Talk:Process molecular gene concept

Rubbish
This article needs to either be improved or removed. Google scholar turned up 57 hits for the term. My primary objection is that this article FAILS to describe the concept, apparently the authors believe the concept makes claims about alternative definitions. I submit that the concept must either succeed or fail on its own, not as a criticism of some other definition. If the definition of what a Process Molecular Gene is can not be clearly stated here, then the article should be removed. There are other, better articles on the problems of the generally accepted meanings of the term "gene". Replacing it - a thing (or rather, a category of things) - with a process, may have some merit, IDK. Based on its insignficant presence in the literature, I suggest it doesn't merit much other that a clear definition of what it is, and in what context it is relevant (apparently Eva restricted the definition to developmental genetics). The Stanford Philosophy article quotes Eva as follows: "“Gene” is the process (i.e., the course of events) that binds together DNA and all other relevant non-DNA entities in the production of a particular polypeptide. The term gene in this sense stands for processes which are specified by (1) the specific interactions between specific DNA segments and specific non-DNA located entities, (2) specific processing mechanisms of resulting mRNA's in interactions with additional non-DNA located entities. (Neumann-Held 2001, p. 74)" Since radiation, water molecules, cell membranes, etc. etc. are all "entities", but probably not considered by her, her definition is hardly clear, imho. I doubt if there is enough substance here to merit a separate entry, I suggest this article be included in the criticisms section of the article on genes. At the least, her definition should be included in the text. In addition, much has changed since she first suggested the term. If someone wants to take ownership of this article, I suggest s/he remember the first rule of journalism: who, what, why, how, where, and when. Contrast her definition to one or two common ones, point out why in certain specific cases her definition is more accurate/useful - I didn't see that - I just read vague claims about it being "better"...and clarify why it seems only to be relevant to developmental genetics (rather than cell metabolism, etc. (or do I misunderstand?)). I find it preposterous that her main claim as presented here is that "other factors" (than DNA sequence) influence polypeptide biosynthesis. That is so obvious, it doesn't need to be said.173.189.77.96 (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)