Talk:Biology/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Delisted GA

This article has been removed from the GA list due to lack of references. Tarret 17:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Why? It has three references - that should be enough for anybody. Also, the creationism loonies have been kept at bay. That makes this article better than my High School biology textbook. george 16:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Tropism

Does anyone know who coined the term tropism or was the first to use it? Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 15:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Evolution as the only key to Biology?

There is some serious POV here, as none of the other views are even introduced throughout this section. Would someone please expand this by adding the other POVs, please. (I am NOT suggesting deleting the existing section.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diez2 (talk • contribs) .

Lets just replace all the text with "God created the universe on September 3, 4007 B.C. and that should be good enough for you so stop asking questions about things that are non of your affair." george 22:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(Above is unsigned comment 04:44, 27 September 2006 by user Diez2?). The word "key" is not used in the Biology article, and evolution is discussed as the central principle of biology, not "the only key to Biology." "Central" implies other things, so it can't be "the only." Maybe you meant to post this on some other page? Maybe I'm too new to Wikipedia to find out where "only key" is used in the Biology article. Please point it out to me if this is the case. KP Botany 14:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Diez2, exactly what other views would you like to see included along-side evolution? Because if you're thinking of creationism, that's theology, not biology. IronChris | (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Often, the central aspects of molecular biology are taken as an alternate basis for biology (though less so as the central dogma becomes more and more qualified and contigent). Actually, Dobzhansky's famous "nothing in biology makes sense" quote was originally a response to the rapid expansion of molecular biology, which was seen as a threat to organismal biology.--ragesoss 22:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And it WAS a threat to organismal biology, sucking funding from whole organism studies for decades. Fortunately, the pendulum has started to swing a bit. There seems to be room for both now. Eperotao (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

But the "central dogma", such as it is, is only in existence because it evolved, and I'm not entirely convinced that the "central dogma" is entirely dogmatic. --I am not a dog (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Other Things

Parts of this article are really poorly written. Why not say what biology is, instead of saying how it differs from physics? Why say how biology is different from physics instead of how it is different from chemistry or earth science or engineering or math or the moon and its harsh mistress? Does anyone have a vested interest in why an article on biology MUST differentiate itself from physics? And can you clearly articulate this to the Wikipedia community? Biologists use physics, and math, and chemistry, and physicists and chemists need math, and chemists need physics, but the fundamental principles of a science should be introduced in their own right, not explained by how they differ from the fundamental principles of a much more fundamental science. KP Botany 20:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there are no comments or concerns about this I will edit it out. KP Botany 18:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Religion and Biology

I added a small summary of the religious point of view of evolution. I wonder, however, if there should be both sides of this story in this section. Both concepts have has a lot of debate with eachother and should be compared somehow. I personally am of the Christian faith but I believe evolution occurs on a smaller scale then being the explaination for how all life transformed into their own kingdoms, phylums, and such. --Eiyuu Kou 17:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The summary was removed but my request remains --Eiyuu Kou 18:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's very easy for religious discussions to become a part of every article on biology, since evolution is central to every aspect of the science, every organism, etc. But this isn't the place - we could bring up a debate on every page that even mentions evolution. The best way to deal with it is to discuss it in the article evolution and related articles that go into more detail like creation-evolution controversy and leave the biology (and other articles like horse) out of the debate, unless there is some material very specific to that article that is controversial. As I see it evolution is the only assertion in biology that remains controversial among the general public, so mentioning it again here is unnecessary.

If you would like to read more on evolution on the macro level the article evidence of evolution provides a good background, while The Origin of Species by Darwin is an excellent book for anyone to read. Richard001 07:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

LEAD cleanup

Please see WP:LEAD and consider the following points.

• long unstructured leads are confusing.
• leads with tons of technical jargon in them that cannot be understood easily
• lead sentences with multiple names, titles, translations, different scripts, transliterations, pronunciation guides, dates, disputed dates, audio links, multiple commas, semi colons, colons, dashes, parentheses and parenthetical remarks, multiple subordinant clauses and asides, etc.

and so on.

The lead of an article is very important. It should not be a garbage dump. frummer 19:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to some some cleanup in the first two paragraphs. I left a sentence in that doesn't really seem to contribute to the article, however. Specificially, it states that all concepts in biology must obey other branches of science. I think I know what the author was trying to say. That is, that scientific theories must be consistent with the laws of nature. But that goes without saying, doesn't it? I'd like to remove the sentence. Somebody else can revert it if it is necessary, but if they do, I think it should be reworded. StudyAndBeWise 04:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the article claims that anthropology is a branch of biology, but when I checked the anthropology page, no such statement could be found. I will leave this because on some level it makes sense, but I thought anthropology was a social science, like political science. StudyAndBeWise 04:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Anthropology is not biology. However, these two disciplines now overlap in places, as there is "biological anthropology," which is similar to "physical anthropology." In the same way, forms of psychology that focus on studies of animals behavior completely overlap with the animal behavior branch of zoology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eperotao (talk • contribs) 05:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had a jab at the cleanup of the lead. There were a few non-sensical sentences there e.g. "and how species come into non-existence" (Preusuming this is in reference to abiogenesis rather than extinction which is already covered by 'origins') and "Biology does not have a separate science was developed in...". I also think the Jean-Baptiste Lamarck reference is debatable. The Jean-Baptiste Lamarck article itself states that the term was independently used by several authors in the early 19th century. I think it should be replaced with something like "The term biology first came into use early in the 19th century and is credited independently to Karl Friedrich Burdach , Gottfried Reinhold Treviranu and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck". Any feedback? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubathy (talk • contribs) 14:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigma

Shouldn't 'Λoγοσ' be 'Λoγος'?

Oh, probably. KP Botany 20:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

CZ-sourced text

It seems some of the text from your first paragraph was sourced from the Citizendium article (available by PDF from the CZ front page). If so, please give us proper credit, as we give our WP sources proper credit. --Larry Sanger 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a side note... I thought you weren't "progessive forking" Wikipedia now. -- Zanimum 16:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The text has been reverted. -- Zanimum 16:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

request for comment

Would people who regularly watch this page please consider commenting here [1]? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

DNA graph

The double helix DNA model in this page was very crude and inaccurate : for instance, the two grooves looked identical and the periodicity of the helix was wrong (there should be 10 base pairs per turn). Hence, I suggest someone replace it with the more accurate image found in the article on DNA (I don't know how to do it myself) or with any other error free diagram. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:3DScience_DNA_structure_labeled_Angstroms.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.77.193.92 (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Citizendium

This an approved article on Citizendium. I believe that it is a much better article than we have here, what is the copyright status if it is copied here? Todd661 10:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We will not use their highly POV article here--the article fails to give Evolution the critical importance it deserves in Biology. Don't even consider it. That being said, this article is poorly written and referenced. We need to have some editors deal with it. Orangemarlin 14:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Life Sciences

Why is Life Sciences redirected to this page, when Life Sciences is clearly a interdisciplinary science and not the same thing as biology. It is also listed at the bottom of the page as a "Related discipline". It is clearly absurd for a related discipline to redirect back to the main page. Does an article for "Life Sciences" even exist, and if so where is it?? Stoopsolo 10:44, 10 May 2007

Life Sciences does not exist as an article. Personally, I think Life Sciences is a overarching term to describe all of the biological sciences from microbiology to biochemistry to ecology. I would like to see some reference that Biology does not equal life sciences. Orangemarlin 14:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, life sciences and biology are the same thing. Eperotao (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixing this article

I'm adding to the to-do list above to get this article to a FA status. We need to improve this article since it is critical to articles such as Evolution. Orangemarlin 00:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium biology montage

The montage at Citizendium for their biology article is simply stunnning. While made from free pictures from the Wikimedia Commons, I'm not sure as to the status of the derivative image (contacting the creator seems a bit of a hassle requiring registration etc.), and I'm unsure as to whether Wikipedians would be upset to see a work of a Citizendite on this site. What do you people think? Brisvegas 10:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

so what's the consensus? is wikipedia actually possible?

