This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Laminin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Laminin. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Laminin at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
I found a picture of laminin on a Google serch that I did but for some reason my computer won't let me copy and paste it here. It is easily explained as a cross shape with many circle that twist and turn. Look it up on Google and you will se what I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.19.114 ( talk) 22:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[[Link-- 216.211.124.141 ( talk) 21:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC) title]]
It would be helpful to have a picture of the molecular structure included on the page. If there was one, it did not load when I pulled up the article. The article was good and covered a broad subject briefly.-- 216.211.124.141 ( talk) 21:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree it would be helpful to include a picture of the structure. I looked up several other protein-based molecules in Wikpedia and all of them include a picture of the molecule. Under "Merosin", which redirects to a variation of Laminin, it is described as "composed of three subunits, alpha, beta, and gamma, which are bound to each other by disulfide bonds into a cross-shaped molecule." So it sounds like the structure has at least been observed in the lab. Perhaps a photo exists somewhere - or a scientists rendition of it. Rhema1992 ( talk) 18:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It may be useful to somehow link to this page: Merosin. I know nothing about this topic, so I will entrust it to more knowledgeable people. -- Eptin 05:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please get a cite for laminin mutations causing progeria? Otherwise, I'd like to remove that line because I'm pretty sure lamin mutations cause Progeria not laminin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.46.162 ( talk) 09:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if there could be a picture of the molecule, as there are of other protein molecules. This really does not have to do with the pareidolia surrounding the molecule, but a picture would be useful. I don’t know if there are any free images available and would like someone more able to do it. — Jch thys 23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone add the molecular weight to the info table? Would be very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.78.188 ( talk) 22:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Is quite strange and baffling: "Laminin is a protein found in the extracellular matrix, the sheets of protein that form the substrate of all internal organs also called the basement membrane. " -- CopperKettle 18:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Yes, I'm a Christian, and I do see the symbol of the cross. I'm not a scientist. I did graduate with a BS Degree in Computer Information Systems with a 3.75 GPA. There is another amazing thing about this article that I have not seen mentioned. It is your very wording regarding Laminin. You have the obvious symbol of the cross and under it you write:
"Laminin Molecules Hold Us Together They are the Glue of Biological Life"
The Scripture that comes in the minds of most Christians regarding this entire idea of Laminin is Colossians 1:17. In fact Christians are quoting this verse about Laminin all over the place. I have around 20 versions of the Bible at home. The one that is considered the closest word-for-word translation to the Greek is the New American Standard Version by the Lockman Foundation 1995 Updated Version. That version says:
He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
I could take your quotation and say, Christ Holds Us Together He is the Glue of Biological Life.
Your actual quotation is closer to the Greek and New American Standard Bible than any other version is to the New American Standard Bible. The way I changed your quotation may be closer to the Greek, (when one considers modern English), than any other Bible Translation out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easeltine ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Right! The solution is to take the picture away that clearly shows that Laminin looks like a Cross, and the above quotation from the Article...but the Fact still remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easeltine ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
PLEASE NOTE: Any reference to Laminin in the context of Religion violates Wikipedia's VERIFIABILITY statute and therefore does NOT belong. However, in terms of a cultural context, please contribute it elsewhere on Wikipedia. - Shadowfax0 ( talk) 19:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
what your prob with religion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolbuzzer ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Miguelferig, there is no rule that precludes mention of culture or religion on science articles, IF they are relevant to the topic of discussion. In this case, I added one small section (with citations) on how laminin gained popularity in culture vis a vis religion. Other articles, such as the article on Hemoglobin or the article on mitochondrion, have similar sections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin#In_history.2C_art_and_music http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion Excluding sections on cultural references simply because the reference is religious while allowing for non-religious cultural references does come across as a little discriminatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjcarrier ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Please explain the relevance of this block to the article. 84.189.183.120 ( talk) 06:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)"IF they are relevant to the topic of discussion"
I deleted the retort to Giglio, not because it's opposed but because it's ALSO explicitly biased towards creationism. I'm amused by the cultural note, but we don't need 1 apologist criticizing the 'logic' of another as they argue over ways that their shared mythology can be confirmed . . . ON THE PAGE FOR LAMININ.
'Fazale Rana, a biochemist and apologist, disagrees with Giglio and instead argues that "Instead of pointing to superficial features of biomolecules such as the “cross-shaped” architecture of laminin, there are many more substantive ways to use biochemistry to argue for the necessity of a Creator."' [1]
173.25.54.191 ( talk) 21:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
My preference would be to hide the body of each section. Any objections ? - Rod57 ( talk) 12:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I know there there is a definante connection to God. He created us and made it possible through our parents. Can you further into detail on this subject.
