Talk:Coacervate

How do I edit the first paragraph?

there is no such thing as "hydrophobic forces", there are only "hydrophobic interactions" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.124.231.95 (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Darwin did not propose LUCA as it is defended today...

But I'm pretty sure that he mentioned that could be that a few organisms were the ancestors of phyletically independent phyla. Perhaps at least a CA for plants and another for animals, with both groups not sharing one. But I'm almost sure that the number suggested was even larger, like suggesting that even plants and animals were polyphiletic. --Extremophile 23:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job

I'd like to congratulate whoever put the "more plainly put" bit in the introduction. It's much more useful than than a lump of techno-babble unreadable by the average shmuck. The Last Melon 16:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articulo en español

Si alguien pudiese colocar mas informaciòn acerca de este tema en el articulo en español sería de gran ayuda. Gracias Mettallzoa (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incoherent

The introduction mentions lipids and hydrophobic forces, yet under the complex coacervation section, we learn that two hydrophilic solutions are mixed. The classic gelatin / gum arabic system has no lipids and no hydrophobic interactions. The formation of droplets is driven by electrostatic forces. It only occurs when the pH is adjusted so that the two species have opposite charge. So are there two subspecies of coacervation or is the first paragraph wrong? I'd love to know. AlanParkerFrance (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being overly succinct, your section title summarizes the issue nicely. (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 17:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, much of the original content seems to have been plagiarized from an older edition of this textbook. (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 12:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization

There really should be a section describing the actual science, prior to jumping into the historical context. There is a lot of current literature on coacervation, almost all of which is missing from this article. All of the Oparin stuff should probably be consolidated into a "History of Coacervation" subheading, rather than having it scattered randomly throughout. (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 17:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]