This is a basic topic and it has some really terrible sections! what the hell is that section on gene theory trying to say?

i must say that i thought wikipediin' was going to be a fun game, but i think i'm already getting tired of it. It shouldn't take 5 years to write an encyclopedia article on Biology!

i just read some more, oh it's just awful! and if i edit it what will happen two years down the line?

grrrrrWikiskimmer 01:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that no one noticed the Gene theory section in the past, I suspect that if you improved the article it would stay that way. I suppose that the section should ideally be about the central dogma. Perhaps the current section should be removed as of now. Shyamal 04:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

well, i started cleaning things up. i've never even HEARD of the term gene theory! anyway i basically described the central dogma (which we aint so dogmatic about anymore. i really don't know what to do. these articles are REALLY amateurish! It would be a tour de force to write a encyclopedia entry for biology! i probably can't do it NPOV! hah! such a central wiki and it's not being worked on. i don't even have my texts with me at this time.. ok, i'll change gene theory to central dogma.

oy oy oy what have i got myself into?Wikiskimmer 05:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Central dogma is a term that is so abused no one uses it. Gene theory is one of the four unifying foundations of modern Biology. Gene theory is simply the theory that all phenotypic expression in every organism on this planet arises from genes. Central dogma is the mechanism. If you want to be a good editor on this project, my suggestion is first, you don't criticize other editors, second, check up on your facts before you blow off. This article is in bad shape. Hardly amateurish. Orangemarlin 08:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge Gene Theory is an invention of this Wikipedia entry. I'm not aware that any reputable biologist has formulated and tested anything called The Gene Theory. In what medium was this theory first presented and in what year? I'm nominating the phrase for speedy deletion. It is also NOT true that "all phenotypic expression in every organism on this planet arises from genes." Phenotype is a product of both genes and environment which interact during development and the life of the organism. The Central dogma is not a mechanism. I could go on. Eperotao (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly appalled that such a basic article as this one is in such terrible shape. I took a few shots at it a couple of months ago, and I tried to interest a few of the other biology types around to help out, but I couldn't. I tried to fix the lead, and attempted to write out in sections what is Biology: cell theory, homeostasis, etc. Orangemarlin 06:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The more specific the article, the easier it is since the structuring is easy. The moment a subject becomes broad, the scope and structuring get really tough as in this case. I would be happy to help here, but I think a suggestion of the structure of the sections to start with is a great help. Also I think most of the generics can be cited from almost any biology text and there should be a way to avoid citation clutter here. Shyamal 07:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a few basic references that need to be there. I don't mind references in general, because I can use them. I'm working on the structure of the article, because it needs help. Orangemarlin 07:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, thanks for jumpin' in. but i'd like to discuss your 7:23 edit. my paragraph described the significance of genes, they ultimately give rise to the form of an organism. yours succintly describes the MECHANISM. in an introductory article, the significance of topics is important. Otherwise keep up the good work.

but i suppose this is why these wikis read so poorly, we are stabbing at this thing piecemeal. This isn't writing! we need to sit back relax, take a deep breath and spiel the whole thing out afresh in all its glory with a plan of what's at stake in the modern biological view of our world. say,

http://forums.craigslist.org/?ID=45927636

emphasising that biology has progressed by thinking of organisms as made interacting discrete molecular parts.

then to this add genetics. evolvability. boundaries. individuals.

or think about the chapters of a neat little biology text: Garret Hardins biology 2nd ed.

• Hardin BIOLOGY Chapters
• what is science, what is biology, what is life, mechanism vs

vitalism, history

• scale, cell, microscope, brownian motion, kinetic energy and

temperature, probability, diffusion, osmosis, thermo/kinetics, conservation of energy,flame,lavoiser to chemistry, atoms, molecules, biochemistry, endproduct inhibition to regulative feedback

• what codes it?DNA ->RNA ->Protein ->behavior/morphology,

regulation of gene action, life cycle, germ cells, haploid/diploid, meiosis, sex, mutation, how to respond: deterministic or feedback?, thermostat: endotherm/ectotherm, homeostasis,

• reproduction as positive feedback, malthusian demostat,

natural selection, phenostat, stabilizing selection, evolution, examples, isolation-speciation, cometitive exclusion,

• age of rocks, fossils, geologic ages, origins of life,
• photosynthesis, cycling of carbon, cybernetics of greenhouse

effect, sun to void flow through earth, where did it come from? cosmology, energy up the foodweb, algae, euglena: plant or animal, different life history strategies, ecology of sea, pileups of fixed carbon and nitrogen, bacteria, chemoautotrophs, symbiosis

well, if i get the inspiration, i'll take a stab, i've always dreamt of writing a biology text from scratch!Wikiskimmer 08:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not copying a book nor are you writing a biology text from scratch. Also, what you are describing is like 500kb article--we're not going to do that either. Most of what you posted there needs to be directed to forks, so it isn't necessary. Now I'm going to be absolutely blunt. If you're going to write in this article, there is an expectation of writing at a significantly advanced level. Your writing is not at that level. I'm not going to spend hours correcting grammar, spelling, usage, and structure. If you want to write, do so, but focus on quality rather than your grand plan of rewriting an article from scratch.Orangemarlin 08:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

P.s. i did not mean that the outline i posted here was to in any way appear on the biology wiki. It was merely posted to give a feel for the kind of thinking that would prepare one for picking the fundamental points about modern biology to make a comprehensive article. You will notice my edits to the wiki were fine in terms of English mechanics.Wikiskimmer 17:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Another point. Check to whom you're addressing your comments. It will serve you well. Orangemarlin 08:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow this is somewhat startling to come across. I wonder where the real biologists are and why they let it become like this?--Filll 11:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

what about references?

i looked at physics and it links to a whole other page of further reading. do we want to aim for that here? I started adding some books, i'm aiming to find two for each level of biology: one popular, one text. should we just keep adding them at the bottom till it gets to unweildly and move it all to another page as they do in the physics article?

Yes -Healthwise

also i don't see how to add in a general description of the book in the book cite thingy. i.e.

at the end of a single-bracket link, put a blank space followed by the description. Or just follow the link with a description. -Healthwise

On becoming a biologist: general overview of what the field is like, what it's like to think, practice as a biologist.

How life works: illustrated popular account of basic organizing principles of biology from molecules on up.

would that be useful? etc...Wikiskimmer 00:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, useful. -Healthwise

helo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.183.37 (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

the physical fitness

physical fotness is the capacity of each ivdividual to acomplish daily taasks whit alertnes and vigar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.1.178 (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Medicine: applied field of biology?

"Applied fields of biology such as medicine and genetic research involve many specialized sub-disciplines."

