Talk:Alternative biology

Article focus

Would speculation about hypothetical life forms based on completely "conventional" life processes also fall under this topic? I'm thinking of the stuff seen in The Future Is Wild as an example, and I ask here since there are no references in the main article to check for myself. Bryan 00:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I genuinely hate to say it, but isn't all of this covered in the Alternative biochemistry page? --Xanthine 13:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I raised my question above, I can see this article as potentially having scope beyond biochemistry even though it doesn't currently. Bryan 15:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and I really do like the idea... If, for instance, this article were to focus on alternative biological systems, hypothetical or otherwise. Consider the life systems hypothesized in Aurelia and Blue Moon. Perhaps Extremophile life may also constitute alternative biology? Unfortunately, all of these fields tend to be largely speculative, but I'll be watching this article with interest all the same. :)

--Xanthine 15:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of this article

The reason I created this article was to have a broader focus than alternative biochemistry, but with the same kind of idea -- looking at the stuff of life. This article title is based on that article, and not on a specific area of research. Alternative biochemistry's focus is too narrow to include things like RNA world hypothesis, which uses convential organic biomolecules in a very different (not to mention acellular) way. Also it includes artificial life, which would not fit in the "alternative biochemistry" article.

These are some guidelines (not rules) for what may be included:

Extremophiles certainly are worth a mention, as many have metabolisms which were once the stuff of science fiction, and certainly are an alternative to convential biology.

Yes, there's no reason to stop at biological systems, and alternate morphologies can be included also. However, I'd like to draw a line through fanciful creatures and focus mainly on those where the author has given or implied a biological reason for their alternative morphology (and they should have a morphology that is novel, and unlike extant or even extinct terrestrial life). For example, the xenomorphs of Alien might be mentioned for having acid for blood (which is novel and had a defensive purpose), but not for their smooth elongated heads (whose primary purpose appeared to be the serving of Giger's phallic style).

Along the same lines, alternative behaviours could be included also.

Ultimately the article is not mine, however, so please rip it to shreds, add stuff, change stuff, rename it, and include what you will. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 00:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cite sources

This article cites no sources. The article is in danger of being deleted as original research. --JWSchmidt 03:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up, it's just a stub. Which of the statements in it need citations? The only thing I can think of offhand would be a source indicating the title of the article isn't a neologism. Bryan 03:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good start would be a citation for a peer-reviewed article about "Alternative biology". --JWSchmidt 04:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]