Thank you Sandra Pennell Sandrapennell1945 ( talk) 00:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:PROFRINGE: "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." hence WP:UNDUE unless biology textbooks mention it. "Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable": may belong in the article of the author or affiliated movement if notable enough there. WP:MNA: "For example, in writing about evolution, it is not helpful to hash out the creation-evolution controversy on every page." (this extends to "when writing about science". A mention of the belief was already limit, but the second part, the opinion of Fazale Rana was even more undue and promotional. Moreover, if we think about it, it's ridiculous enough that many Christians would be ashamed (consider that not all Christians think the cross is important, that the cross was only introduced as a symbol at some point, that the weapon could have been something else, that this supposes that Christianity is the true faith, etc). — Paleo Neonate – 05:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Laminin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Laminin. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Laminin at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
I found a picture of laminin on a Google serch that I did but for some reason my computer won't let me copy and paste it here. It is easily explained as a cross shape with many circle that twist and turn. Look it up on Google and you will se what I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.19.114 ( talk) 22:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[[Link-- 216.211.124.141 ( talk) 21:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC) title]]
It would be helpful to have a picture of the molecular structure included on the page. If there was one, it did not load when I pulled up the article. The article was good and covered a broad subject briefly.-- 216.211.124.141 ( talk) 21:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree it would be helpful to include a picture of the structure. I looked up several other protein-based molecules in Wikpedia and all of them include a picture of the molecule. Under "Merosin", which redirects to a variation of Laminin, it is described as "composed of three subunits, alpha, beta, and gamma, which are bound to each other by disulfide bonds into a cross-shaped molecule." So it sounds like the structure has at least been observed in the lab. Perhaps a photo exists somewhere - or a scientists rendition of it. Rhema1992 ( talk) 18:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It may be useful to somehow link to this page: Merosin. I know nothing about this topic, so I will entrust it to more knowledgeable people. -- Eptin 05:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please get a cite for laminin mutations causing progeria? Otherwise, I'd like to remove that line because I'm pretty sure lamin mutations cause Progeria not laminin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.46.162 ( talk) 09:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if there could be a picture of the molecule, as there are of other protein molecules. This really does not have to do with the pareidolia surrounding the molecule, but a picture would be useful. I don’t know if there are any free images available and would like someone more able to do it. — Jch thys 23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone add the molecular weight to the info table? Would be very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.78.188 ( talk) 22:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Is quite strange and baffling: "Laminin is a protein found in the extracellular matrix, the sheets of protein that form the substrate of all internal organs also called the basement membrane. " -- CopperKettle 18:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Yes, I'm a Christian, and I do see the symbol of the cross. I'm not a scientist. I did graduate with a BS Degree in Computer Information Systems with a 3.75 GPA. There is another amazing thing about this article that I have not seen mentioned. It is your very wording regarding Laminin. You have the obvious symbol of the cross and under it you write:
"Laminin Molecules Hold Us Together They are the Glue of Biological Life"
The Scripture that comes in the minds of most Christians regarding this entire idea of Laminin is Colossians 1:17. In fact Christians are quoting this verse about Laminin all over the place. I have around 20 versions of the Bible at home. The one that is considered the closest word-for-word translation to the Greek is the New American Standard Version by the Lockman Foundation 1995 Updated Version. That version says:
He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
I could take your quotation and say, Christ Holds Us Together He is the Glue of Biological Life.
Your actual quotation is closer to the Greek and New American Standard Bible than any other version is to the New American Standard Bible. The way I changed your quotation may be closer to the Greek, (when one considers modern English), than any other Bible Translation out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easeltine ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Right! The solution is to take the picture away that clearly shows that Laminin looks like a Cross, and the above quotation from the Article...but the Fact still remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easeltine ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
PLEASE NOTE: Any reference to Laminin in the context of Religion violates Wikipedia's VERIFIABILITY statute and therefore does NOT belong. However, in terms of a cultural context, please contribute it elsewhere on Wikipedia. - Shadowfax0 ( talk) 19:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
what your prob with religion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolbuzzer ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Miguelferig, there is no rule that precludes mention of culture or religion on science articles, IF they are relevant to the topic of discussion. In this case, I added one small section (with citations) on how laminin gained popularity in culture vis a vis religion. Other articles, such as the article on Hemoglobin or the article on mitochondrion, have similar sections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin#In_history.2C_art_and_music http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion Excluding sections on cultural references simply because the reference is religious while allowing for non-religious cultural references does come across as a little discriminatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjcarrier ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Please explain the relevance of this block to the article. 84.189.183.120 ( talk) 06:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)"IF they are relevant to the topic of discussion"
I deleted the retort to Giglio, not because it's opposed but because it's ALSO explicitly biased towards creationism. I'm amused by the cultural note, but we don't need 1 apologist criticizing the 'logic' of another as they argue over ways that their shared mythology can be confirmed . . . ON THE PAGE FOR LAMININ.
'Fazale Rana, a biochemist and apologist, disagrees with Giglio and instead argues that "Instead of pointing to superficial features of biomolecules such as the “cross-shaped” architecture of laminin, there are many more substantive ways to use biochemistry to argue for the necessity of a Creator."' [1]
173.25.54.191 ( talk) 21:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
My preference would be to hide the body of each section. Any objections ? - Rod57 ( talk) 12:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I know there there is a definante connection to God. He created us and made it possible through our parents. Can you further into detail on this subject.
Thank you Sandra Pennell Sandrapennell1945 ( talk) 00:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:PROFRINGE: "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." hence WP:UNDUE unless biology textbooks mention it. "Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable": may belong in the article of the author or affiliated movement if notable enough there. WP:MNA: "For example, in writing about evolution, it is not helpful to hash out the creation-evolution controversy on every page." (this extends to "when writing about science". A mention of the belief was already limit, but the second part, the opinion of Fazale Rana was even more undue and promotional. Moreover, if we think about it, it's ridiculous enough that many Christians would be ashamed (consider that not all Christians think the cross is important, that the cross was only introduced as a symbol at some point, that the weapon could have been something else, that this supposes that Christianity is the true faith, etc). — Paleo Neonate – 05:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)