I find this sentence a bit strange. Medicine is just a part of biology? Medicine heavily relies on biology indeed but it has its own history and social and other aspects as well. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As no one provided any reference, I have removed this sentence. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

the biology is classification in the word —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.147.149 (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Medicine is not formally a discipline within biology. However, biomedical research is biology in the service of medicine and is certainly science. It is applied science. Eperotao (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

There are several incomplete or misplaced sentences in this article, possibly due to vandalism. See Biology#Environmental (last sentence) and Biology#Gene theory for example. It would be good if someone checked this out. --Yerpo (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

scientific method —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.100.253 (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Also noticed some other vandalism (masturbation heading) someone please fix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.23.124 (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

foundations of modern biology

The five foundations seem rather arbitrary. I would like to see why these particular fiels are so fundamental. For instance, isn't homeostasis just one out of many different functions life performs? And is energy really even a part of biology? Isn't it rather a part of physics that can be applied to biology? Isn't bio-chemistry pretty fundamental? I think the whole foundation talk is just a form of well disguised peacock words. Instead, I suggest to include a wider list of fields within biology with descriptions, without giving any of them more weight than the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.196.206 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree! How is 'energy' a fundamental principle in biology? Respiration and metabolism help maintain homeostasis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crookshankz227 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. I think the core outline of this article should be changed. Those 5 principles are extremely arbitrary. Rather, the article should seek to expound upon all of the main ideas of biology rather without a numerical limit instead of having "5 principles" as the arbitrary foundation of the article. A flexible, non-numerical order of the major ideas of biology will allow additional fields of biological study and categories to arise when necessary. I'm going to try to work on this over the next month to get a good working biology article. It's a shame this hasn't been done yet. FireBrandon (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. FireBrandon, have you done anything yet? I would be happy to read it. (I am a biologist and professional writer/editor.) I started, but then saw your post. Eperotao (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There are no "many different functions of life." Life is defined precisely in biology by the primary life functions, one of which is homeostasis. So yes, homeostasis is definitely one of the most basic principles of biology. Also note that homeostasis is the direct result of an organism's evolution ☲Fireyair☲ 02:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Retzius Cell of Leech

Retzius cell of leech are the centrally located neurons. They are electrically coupled. They are microscopic in size —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathakdhruba (talk • contribs) 22:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hatnote needed?

Bioscience redirects here, but I was looking for the journal BioScience. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe a disambig page for bioscience? It would be a little strange, I think, to have a note at the top that isn't a disambig of the title of the article itself. Awickert (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Error?

I disagree with the statement "For example, bacteria with inserted human DNA will correctly yield the corresponding human protein." under the gene therory section. This is not the case, eukaryote gene function and protein production differs significantly from prokaryote. If a eukaryote gene is inserted into a bacterial genome, during bacterial transcription introns will not be spliced yielding a mRNA with stretches of additional neucleotides and thus a different protein will be produced. Also post-translational modification of proteins differs between eukaryotes and prokaryotes.

I propose a different statement indicating the almost universal codon rules, or maybe the conserved mechanism transcription and translation. BioStu (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

History of Biology Link

I think that one or two paragraphs should be written as a summary of the history of biology page. It should then have a link to the main history of biology article. I'll do this myself later this week when I have the opportunity, but if anyone would like to help out that would be great. FireBrandon (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. I think moving to a structure more similar to Physics and Chemistry i.e. Lead, Intro including unifying principles, History and Branches/Research areas, Societies etc would be beneficial as the second half of the current article seems somewhat confused at the moment. Cubathy (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Research: Evolution section

I think the evolution section under 'Research' needs some significant changes. A lot of the information here has already been stated in the section in 'Foundations of modern biology', there are some statements I would disagree with e.g. 'Evolutionary biology is mainly based on paleontology' and the last paragraph about botany/zoology seems irrelevant. I propose that the section is merged into the section under foundations of modern biology unless we have some additional information that would fit better under the research heading. Cubathy (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is any objection I will perform the merge over the next few days —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubathy (talk • contribs) 04:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed some of the duplicate information in this section and the last paragraph on taxonomy. I left the first paragraph, as it seems to provide an acceptable discussion of some disciplines associated with evolution. I think the image here should also be changed as the current image related to population genetics doesn't add much to the article. I would suggest something like the galapagos finches from the evolution article. Cubathy (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Theorectical Biology

This is interesting, perhaps we could make a new category entitled theorectical biology.

- Cedric —Preceding unsigned comment added by CedrictheWelshDragon (talk • contribs) 17:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

humans

what r humans called in the biology world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.85.165 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Homo sapiens

Eperotao (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

History of Biology

I would strongly recommend that history of biology be generally omitted from this entry.

• It can be covered elsewhere.
• Its inclusion will disrupt the flow of a future well-written article.
• And it is confusing to novices to constantly introduce both what used to be believed and what is now believed.
• Stick to the current understanding of biology.

Just my two cents. Eperotao (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Branches of Biology - reference

I don't want to be a party pooper, but am I the only one that finds the reference for the "Branches of Biology" section less than satisfactory? A random article from "BellaOnline - the voice of women", are you serious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.193.188.215 (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Added a reference from biology-online.org. However, I didn't delete the original reference, seeing as the text was copied directly from that web page. (Fireyair (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

Reversion

Can anyone revert my last edits. I used HotCat, but it has not properly worked and deleted part of the article (instead of add a new category). I think a category section in Wikipedia pages would solve this problem (in a similar way to the lead section edit box)--Nopetro (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

Intro and the rest

The introduction is supposed to be an abreviated version of the rest of the article. Therefore it should only say things that are also in the main part of the article. But the first half of the intro in this article has no corresponding parts in the main part of the article. Much of what is missing concerns the history of biology. --Ettrig (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what you are having trouble with, and possibly misunderstanding, is the use of the opening paragraph. Nonetheless, I agree that the origin of the word biology may be a bit heavily emphasized, and other subjects are somewhat played down. Hey, if you think you can improve it, why not give it a shot? By the way, the images you uploaded really help give the article some color, thanks a lot! ☲Fireyair☲ (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The following quote from the same instruction is close to what I meant: Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only, as may certain quotations. There are seven sentences in the lead. Three of these are about the history of biology. This sub-subject is not covered in the remainder of the article. I assumed that you want to take this to GA and wanted to help by giving an early warning about lack of conformance with guidelines. I would appreciate this kind of feed-back on genetic drift. ---Ettrig (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the problem. Is "The term biology in its modern sense appears to have been introduced independently by Karl Friedrich Burdach (1800), Gottfried Reinhold Treviranus (Biologie oder Philosophie der lebenden Natur, 1802), and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (Hydrogéologie, 1802)," more historical than philological, even in this context? If so, I suppose I'll just edit that sentence out. As for "Prior to the 19th century, biology came under the general study..." I imagine that's just a paragraph to take up some space in an otherwise lacking-in-words-and-therefore-not-so-professional-looking lead. It should be removed as well. I guess it's slightly intimidating for random users to edit the lead section. ☲Fireyair☲ (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Biology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I applaud you for taking on such an important article -- I am well aware how difficult it is to write good articles on very-high-level topics. I will presently go through the article in detail, but there are two things I would like to bring up immediately:

1. I don't believe the "five basic theories" are an intrinsic part of biology; they are one textbook's way of organizing the material. The concept is valid, I think, but the article should make clear that this is an organizational device and not a universal truth.
2. There is a glaring lack of a history section. I think it is necessary to at least briefly touch on the major developments, such as Aristotle, the microscope, Linnaeus, Darwin, and the discovery of DNA.

By the way, I am a behavioral neurobiologist, just for the sake of letting you know where my personal expertise lies.

