Talk:Laminin

Images

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)

Merosin

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)

Progeria from mutations?

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)

Picture?

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.—Jchthys 23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I found a photo in Nature here; I don't know if fair use will allow us to use it, I believe the image people will demand a free use one. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Posted links of photos in the references section of the page.Fan Railer (talk) 23:42, 12 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)

Definition

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)

I believe this is an appropriate definition, especially considering that "extracellular matrix" and "basement membrane" are wikilinked. 97.118.205.124 (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Description of Laminin may accidentally be too Christian

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)

Unfortunately, I do not understand how the above comment contributes to the discussion and I fail to see the point. At any rate the argument is poor, and really makes no point what-so-ever and it is purely a religious argument. I don't say this lightly as I am a Christian. TDurden1937 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)TDurden1937

http://www.snopes.com/glurge/laminin.asp • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Laminin and Religion

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)

I want the title "religious-cruft Warning" changed. It is not up to the standards of objectivity that Wiki stands for. I suggest "==Warning: All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source . . . (from Wikipedia;Verifiability criteria)==, or something like that. Any suggestions. I don't see any problem with the PLEASE NOTE section.

In a week or so if there is no objection I'll change it on my own, and let the Wiki"God" over-rule me if they want. I mean, even if Christians are like so totally wrong about it all, they deserve to be listened to in respectful silence. What ever happened to the "open mind of science." Those who are rationalist seem to be the most dogmatic people I've ever seen sometimes.

TDurden1937 (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)TDurden1937 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.125.162 (talk)

Please, contribute with the exposition of your "cultural" or religious beliefes in a different class of articles, I mean in articles related to religion. This is a biochemical article, and its contents should be verifiable, and they are not a belief but scientific data, hypothesis or theories and they are obtained and showed following the scientific method. Please, don't keep on adding this religious section. It seems to me a sort of wedge-strategy vandalism in wikipedia. There are a lot of religious articles in wikipedia where you can write a section like that.Miguelferig (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2013 (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.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hemoglobin#In_history.2C_art_and_music http://en.wiki.x.io/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)

I'm with Miguelferig on that. This is a scientific article, not an article about the superstitious beliefs of Christian apologetics. The section has no informative value and should be removed.

"IF they are relevant to the topic of discussion"

Please explain the relevance of this block to the article. 84.189.183.120 (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

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."'

173.25.54.191 (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of info: I have seen numerous Christians note how laminin looks like a cross, and we shouldn't ignore this fact. Adding a "popular culture" section about the comparison is completely appropriate. In addition to larger Christian organizations,[1][2][3] I have found articles on Snopes, RealClearScience, and Hemant Mehta's blog also discuss this and argue against the Christian/YEC ideas. Maybe we should change the section to incorporate some or all of these sources, but there is enough coverage of laminin in popular culture to add a section on this. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• As explained by various users, the content and sources you mention are not acceptable. Creationist websites and blogs debunking their pseudoscientific claims fail the minimum requirements for sourcing in biochemistry articles, no matter how many you find. Journal articles, reviews, encyclopedic entries, etc. are required for inclusion, and in this case they simply do not exist. The section has been gone for years and the repeated inclusion by two users in the last few weeks is essentially disruptive. Please, do not add again unless consesus to do so is reached in this talk page (or WP:MCB). As of writing, there is a clear lack of consensus to say the least. Neodop (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support as per the sources provided above. This clearly requires inclusion because it seems like an obvious information that really needed some mention on the article. Capitals00 (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• The relevant policy/guideline here is WP:ONEWAY. Groups advocating FRINGE/pseudoscience notions have thoughts about all kinds of things. We don't give WEIGHT to those notions in the Wikipedia article about the object of the FRINGE claims, we put them in the WP article about the FRINGE group, and only there (if we even put them there). Some people here are aware of the discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience; I will notify those who might not be aware, and will also post notice of the sanctions above. Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Christian science is religion. Religion is not science. Delete. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we delete, hide or archive the two section above about religion

My preference would be to hide the body of each section. Any objections ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Popular culture (revamped)

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). —PaleoNeonate – 05:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)