Talk:Peptide nucleic acid

message: the addition of that part is unnecessary to the lead sentence. PNA does not exists in nature. Full stop. Why add the qualifier "present life"? With the same reasoning, endless strings of qualifiers may be added: in present life, nor on Venus, Mars, the moon Europe, nor in the past, but maybe in the future .........
Let's stick to the facts and do not load a simple sentence with wishful thinking, OR and POV.
Northfox (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PNA may very well have been present in past life on Earth. Since no life has been discovered on those other planetary bodies, your attempted WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is specious. The reason PNA was proposed in various abiogenesis models is because it may have been a starting point for life. Not "OR" or "POV" required. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the hypothesis that PNA was a precursor for RNA and DNA is there, for sure. But this is discussed in the abiogenesis sections of various articles, including this one. Point is that there is no reason to have this strange construct incorporated in the lead sentence. Why single out PNA and GNA, as the compounds that might have existed and are now 'extinct'? There is no proof that they existed anytime, anywhere. By using the same reason (might have existed) one could easily to add the 'in existing life on Earth ' part to all articles describing non-natural and artificially synthesized chemical compounds. Since this is nonsense, I would prefer to be consistent and remove the 'in existing life on Earth ' part here, too.
Northfox (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. The very reason that these molecules are notable is because they are used as possible models for abiogenesis. Your argument would apply if the molecules were notable for other reasons, but since this is how they derive their notability, we are right in characterizing them as absent from present life only. The removal of "in existing life on Earth" is (perhaps no-so-)subtle creationist POV-pushing, as is the request for "proof" which is something that science never offers anyway. We are here to report why things are encyclopedic. This provides a proper framing of the subject. Other compounds that are subject to speculation and are notable for being subject to such speculation should also be so characterized. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  the encyclopedic value of PNA is its significance in biology and medicine, as amply stated in the text. The hypothesis that PNA played a role in abiogenesis is also amply - and justifiedly so- mentioned in its own paragraph. I completely fail to see how the removal of the sentence fragment in the lead could be seen as "creationist POV pushing". Such a  fragment would only make sense if there was proof, or a very strong supportive information that in the past PNA would have existed in nature. This is not the case, and this is point is correctly summarized in the text of the article. Thus I revert again. Northfox (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again with the "proof". The speculation of this molecule is what makes it notable. We keep this clause in as an indicative caveat. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I mentioned not only "proof", but also "supportive information" to keep this in the lead sentence. The notability in a hypothesis about abiogenesis is stated in the main text. That is sufficient. Northfox (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead summarizes the ideas that are most important. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  in existing life on earth 

message: I took the liberty to change the lead sentence. Biggest reason was that the 'but' makes the wrong connection. In the previous version, it modified 'modern life forms', but logically it should modify the 'occur naturally', by contrasting it to 'artificially synthesized'. Since User:ScienceApologist kept reverting me, I chose a different, more logical, order of statements. Also, "polymer" is better than "compound".Northfox (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  modern life 

message: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121110093550.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjknack1 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  PNA monomer found to exist naturally in Cyanobacteria