Reviewer: Looie496 (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Looie is right, this leaves out history completely. Luckily for you, History of biology is a featured article! It may take a while, but work on your WP:Summary style to add a nice section about this. Work on adapting that lead and a few summarizing sentences for each section to have two or three subsections in this main article. Be sure to not just copy it. Improving such a broad topic as this is hard, but I'm sure you can do it! Cheers, Reywas92^Talk 02:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Starting runthrough of article

• The bottom paragraph of the lead doesn't seem suitable. It might be appropriate to say something about the problem of classification here, but it should be pitched at a higher level, and these details should be left for the body.
• There should be a short section in the body of the article, probably right at the top, about what biology is. It's the study of life, of course, but what is "life"? You don't want to get bogged down on this but I think it needs to be considered at least briefly.
• Cell theory: this should be converted to prose rather than a list.

More to come. Looie496 (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Going to fail article soon if no responses appear

I am shortly going to fail this article on technical grounds. The nominator is a new editor who does not seem to have been aware of the obligation for somebody to be willing to respond to concerns raised about GAN articles, and has not responded to queries. Unless somebody signifies willingness to work on the article, I am going to fail it in a couple of days -- with no prejudice against renomination. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the late response, as I've mentioned on my talk page. I'll try to start working on the article immediately.

Okay, I've added a first summary of the history of biology. As for the explanation about what biology is, can you elaborate upon the reasons that the lead doesn't satisfy those reasons? It would definitely help if I n=knew what we're up against over here. (☲Fireyair☲ (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

Resuming review

Okay, the new History section basically looks pretty good. It ought to be taken from 1953 down to the present, though -- two or three sentences about the huge progress in molecular biology and molecular genetics, especially genome sequencing, ought to do the trick. Looie496 (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Evolution: The paragraph beginning "Up into the 19th century..." seems out of place -- it breaks the logical flow of the section. I think it probably belongs somewhere, but I'm not sure where. It also probably would benefit from an introductory sentence. Looie496 (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is removed. --Ettrig (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Evolution: The last paragraph strikes me as bogus. What does dysgenics have to do with an increase in complexity? There are numerous known, or at least speculative, examples of decrease in complexity, but they don't have anything to do with the accumulation of defective genes. Looie496 (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Genetics: The first paragraph contains the sentence "Additionally, DNA codes for the same proteins regardless of what organism it is present in.". This is not quite correct -- see Genetic code#Variations to the standard genetic code, not to mention the possibilities of alternative splicing and frameshifts. Looie496 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed this. This might also have been interpreted to say that the protein that it codes for is the same. But we agree that there are myriad differences between the proteins of different species, especially if they are not closely related. --Ettrig (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Genetics: Concerning "The set of chromosomes in a cell is collectively known as its genome.". Mitochondrial DNA is part of the genome, but not considered to be a chromosome, is it? Looie496 (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It is, although it mostly gets mentined when discussing organsisms with several chromosomes per mitochondrion. Narayanese (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Homeostasis: The second paragraph strikes me as badly wrong. Negative feedback is indeed crucial to homeostasis, but positive feedback actually drives a system away from equilibrium. Furthermore, the purported examples of positive feedback don't look to me like examples of feedback at all. Looie496 (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have changed this to include only negative feedback. --Ettrig (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

More to come.

Edited all. I just point out in the case of positive feedback that part of blood clotting is indeed positive feedback. However, I did clarify which aspect of said function was the example of positive feedback. As for childbirth contractions, that's a textbook example of positive feedback. Most discussions on biological feedback will use this example to help define positive feedback. ☲Fireyair☲ (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Continuing

• Somebody mentioned on a talk page somewhere (I wish I could remember where) that the term "biology" is not actually "from Greek", as the first line states, but rather the Greek is back-translated from the word "biology". It's sort of important to get this right; could you look into it? Looie496 (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have changed this. --Ettrig (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I just want to note a correction I made to the "history" section—it mentioned the discovery that "all of the DNA is made up of codons". That's far from true: codons are only found in the protein coding regions of the DNA (exons), which make up less than 1% of the molecule. (This doesn't need any action.) Looie496 (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• In the Evolution section, the paragraph starting "Historically..." breaks the flow, and doesn't seem to contain any information that this article really needs. I suggest getting rid of it. Looie496 (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this. (... but saved it in a way in Talk:History of Evolutionary Thought. --Ettrig (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Research: Anatomy is structural; it should not be listed in the Physiological category. Looie496 (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, moved to structural. --Ettrig (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Structural: You should probably add yeast to the list of model organisms. Looie496 (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this comment. The list is given for developmental biology. Yeasts such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae are unicellular and thus have very little development. See also the list in developmental biology. It does not include a yeast but does include a slime mold. --Ettrig (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fully convinced (yeast is a model system for studying transcription factors) but I won't press this point. Looie496 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Taxonomy: I feel that this paragraph could be worded in a way that is easier to understand: "This classification technique has evolved to reflect advances in cladistics and genetics, shifting the focus from physical similarities and shared characteristics to phylogenetics.". The point that needs to get across is that in olden days classification was based on macroanatomical structure, because that was the only information available. Nowadays it is more and more based on evolutionary descent, as revealed by genomics. The paragraph as written says that, but many readers won't be able to decipher it because of all the long words. Looie496 (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed to systematics and simplified considerably. We can add some back in if you like. --Ettrig (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• It would probably be good somewhere to explain that Medicine is intimately tied to Biology, although it is ordinarily thought of as a separate discipline. Looie496 (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)'

I am very unsure about what to do about this. My personal view is that the scope of medicine is a very small subset of the scope of biology and that therefore it is not worth mentioning. Agree though that the enormous interest of humankind in the problems of the human body has blown this subset up into enormous proportions. There is some mentioning of relation to medicine in the physiological paragraph. --Ettrig (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wrapup: I've gone through the whole article now, and if the final issues I've identified here can be resolved, I will be ready to promote the article. Looie496 (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have done very valuable work here, I think. I have acted on all your comments, but don't expect you to be quite satisfied yet. If you would care to provide a new set of comments, I think we will be able to converge. --Ettrig (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Pass

• I'm satisified enough to pass the article at this point. That does't mean it is perfect, of course -- an article like this can never be perfect -- but I feel that it is a good resource for readers now. Thanks for the efforts to all who participated. Looie496 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Biology From A Teenage Viewpiont

So i'm a teenager.In simple words WHAT IS BILOGY,WHAT DOES IT MEAN?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.216.15.63 (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia should answer your question. bibliomaniac15 The annual review... 03:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Bilogy is the study of bile and vomit. It is used to indetify previously vomited peices of vomit in the sewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.53.193 (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of biology

The word biology does not come from βιολογία. Βιολογία is a modern Greek term derived from the German Biologie. In fact, both the English and the Modern Greek terms derive from the German one. User:Nbarth described everything pretty well but for some reason he got reverted. In any case, I believe that the article should just mention the ultimate roots (eg: "from bio- + -logy, on the model of Greek – βίος, bios, "life"; -λογία, -logia, study of" (and not mention the cognate modern Greek word), as is the case with every other wiki-article on a theory/concept which is described by a Neolatin word based on classical Greek roots (confer: biorhythm and xenoglossy). --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I originally wrote the above on User:Fireyair's talk-page who (probably unintensionally) had undone User:Nbarth's version of the lede. I have personally tried to locate all the article-ledes that contain the same mistake: claiming the etymology of a modern technical term (say, biology) directly from Greek, while in fact it is only based on Ancient Greek roots (bio- and log-), while the Greek word (βιολογία) which is cited as the supposed source of the English term is merely the (back-translated from Neolatin or German) Modern Greek cognate of the English word. The last article on my list that remains to be corrected is Biology. --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you clearly have this point down cold, would you be willing to fix this article? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Need more eyes on Human Biology

