Still working on this but have to head to lunch.--TimS 12:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- If you can translate all that jargon into plain English, I'll be able to read it and understand it. --Ed Poor 12:10, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- LOL jargon:) There will be pictures:). When I finish it up it will be clear enough for a 10th grade reading level with a basic understanding of biology.--TimS 12:12, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- You might have to bring it down to a 5th grade reading level, if your idea of a "basic understanding" entails a familiar acceptance of evolutionary dogma. Can you explain it all in terms as simple as the naturalist Farley Mowat used in Never Cry Wolf? --Ed Poor 07:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
- Ed, I really do not understand your statement "if your idea of a "basic understanding" entails a familiar acceptance of evolutionary dogma", was this suppose to be a personal attack? The information I have placed about gene expression is observed molecular mechanisms. Anyone who has any background in molecular biology or biochemistry will not dispute what I have listed thus far. There is no need to understand evolution to understand gene expression, however there is a need to understand gene expression to understand evolution (How can you be objectively critical of a theory if you do not understand the fundamental information of why the theory works?). As far as bringing it down a notch, I would like to point out that the states of Michigan, Ohio, Maryland, West Virginia, California, Texas, Florida, Illinois and Washington starts teaching gene expression and mechanisms in their high school biology classes. Believe it or not, I actually had it in the late 80's in West Virginia (although not to the level of detail that it is taught nowadays). Everything I have listed thus far, including terminology, is used readily in biology classrooms. Things have changed quite a bit since you or I were in secondary school. Most of the stuff I learned as an undergrad is now taught in the beginning years of high school, calculus at 10th grade who would have imagined. Even the stuff I had to learn in grad school (early 90's) is now commonly taught information in most university's undergraduate courses. I am still working on the article and adding images to better illustrate what the mechanisms are. If you wish to dispute what I have provided then feel free to look up a basic biochemistry text.--TimS 09:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry this is so long
Perhaps I should break it up a bit, I still have translation left.--TimS 09:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Your submission was just barely good enough not to be deleted, but after 4 weeks you still didn't produce a readable article. It's not something you can toss off before lunch. Consider the possibility that you have bitten off more than you can chew.
Secondly, no, I did not mean to launch a personal attack on you. I really think that a lot of contemporary biology is mixed up with evolution advocacy. All I meant was that I need you to sort out what is known (i.e., observed facts) from speculations about how cells and genes "began to act they way they do." You must first describe what they actually do, before you speculate on what natural forces or principles set them up (like a designer would) to start doing what they do.
Third, we need clear, readily comprehensible articles on molecular biology and biochemistry. Our readers should not have to go find a basic biochemistry text to find out whether our article is correct or misleading. Have you read anything by Michael Behe? Try to write as clearly as he does. --Ed Poor 07:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
- My submission is good enough to have been published as a co author of a textbook on molecular genetics. This article was about gene expression not genes themselves. There was already another article about genes. I hate to say this but once you start going into this level of detail you have to assume the reader has a basic knowledge of cellular biology. Nothing that was written was beyond a current American High School AP biology class.
- If you wanted the article shorter how could a description of DNA and Genes be introduced when the article was too long as it was, with just a description of gene expression. I never even go so far as to explain protein formation from the expressed genes.
- Ed, there is no evolution advocacy on gene expression, all of what was described has been seen in the lab. We have seen the interaction between DNA and the protein complexes that make RNA from it. There is a difference between theory and fact, gene expression is a pure fact. You can not list what the proteins do that are formed through the expressed genes without describing the gene expression process to begin with. There is no speculation on the molecular and chemical interaction that produces gene expression, it has been observed countless times. If you really need me to describe how we observe it I will but this is far from "speculation".
- Ed, as for finding a basic biochem text to verify our articles, well what else would they use to verify an article about biochemistry? Just because the article is dumbed down does not mean that it is correct, in fact it is usually the inverse. Last thing, no one has established what base education our readers may have so it is a moot point to dumb down articles when an undergrad may use the information.--TimS 07:26, 29 May 2007 (EDT)