Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:32, 27 January 2008

Revision as of 21:47, 27 January 2008

Line 562:

::::The double helix is commonly known, the only problem was implying, by the sentence, that this is what Watson and Crick's major breakthrough in the biological sciences was. Most of what we do today in the biological sciences is due to the insight of Watson and Crick into the base pairing. The problem is raising the double helix to the level of one of the most important breakthroughs in the biological sciences when it pales in comparison to what their published insight into the base pairing does. I don't think the sentences about the base pairing G-C A-T have added anything to the article or are necessary to an article of this nature. But Waston and Crick should be clarified because that little sentence in this one tiny article is the foundation of a new era in science, and in evolutionary science, and the double helix, as important and interesting as it is, is not the same thing. --[[User:Amaltheus|Amaltheus]] ([[User talk:Amaltheus|talk]]) 21:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

::::: I ask then --- will dropping the ''double helix structure ''from the text be adequate to your concerns so that I may delete the newly added information? I'm trying to lean toward simplicity on this one. --[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] ([[User talk:Random Replicator|talk]]) 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::I'd leave it as it is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Introduction_to_evolution&action=edit&section=2]]. Although I agree fully with [[User:Amaltheus|Amaltheus]] about base-pairing being the more important concept, readers understand codes, the small addition re: the base pairing G-C A-T doesn't do any harm.--[[User:GrahamColm|Graham<font color="red">Colm</font>]][[User talk:GrahamColm|^Talk]] 21:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)