Having a discussion of whether to include chiropractic schooling on human biology in its article. Need more interested editors other than me and the editor who wished to include such information. Discussion started on talk page... Auntie E. 03:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Passage moved to discussion of History of Evolutionary Thought

I removed the passage below although it is referenced and probably true. The initiative came from the GA review. It is a bit peculiarly formulated and I agree with the GA reviewer that it is too peripheral to this article. I have copied it to the talk page for History of Evolutionary Thought. --Ettrig (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Historically, it wasn't evolution that was theorized to be the reason for biological speciation. Up into the 19th century, spontaneous generation, the belief that life forms could appear spontaneously under certain conditions, was widely accepted. This misconception was challenged by William Harvey, who even before the invention of the microscope was led by his studies to suggest that life came from invisible 'eggs.' In the frontispiece of his book Exercitationes de Generatione Animalium (Essays on the Generation of Animals), he expressed the basic principle of biogenesis: "Omnia ex ovo" (everything from eggs).

Positive feedback

I removed the following passages from the homeostasis paragraph:

at least one of the two forms of feedback: negative feedback and positive feedback.

back to its normal range of functioning

the human body's release of insulin when blood sugar levels are too high. Another example is

Positive feedback mechanisms are designed to accelerate or enhance an output, and not necessarily to maintain an equilibrium. One example of a positive feedback event in the human body is the activation of blood platelets, which, in turn, release chemicals to activate more platelets, causing a rapid cascade and the formation of a blood clot in response to a break or tear in the lining of blood vessels. Another example is the release of oxytocin to intensify the contractions that take place during childbirth.

This removing was inspired by the GA review. Although positive feedback is employed in many ways in biological systems, it is not normallly seen as a way to achieve homeostasis. But I find this rather difficult to describe properly. The platelet example does not lead to stabilization in the short term, the formation of blod clotting is a change of state. But in a longer term it helps maintain the low concentration of foreign particles in the body. I think that in a very general sense, positive feedback is often employed as an enhancer of negative feedback control mechanisms. --Ettrig (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Archving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Starting a discussion of "chemical energy"

I think it would be good to discuss this rather than just reverting. To recap, a "clarify" tag was added in December, and Fireyair responded by adding the text "This terminology is generally used in situations where specific, qualitative information on the nature of the molecules used is not needed. For example, a research paper may discuss the amount of chemical energy produced daily by a particular organism, without specification as to the nature of the chemical energy.", which Narayanese then removed. I agree that the explanation is dubious, and at the very least would require a source, but I would hope that it is possible to come up with something better. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I just didn't want to really take it out. Chemical energy is just a form of biologist jargon. Makes things easier on a paper sometimes. It's one of those tiny details people get stuck on when they feel like being perfectionists.☲Fireyair☲ (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in this nano tech in respect to rebulting or repairing?

Is that possible? If so, how?, hav they thought of the symboic approuch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.143.239 (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Current Topics

• Removing text added here -- some of it are copyright violations, quite apart from the misuse of talk pages for general discussion. Much text seems to be taken from the references listed below.

• Grammar/Punctuation -- The sentence under the heading, "Systematics" could use better punctuation. It would be better typed like this:

"Modern[comma] alternative classification systems generally begin with the three-domain system: Archaea (originally Archaebacteria)[COMMA] Bacteria (originally Eubacteria)[COMMA] [AND] Eukaryota (including protists, fungi, plants, and animals)[PERIOD][57]" Montazmeahii (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Medicine-, anatomy- and health-related articles

Google's private foundation is supporting expansions of the Swahili Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, and Arabic Wikipedia. (See this announcement.) Forty medicine- or health-related articles, some of particular interest to developing countries, have been identified as targets. Basically, Google has offered to have these articles reviewed and professionally translated -- and we'd all rather that the translators were looking at good, accurate, globally relevant articles.

The list of articles includes some topics that are within the scope of this project. Several have recently been reviewed by outside experts, who have suggested several freely accessible online sources, factual corrections, and some ways to expand incomplete articles. Please read the comments on the talk page and see whether you can help. Even small contributions are very much appreciated.

If you are interested in helping with the overall project, please consider adding Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project to your watchlist, improving any articles on the list, and/or contributing advice at the talk page. All editors are welcome. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

newer biology collage

I like the newer biology collage, except for the large black borders, can we get one that has only a line between the pictures for comparison. Hardyplants (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we ought to replace the current collage in favor of one featuring a more representative sample of life. Five of the six organisms are from the same domain, three of which are in the same kingdom. razorbelle (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

newer biology collage

I like the newer biology collage, except for the large black borders, can we get one that has only a line between the pictures for comparison. Hardyplants (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we ought to replace the current collage in favor of one featuring a more representative sample of life. Five of the six organisms are from the same domain, three of which are in the same kingdom. razorbelle (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Biology Lead

The five "fundamental points" of modern biology mentioned in the lead need to be referenced better. I don't think reference [2] has them listed out, and point 2:

"New species and inherited traits are the product of evolution" is a little vague

-shouldn't it specifically mention what mechanism of evolution produces new species and inherited traits?--Gniniv (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned this briefly on my talk page, but the statement describes evolution broadly rather than any individual mechanism specifically. Natural selection is not the only means of speciation. See, for example, Artificial Selection. The concept which is referred to by this sentence is Evolution (i.e. changes in inherited traits over successive generations, in some cases leading to new species). Jess_talk|_edits 10:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay...Now according to that reasoning Artificial selection is considered a part of Evolution; is that really the case? If it is not, I don't think that argument is a good enough justification for the issues I have above.--Gniniv (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Artificial selection is one possible mechanism of evolution which can lead to changes in inherited traits or speciation. There are others. Jess_talk|_edits 10:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you specify the major mechanisms (so I can consider using them to clarify the lead)?--Gniniv (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Natural selection and genetic drift are the two major mechanisms of evolution, although sexual selection can be considered either as an independent process or a sub-type of natural selection. This is explained in some detail in the main evolution article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

@Gniniv What I'm saying is that the lead doesn't need to be more specific. The development of "new species and inherited traits" is the definition of evolution. There are a multitude of mechanisms within evolution which factor into that development, depending on the circumstances and environment, but they are all evolution. The lead is saying "fruits have seeds", and you're suggesting we specify that "apples and oranges and watermelon and... have seeds". Even if we could enumerate all the mechanisms of evolution, it wouldn't be necessary. It's evolution we're describing. By definition. Jess_talk|_edits 23:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

@MannJess If what you are saying is true (and I believe you) than evolution has a fairly generic definition....--Gniniv (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that since evolution is such a integral part of modern biology, than the definition in the lead of the biology article should be as clear and defined as possible. I will stop asking this if what you said is all there is to the definition of evolution, but if there is a more technical definition out there (and it is supported by peer reviewed references) I think this needs to be fixed-it won't help improve evolution's reputation as a true science if it remains this vague....--Gniniv (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

@Gniniv I'm just responding to let you know that I read your comments. I'm not sure what else I can say besides what I have, and you seem to have perhaps understood and agreed with me, so I'll leave it at that. In summary, the whole of evolution is what we're trying to describe, and we've used its definition to do so. More specificity is unwarranted. The Evolution article might have more information for you about this topic. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 04:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This strikes me as being rather like the old joke about "Define reality. List all relevant examples." Evolution is a complex and extremely wide-reaching field; a full definition would be several pages long in itself (which is why the Evolution article is so large.) This article is about biology in general; as such, a basic, general definition of evolution is sufficient and appropriate. An analogy: an article about cars might mention that they're mainly internal combustion vehicles in the lead, but would not go into a lengthy explanation of the internal combustion engine in that section. The wonderful thing about Wikipedia is that those who want more definition on evolution can quickly visit the appropriate article. --BRPierce (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

More on Lead

Shouldn't the lead also contain some of the etymological information as well?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There was some initial discussions regarding that. Since there was an issue regarding the fact that the word was a neolatin term, borrowed from the German 'biologie', people insisted on an expanded etymological entry. However, the new entry was deemed too large to be placed in the lead, and was relocated the the History section. (☲Fireyair☲ (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC))

Bioethics?

