Talk:Biomolecule
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Are biomolecules not organic compounds? Bensaccount 21:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- I created a compromise version between Bensaccount and Stewartadcock. Bensaccount, it's good to have snappy sentences and concise definition and I appreciate your attention to brevity and succintness, but it also doesn't hurt to also include a short few intro sentences after these concise one-sentence definitions to help orient less technically inclined readers. Remember wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it encyclopedia entries should be able to be read in relative isolation (ultimately a paper version of wikipedia is planned), so don't assume that the reader is always in front a browser. --Lexor|Talk 21:53, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Bensaccount, your initial edit removed (cf. moved) much valid content and instead basically said, "a biomolecule is an organic molecule". It depends upon the definitions you choose to follow but, from the definitions usually used by a chemist, a biomolecule is not necessarily an organic molecule. I think it's best to leave statements that can be disputed out of the introductory passage when a perfectly good intro already exists. (I'm not saying that the intro isn't open to improvement.) Stewart Adcock 03:15, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Is this statement correct?
"Besides the polymeric biomolecules, numerous big organic molecules are absorbed by living systems. Many biomolecules may be not useful or important in the future"
Don't living things absorb other molecules, small or big? And don't living organisms also absorb other non-organic things?
What does "Many biomolecules may be not useful or important in the future" mean? If living things are made of solely on biomolecules, then wouldn't biomolecules be important for sustaining life for future generations? Maybe I just read it wrong, but it seems contradictory to me
--71.108.1.200 19:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)