Talk:Biomolecule

Untitled
Are biomolecules not organic compounds? Bensaccount 21:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I created a compromise version between Bensaccount and Stewartadcock. Bensaccount, it's good to have snappy sentences and concise definition and I appreciate your attention to brevity and succintness, but it also doesn't hurt to also include a short few intro sentences after these concise one-sentence definitions to help orient less technically inclined readers.  Remember wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it encyclopedia entries should be able to be read in relative isolation (ultimately a paper version of wikipedia is planned), so don't assume that the reader is always in front a browser. --Lexor|Talk 21:53, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Bensaccount, your initial edit removed (cf. moved) much valid content and instead basically said, "a biomolecule is an organic molecule". It depends upon the definitions you choose to follow but, from the definitions usually used by a chemist, a biomolecule is not necessarily an organic molecule. I think it's best to leave statements that can be disputed out of the introductory passage when a perfectly good intro already exists. (I'm not saying that the intro isn't open to improvement.) Stewart Adcock 03:15, 5 May 2004 (UTC)


 * At least a few molecules produced by living things are clearly inorganic, not organic, in the chemistry sense - such as shell calcium carbonate. In the other direction, a huge number of chemically synthesized organic molecules are not biomolecules.  (Ooops! maybe we need to watch out for an ambiguity about molecules produced by organic chemists?)  But in general, it doesn't seem helpful replace a definition easily understood by anyone with a technical term such as "organic compound".  Using the technical term at a second level could be very good, along with an explanation of it in terms of the atom types and bonding.


 * In general, the current version of the article is pretty good, altho there are a few misleading details such as the descriptions of helix and sheet in the protein section - I'll try to work on those. - Dcrjsr (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Done. - Dcrjsr (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this statement correct?
"Besides the polymeric biomolecules, numerous big organic molecules are absorbed by living systems. Many biomolecules may be not useful or important in the future"

Don't living things absorb other molecules, small or big? And don't living organisms also absorb other non-organic things?

What does "Many biomolecules may be not useful or important in the future" mean? If living things are made of solely on biomolecules, then wouldn't biomolecules be important for sustaining life for future generations? Maybe I just read it wrong, but it seems contradictory to me

--71.108.1.200 19:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently the above two statements have been removed, which is a good step - I feel they were poorly worded, incorrect by most interpretations, and not especially useful to a reader. - Dcrjsr (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Biomolecules
And love you too I love 3kdb so I can get a virifying paymaya account ko wag muna nga akong joke joken kasi halata n nag sisilos k na na 1.37.88.254 (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

بائیولوجی 9th 58.181.103.136 (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * اینزائم ریکشن کیوں ہوتا 58.181.103.136 (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Opening definition conflicts with its citation
The cited author says they'll use the term to refer to "any macromolecule that, like a protein or a nucleic acid, is essential to some typically biological process". Of course that's an example of just one author's use of it, and fits the article's definition, but I don't think it really works as a reference for it if we then immediately change the definition's scope to include smaller molecules. Musiconeologist (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)