Simply put, this issue has become quite inflammatory, garnering worldwide public attention and attracting even more fierce discussions than evolution from religious and philosophical points of view. Should bioethics be added to the article as a new section? ☲Fireyair☲ (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to editors to vote/discuss definition of science in Talk:Science

There has been an extensive discussion on the Talk:Science of what the lead definition of the science article should be. I suspect this might be an issue that may be of interest to the editors of this page. If so, please come to the voting section of the talk science page to vote and express your views. Thank you. mezzaninelounge (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of word "axiom" in intro

The intro currently says:

Among the most important topics are five unifying principles that can be said to be the fundamental axioms of modern biology:[2]

1.Cells are the basic unit of life

2.New species and inherited traits are the product of evolution

3.Genes are the basic unit of heredity

4.An organism will regulate its internal environment to maintain a stable and constant condition

5.Living organisms consume and transform energy.

These are certainly unifying principles, but I question the use of the word axiom in referring to these, especially with regard to numbers 2 and 3. The article axiom states "In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.... Outside logic and mathematics, the term "axiom" is used loosely for any established principle of some field." The first and stricter of these definitions makes it clear that 2 and 3 are not axioms, while by the second and looser definition they are. Because of the possibility of misinterpretation as saying that evolution and gene-based heredity are not proved but rather taken for granted, I think that another term should be found, or we could just stick with the phrase "unifying principles". 75.183.96.242 (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That article is discussing an axiom in reference to logic. Within empirical logic's framework, the term axiom refers to an unproven and fundemental beginning of a logical structure, statement, or argument. That is most certainly not the definition of the word. The second sentence is the only one that can actually be applied in this article, the first being, rather than a stricter definition, logical jargon. This is similar to the use of the term color in quantum chromodynamics or leverage in finance. Outside of its relationship with logic, the term 'axiom' simply means an established principle or fundamental, and this is not an article discussing logic. ☲Fireyair☲ (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Originators of the term Biology

Please note that an assertion in the article, stating that Lamarck (1802), Treviranus (1802), and Burdach (1800) apparently introduced the term biology independently, cannot be correct since an earlier author, the German professor Theodor Georg August Roose, made use of this word in his Grundzüge der Lehre von der Lebenskraft ... (1797) ]. So it seems that either Roose should be credited with originating the word, which would be risky (since someone else might well have used it earlier unbeknownst to us), or the incorrect statement about its originators should simply be deleted. It may be worth mentioning that there are earlier occurrences of the word amphibiology, meaning the study of amphibians (I've found one occurrence as early as 1764). It's possible then, but in no way certain, that biology was derived from this word by dropping the amphi- (amphibiology is rarely used today, although it does appear in Webster's Third International Dictionary). I'll check back later to see whether anyone has left a comment on this. If no one does comment, I will eventually delete the erroneous statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolokamba (talk • contribs) 21:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just found an even earlier usage of the word biology by the German author Friedrich Bouterwek in his Kleine Schriften philosophischen, ästhetischen und litterarischen Inhalts (1791).Koolokamba (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Joel1002, 6 September 2011

Joel1002 (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No request made--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Biologist needed

I was working on articles about physical attractiveness and beauty and kept writing about how symmetrical shapes are seen as beautiful and attractive, but there was no explanation about why this was the case. Why are symmetrical faces beautiful? I could not find any good explanations in secondary sources. I do not have JStor and I am not a biologist. But after puzzling about this for a stretch I came up with a brief tentative theory here. Seems right to me. I'm hoping biologists who know about this stuff could tell me whether it's right or wrong, whether it's old or new, and if they could write a paper about it, or do experiments about it, and that way I could quote them and put this stuff in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Update. A PhD student and fellow Wikipedian named Moleke suggested that this stuff isn't new but biologists working on animal studies have come across it already.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Update. My current understanding is that the idea of symmetrical faces (along vertical axis) are easier for viewers to process cognitively (by comparing left vs right) and helping them to ascertain that the face is, in fact, symmetrical, and that this is a helpful evolutionary advantage in terms of reproduction (ie not for the individual per se but for the DNA) -- well, this is probably a new untested hypothesis. If anybody reading this who knows about biology knows about studies related to this, or who has done or is doing research about this, I'm interested.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to a biological specialist. Since you are curious about something that has to do with human perception I think you would best talk to a "biologist" who specializes in human behavior, a psychologist. It also may help you to decide what beauty is in the first place in which case you would need to talk to a philosopher.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 02:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, there is overlap between biology and psychology and philosophy. From what I gather so far, philosophers are clueless about beauty. I have yet to find one who will give me a fairly good explanation of why I find, say, an adult human female face beautiful. And I have no idea where such an answer might come from, but possibly from future work on how the human mind works in terms of neurobiology (or neuropsychology -- is that a science too now I suppose?) or maybe some new way of looking at things as subtle as the science of attraction. About psychologists and the symmetry hypothesis, yes, maybe I'll post a question on the talk page there. Good idea.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's generally thought to be an indicator of good genes, i.e. ones that work well during development, and also demonstrate lack of disease. I am not a dog (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you too. Glad to know you are not a canine, although, speaking of myself personally, I probably share a good number of genes with dogs, wolves, and maybe even a Dingo or two.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Larmarck coined the term biology

It is my understanding that Lamarck coined the term biology and —independently— by G. P. Treviranus, yet this article only states that it originated in 1791 in German.[2][3] Perhaps this should be clarified?Thompsma (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well change it. It's not like it's a big POV issue or anything. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to propose the following redraft, after the first sentence of the first paragraph under History.

The Latin form of the term first appeared in 1736 when Linnaeus (Carl von Linné) used biologi in his Bibliotheca botanica. It was used again in 1766 in a work entitled Philosophiae naturalis sive physicae: tomus III, continens geologian, biologian, phytologian generalis, by Michael Christoph Hanov, a disciple of Christian Wolff. The first German use, Biologie, was used in a 1771 translation of Linnaeus' work. In 1797, Theodor Georg Roose used the term in a book, Grundzüge der Lehre van der Lebenskraft, in the preface. Karl Friedrich Burdach used the term in 1800 in a more restricted sense of the study of human beings from a morphological, physiological and psychological perspective (Propädeutik zum Studien der gesammten Heilkunst). The term came into its modern usage with the six-volume treatise Biologie, oder Philosophie der lebenden Natur (1802-22) by Gottfried Reinhold Treviranus, who announced:

The objects of our research will be the different forms and manifestations of life, the conditions and laws under which these phenomena occur, and the causes through which they have been effected. The science that concerns itself with these objects we will indicate by the name biology [Biologie] or the doctrine of life [Lebenslehre]. (1:4)

Rudi (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Link Carl Linnaeus to his Wikipedia Page

Link Carl Linnaeus to his Wikipedia Page

Title says it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bls61793 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Linked first mention, in first paragraph of "History" section. The "Taxonomy and Classification" papragraph of that section already had such a link, which I left in place. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Reader feedback

Add the reader feedback to help improve the page.EatIcecream2 (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Biology is not only a natural science.

