Talk:Biological transmutation

This
This seems to be important.Why is this not been independently investigated? Low-temp nuclear fusion mechanisms copied from biological system could bring cold fusion closer to real use ,and are worthy of investigation.(While laser ignition labs spend billions,with no much results) Its seems unlikely,but why we should take for granted the nucleus model/radioactivity interaction? This is as much as important as Bubble fusion .Not to mention all the potential breakthroughs we could achieve.

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Links to here
We need more links to this article. For example, based on Abd's comment, I suggest mentioning Deinococcus radiodurans here, and then linking to here from the article on that bacterium. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Major Revisions
This article needs some major revision. I will be editing this page with in the the context of wp:fringe.--OMCV (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The primary objection to these "anomalies" from the mainstream is that there are no "anomalies" and that the data is bad. The disbelief in the evidence needs to be reflected in the article; any theory argument is secondary.--OMCV (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have much time for this but statements such as "transmutation hypothesis does not fit easily within current science" are weasel. Its not a matter of easy or hard, biological transmutations is a major violation of mainstream theory.  If you look at wp:fringe this account needs to be discussed fairly from the perspective of mainstream science not the proponent perspective.  Take a look at wp:fringe and reevaluate this article for weasel words.--OMCV (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I replaced that sentence by "contradicts current science". Still no reason to revert my edits - that's against Wikipedia policy.  Wikipedia is a COLLABORATIVE ENCYCLOPAEDIA.  If you don't want to collaborate, don't edit.  If and when you have done your rewrite, we'll merge that.  Congruence (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Moving on Goldfein's claim concerning MgATP is not a theory or hypothesis but an assertion. The most important reason to include such as wacky assertion here is to show is to show that these ideas are nutty.  All of this is the ravings of a wacky minority.  If this was presented in an authoritative encyclopedia this would be explained far more directly with liberal use of synthesis.  The author of such an encyclopedia wouldn't need to bother finding citation to dispute a fringe idea that doesn't even warrant a critique in mainstream literature.--OMCV (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Needs expert attention
This article urgently needs some expert attention. It is full of weasel terms and has no mainstream sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Fringe topics deserve objective and encyclopedic treatment, too
A subject being "fringe" does not mean that it can be treated in an unencyclopedic way, or that useful and relevant material can be removed. The aim of Wikipedia is to present knowledge and issues, not to resolve scientific facts. The issue should be objectively presented, and that includes stating that the existence of the phenomena is in doubt, it does not fit well within established science, that it is little known, all things which I have put in my edit which was summarily reverted by OMCV.

Congruence (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Original_research - while theoretical criticism borders on original reasearch, I think it is good to keep them.
 * NPOV - No need to put unnecessary quotes or disparaging remarks. Just report what the claimants state.
 * Revert_only_when_necessary - Do not summarily delete relevant material. Reword it if you think it's not neutral enough.


 * As stated above a mainstream authoritative encyclopedia would provide a more blunt assessment of the field than we have now.


 * Concerning OR, I can't find a criticism and if you can't find a criticism than this article fails notability and should be deleted.
 * Concerning NPOV see WP:Fringe. Ideas are not present from the minority perspective.
 * Concerning Reverts. My apologies.--OMCV (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed Category:Pseudoscience; said epithet is too stigmatizing to including in a page's list of Categories without very good referencing. Instead I added the much more connotationally neutral (and hence not needing very good referencing in order to be justified) Category:Cold fusion. There is a difference between fringe science and pseudoscience. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I am defending the idea that “Fringe topics deserve objective and encyclopedic treatment, too”. Don't be dogmatistic.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Notable?
Is this fringe theory notable? Has it been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory? Hipocrite (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it notable, but this patent application is at least amusing.LeadSongDog come howl  16:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there is a serious lack of notability and I would not fight a push for deletion. In lieu of that I'm sure everyone will try to present the material in a NPOV form, which is defined as the mainstream perspective.--OMCV (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the "one major publication" requirement, see Chapter 17 of The Secret Life of Plants by Tompkins & Bird (1973), which treats biological transmutation extensively but uncritically. You might also reference Kervran's Biological Transmutations (1962) which appears to be the main source material for these ideas.  I have been unable to assess Kervran's work myself but Tompkins & Bird claim that empirical data have been collected in this area.  Google Scholar searches for the people mentioned shows one reference to a conference paper from 1964 but no accessible articles; searching on "biological transmutation" brings up about 90 articles. 97.81.92.146 (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Detailed claims
My listing of specific claims from Kervran's book with proper page citations was rejected. Why? These show his hypothesis is more than just some nebulous unspecified analomous claims which this article otherwise presents. RJBaran (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your attempts to show that Kervran's claims are based in anything more than his claims is unnaceptable - this article is written from a neutral PoV - we cannot take Kervrans claims as fact, and must express the mainstream point of view - that he is full of it. Further, this is not an essay - you must not write it to prove your hypothesis. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this statement just silly?
The article states: "Defenders of the transmutation hypothesis have suggested some explanatory theories. To this day, these theories have not been mentioned, corroborated or developed by other scientists." Surely it's a given that "other" scientists do not subscribe to the theory, and therefore the fact that they have not corroborated or developed it is obvious. If they had, they would not be "other"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.229.12 (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, this whole article seems to have been written by a proponent of biological transmutation who is highly offended by the fact that mainstream science discards it as false.173.79.181.230 (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This article has merit
While there is no question that the claim that nuclear/elemental transmutations can result from biological processes is totally in conflict with everything we think we know about nuclear physics, in my opinion this article is necessary and valuable for two reasons. First, there is a surprising body of literature claiming, on the basis of ostensibly scientific experimentation, that such phenomena are real. Some of this work dates from the very early 19th century, and seems to require scientific, experimental refutation. For example,the French chemist Vauquelin apparently wondered how chickens could continue to produce normal eggshells on calcium-deficient diets, and performed experiments that appeared to show that chickens were capable of producing calcium by transmutation from other dietary elements. Similarly, William Prout,the famous English physiologist, in 1822, appeared to show that the calcium increase within the developing chicken egg was not provided by the eggshell. (Both of these early scientists have their own Wikipedia page.) In reviewing their work, and that of others who undertook to repeat and extend it, there is a strong residual suggestion that there is a genuine empirical phenomenon present which should not be scorned out of hand just because it violates the current paradigm. If such experiments are in error, to show how and why would seem a valuable service. I should mention that there is more recent experimental evidence that is hard to explain, a very good example of which is an article published by Heroux and Peter in 1975 in the Journal of Nutrition: "Failure of Balance Measurements to Predict Actual Retention of Magnesium and Calcium by Rats as Determined by Direct Carcass Analysis". This would seem to be a reliable source for evidence that the proportion of elements present in an animal's body cannot necessarily be accounted for on the basis of carefully tracking what goes into and comes out of it. The second reason I think this article valuable (although I don't know if it's sufficiently encycloopedic), is that this alleged phenomenon provides a wonderful illustration of the challenges inherent in scientifically addressing such claims. On the face of it, you would think that it would be easy to grow plants or animals while controlling and tracking their diet and composition, but it turns out to be harder than it looks. Doing such "balance" studies ends up requiring very careful experimental procedure and design, and very careful attention to the precision and accuracy of the analytic methods used. I think it is valuable to present to Wikipedia readers a history that could show how a more rigorous experiment can refute an earlier, erroneous one. I will try to assemble some references and text to expand this article. Theodore Rigley 16:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigley (talk • contribs)

Go for it!--98.218.42.191 (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)