on this diagram with any other eukaryote phylogenetic tree and you will not be able to find a spot on this diagram to root the Eukaryote Crown Group diagram that corresponds with any other phylogenetic tree.Valich 06:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Detailed list of the families and genera of the order Carnivora

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article "Detailed list of the families and genera of the order Carnivora," suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Please delete the list. I was not aware of the other one. It is redundancy and I'll save this one an update if applicable. Thanks a lot for informing me.Valich 02:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Done! - UtherSRG (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of talk page discussions

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Адам12901 T/C 20:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I maintain a level of integrity and professionalism both in my articles and in my talk page and the above inclusions are disrespectful of those professional standards. According to How to use article talk pages "Being friendly is a great help. Be positive: Article talk pages should be used for ways to improve an article, not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article." Nowhere does it state that I cannot delete something from my talk page, and this subject has been debated at length elsewhere by the administration, without any definite directives being given on the issue. Re-inclusion of this is not "constructive" to my contributions to Wikipedia and should be deleted so as not to hinder or influence potential contributors in a negative way, as is stated in the guidelines. According to the talk page guidelines: "Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Under "Category:Wikipedia maintenance": "Cleanup includes all remedial work needed to bring desirable articles up to a basic encyclopedic standard." Resurrecting a dead topic is deconstructive to any beneficial contributory efforts and disrespectable to the constructive aims of a dedicated contributor. What is your purpose for reinserting this in my talk page? It's a dead subject and it distracts others from my scholarly academic specializations and intense areas of bio-geological research. Many Wikipedians delete parts of their talk pages when they become too long, or loaded with garbage. In this case, I was trying to clean up the contents and remove the "garbage" to make way for legitimate productive contributory discussions without being influenced by senseless distractions. It's a dead topic: delete it. I am trying my best to contribute to Wikipedia in the best way that I can, i.e., using very high professional standards. Valich 07:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/a/l/User_talk%7EValich_2ff8.html"