Biology is not only a natural science but also a man-made technolgy concerned with the study of life of living organisms and man-made analogues, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, distribution, and taxonomy in natural or man-made conditions. Biology is a vast subject containing many subdivisions, topics, and disciplines. Among the most important topics are five unifying principles that can be said to be the fundamental axioms of modern biology:

1.Cells are the basic unit of life in natural conditions

2.New species and inherited traits are the product of evolution or man-made technolgy

3.Genes are the basic materialized unit of heredity

4.An organism regulates its internal environment to reverberate the diversity of conditions

5.Living organisms transmit and transform energy.

Subdisciplines of biology are recognized on the basis of the scale at which organisms are studied and the methods used to study them: biochemistry examines the rudimentary chemistry of life; molecular biology studies the complex interactions of systems of biological molecules; cellular biology examines the basic building block of all life, the cell; physiology examines the physical and chemical functions of the tissues, organs, and organ systems of an organism; and ecology examines how various organisms interact and associate with their environment.

In the conclusion of mine, biology has been developing under human having been interfering with the normal development of life and its ecology.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.133.111.224 (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you taken a minute to understand the definition of a natural science? ☲Fireyair☲ (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ecology subdiscipines

In the Ecology part of the research section, ethology and biogeography have paragraphs that imply they are subdiciplines of ecology. This is debatable and I am tempted to remove these two paragraphs. For instance, some people refer to the divergence of ecology and biogeography, and the recent emergences of ecological biogeography[4]. What do others think? What is the rationale for some branches of biology having their own research subsections in this article and others being subordinate to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emble64 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I changed the title to Ecological and Environmental (Biology). This clarifies a little bit that this section just deals with the environmental aspects of biology, as opposed to its internal and structural aspects. Does this seem better? ☲Fireyair☲ (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The head of the article could be improved.

The part quoted just seems to be a bit controversial:

---

Modern biology is composed of many subdisciplines unified by five so-called axioms:

1. Cells are the basic unit of life
2. Genes are the basic unit of heredity
3. New species and inherited traits are the product of evolution
4. An organism regulates its internal environment to maintain a stable and constant condition
5. Living organisms consume and transform energy

---

First, why do we even call those axioms? By definition an axiom is something that can't be proven, but is so obvious that we can agree to take it as truth. All above are well known facts, but they have not been obvious at the time of discovery.

Moreover, there are exceptions to many of them:

• Cells are the basic unit of life

Does this put an end to the discussion whether viruses are a form of life or not? (see Virus#Life_properties)

• Genes are the basic unit of heredity

Sure, but there seems to be a bit more then just genes that's heritable, see Epigenetics.

• New species and inherited traits are the product of evolution

Until Synthetic_Biology really takes off and we start creating new ones.

And while the exceptions are rare and don't make those facts less true or important, is it really correct to say that subdisciplines of a scientific field are unified by a few important facts? How about we change it to:

---

Modern biology is composed of many subdisciplines that study the phenomenon of life on levels ranging from molecular to planetary.

---

The facts from the original list are sill mentioned in the article body.

I'm not a native speaker, so there might be a better way to phrase the idea, and suggestions are welcome.

Um, I don't think axiom here is necessarily a mathematical axiom, just another word for basic foundation. As for cells being the basic unit of life, that is not something that was invented here, it's just one of the basic tenets of what is known as cell theory. This definition is not coming to exclude viruses, just to generalize certain fundamentals. In fact, that is the focus of the very debate regarding viruses, whether they can be considered alive if they are missing some of what is considered to make things alive. However, cell theory is still a biology fundamental.

Also, evolutionary theory is a central tenet of biology, and when one says that it is evolution that gives rise to new species, one refers to Darwinian theory, and does not mean to exclude artificial genetic synthesis. It's just that genetic synthesis has nothing to do with the historical rise of species, with which the theory of evolution is concerned. The theory of evolution came to explain a certain phenomenon, not to define the meaning of species. Everyone always knew that if you made a horse into a camel, it would become a camel, what wasn't understood was how nature performed these things. Therefore it is correct to say that "new species and inherited traits are the product of evolution." Although, I concede, maybe a "generally" should be inserted there just to lend some accuracy to the definition.

Regardless, I do agree that it seems overly text-bookish and artificial to discuss the "five axioms." Rather than omit everything, it is probably preferable to turn the head into a simple paragraph going thru these basic ideas. As a matter of fact, I think I'll start working on it myself, and if anyone wishes they can join in. ☲Fireyair☲ (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Branches of biology

What to do with this section? It currently claims to list major fields of study in biology, but it includes obviously non-major fields(Biomusicology), includes subfields of fields(Anatomy is listed as well its subfields such as histology), and arbitrarily includes/excludes many fields(why Arachnology included but not Helminthology?).

I see three possible solutions:

• Remove this subsection and merge major fields into the study and research section.
• Create a comprehensive "List of biology disciplines" article. Put a note under the "Branches of biology" section reading For a comprehensive list of branches of biology section "List of biology disciplines". Then delete non-major fields from the "Branches of biology section".
• Restructure the current section to have subfields listed in the description of the more major fields. For instance, deleting all the zoology subdisciplines such as Mammalogy, and Ornithology, and just keeping mention of those in the zoology description.

I will go ahead and create a "List of biology disciplines article", place a note under the branches of biology section header informing the reader of that article, and start removing subdisciplines and just adding them as a mention in their parent disciplines description. I will hold off on any other action until it is clear what should be done.AioftheStorm (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2014

180.190.248.134 (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2014

117.222.112.75 (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Is The Journal of Life Sciences important enough to link?

Please remove The Journal of Life Sciences from the "See also" section. Additionally, please change "Lists of biology journals" to "List of biology journals".

My reasoning: I see no reason to single out a relatively new journal for special mention; if I had to pick one journal, it might be FEBS Journal or Comptes rendus de l'Académie des sciences: Biologies. Thank you, BiologicalMe (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC).

Agreed, no reason to link to any one journal. Both parts of request Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Images

Two collages have been deleted from Wikimedia Commons. I have restored the next most recent image, four organisms. I think it is possible to do better. While representative organisms are a good idea, there might be other things that are more illustrative than a few individuals not in activity. Examples might include an image of cell division (example at the side), some sort of predator-prey interaction (Venus fly trap as a non-animal and non-vertebrate combo or the goldenrod crab spider as seen at Ambush predator), or myglobin from a sperm whale (first protein to have 3D structure resolved) with both the structure and the animal shown. Any thoughts?BiologicalMe (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the most recent collage had too many images, causing them all to appear too small on screen. I think the size of the individual images at File:Animal_diversity.png is the absolute minimum that works. I like the black outlines in File:Diversity_of_plants_image_version_5.png. I agree that something molecular in there would be a nice inclusion. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Add link to YouTube-series "CrashCourse Biology"

The YouTube-channel "CrashCourse" gives a pretty good and fancy introduction to the topic biology in the following series:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnQe0xW_JY4&list=PL3EED4C1D684D3ADF

Maybe the link should be added to the "External links" section. BuRnZ (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Basic Unresolved Problems in Biology

The unresolved problems in biology could be developed in more depth, in particular about the biological basis of aging. Here are just two websites that explain in further detail the problem of aging.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288306/

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3402200406.html

Marianna Van (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Cherry-picking and source falsification

I removed a source that was misused to make the claim that the story of modern biology "begins in Egypt" [5]. The source also clearly states that

Despite considerable progress in the arts and culture, generally in Egypt and Mesopotamia and the many civilzations that followed them, neither science per se not organized biology really existed as a separate, organized body of thought. This would remain so at least until the time of Aristotle, in the fourth century b.c.

Thus, it's not quite that clear cut. This is a clear misuse of a source, by cherry picking what is in it to suit one user's agenda, while ignoring what is inconvenient. Athenean (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This user also removed a high-quality source that made a claim he didn't like (that biology generally begins in ancient Greece), for no apparent reason other than he just doesn't like that. Athenean (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's what I wrote according to the source, but it says that real story "Western biology begins in Egypt", please read more carefully when deleting. Also, why did you remove the invention of medicin attributed to Egypt and everything related to it, explain yourself. --Evropariver (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote above? Don't pretend you didn't see that. Your source contradicts itself. And why did you remove Lis Magner? Because you don't like it? That's not how we do things around here. And in case you hadn't noticed, this article is about biology, not medicine. Athenean (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I will answer your question with the same question. Why did you remove Anthony Serafini, you don't like it or you didn't see it? Seriously, I don't know why, is Lis Magner a better writer or what? In my source an earlier period was covered, and both Greece and Egypt are represented in it, so keeping both statements would be too long. Is not medicine part of biology? Antony Serafini clearly states that Western biology begins in Egypt, why don't you mention that, don't make me quote the whole texts, [whoever wants may read it]. I wrote what was like the period until Aristotle, but why did you remove all the information about biology in Egypt, because you do not like it?--Evropariver (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've come here because Evropariver posted on the Ancient Egypt wikiproject page about this dispute. The problem here is that Serafini makes a broad and subjective claim ("The real story of Western biology begins in Egypt" on page 2), but his claim is partly undermined by the facts he gives. He says "it was nearly impossible to separate magic and superstition from science" (p. 4) and, as Athenean points out, he also says "neither science per se nor organized biology really existed as a separate, organized body of thought" (p. 2). Many historians of science would no doubt argue that medical knowledge that is inextricably intertwined with magical beliefs—as it undoubtedly was in ancient Egypt—does not constitute biology. Besides, I don't know how much Egyptian medical knowledge contributed to the medical or biological knowledge of classical Greece.

In a situation like this it's often best to stick to facts and avoid subjective declarations. Adding a sentence or two about medical knowledge in Egypt and Mesopotamia might be reasonable, but the article should not imply that the science of biology goes back that far. A. Parrot (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, the source is clear, "Western biology begins in Egypt", moving the same source as a citation that biology has began in Greece is a SOURCE FALSIFICATION which Athenean did and this is a completely unacceptable move in the name of the nationalist bias. Please, Parrot, check the source falsification, I am not asking you to change your opinion, just to notice the falsification in the article. Egyptians got massive works as the History of Animals of Aristotle, they knew the plants better than the Greeks did, Egyptian biology was different from that of the Greeks but still considered "beginning of Western biology" so I am against of the removal of this sourced content, which was removed just n=because of somebody's nationality. --Evropariver (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What the article now says is "Natural philosophy was studied as early as the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indian subcontinent, and China. However, the origins of modern biology and its approach to the study of nature are most often traced back to ancient Greece." Note the "most often". That means it is common to consider modern thinking about biology as beginning in Greece, but that there can be other opinions. It does not mean that biology necessarily began in ancient Greece—you have to define what you mean by biology first. As Serafini says, medical knowledge goes back far before Greece, and as A History of the Life Sciences points out, biology was not a considered a separate field of science until the 19th century.

Moreover, Serafini's statement that "The real story of Western biology begins in Egypt" may not mean what you think it means. He may simply be referring to the Egyptians' written medical knowledge as a forerunner of biology. He also says that in Egypt and Mesopotamia "neither science per se nor organized biology existed as a separate, organized body of thought. That would remain so until at least the time of Aristotle, in the fourth century B.C. In the case of biology specifically, whatever knowledge did emerge would remain intertwined with medical practice, again, until the time of Aristotle." I see no falsification of sources here. It looks more likely that you've focused on Serafini's one statement about Egypt to the exclusion of everything else he says. A. Parrot (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the sentiment that the phrase "the real story of Western biology" takes on a different meaning from the source when is is separated from the description of Egyptian medicine as the "rudiments" of science. What the source's author marks as opinion (e.g. "ostensibly") is cherry-picked into a more definitive statement that does not follow from the source text. What does follow from the text is far more disconcerting. @Evropariver has engaged in significant plagiarism. The edits use phrases directly from the source, but the author's appropriate indications of opinion are left by the wayside.BiologicalMe (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As I see it, the source refers to the "story" of biology starting in Egypt which does not necessarily translate into the study of biology itself. The scientific study of life and living organisms, which is roughly what biology is defined as, hasn't been fully carried out in ancient Egypt. The source makes that clear. Besides, even if one source did say that, we must respect weight. Most sources, if not all, do recognize that our modern understanding of biology came from ancient Greece. The scientific and methodical studies of plants and animals were unheard of till about that time. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, if I dare to interfere, I just found this discussion. I had already answered to User "Evropariver" here. But I can repeat it here, so that everyone can read my statement.

Technically spoken, Evropariver did right. He cited a source correctly and gave the references. Thus, in my opinion he did nothing wrong there.

On the other hand: If someone claims things such as "Western biology begins in Egypt", my alert bells start to ring very loudly. Egypt is not "western"... Second, the author of the book Evropariver used claims that "Five thousand years ago Egyptian priests were already starting to gather a tremendous amount of medical data".

You may wonder now: what's the problem? Well, 5000 years ago, that would mean at appr. 3000 BC.. Holla-yolla! At this time period the Egyptians had just invented their hieroglyphs and a first form of writing! There was no such things as "collecting medical data", because the only things the writers were allowed to write down, were economical events, religious festivals and the names of kings and noblemen.

Well, you could go and point to the famous Medical Papyri, which indeed name plants and trees, that were used for medical treatments. The first medical papyri (Papyrus Ebers, Papyrus Kahun, Papyrus Smith, Pap. Hearst and Pap. Berlin 3038) appear during the Middle Kingdom (app. 1940 BC.). But that has nothing to do with "biology" in some scientific way. The Ancient Egyptians didn't really care about putting plants and animals into scientific groups and families. All they cared about was farming and breeding animals for food and loot purposes and cultivating plants for medical and/or food uses.

I, personally, think that Serafini's book could be used as a citation for the statement about Aristoteles and Paracelsius. That would at least avoid a monotone sourcing. But there is no literature I'd probably know that claims the Ancient Egyptians to be the founder or pre-founder of modern biology. I hope I could help a little. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2016

• Phenology – the study of biological development through the life of one individual

Jose Oteros (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 16:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090119140511/https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=2622&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=7&mode=2&in_hi_userid=200&cached=true to https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=2622&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=7&mode=2&in_hi_userid=200&cached=true

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160106223317/http://www.weber.edu/csme/wsu_museum_of_natural_science.html to http://www.weber.edu/csme/wsu_museum_of_natural_science.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

All subject fourth Edition

Education Kevin bwibo (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"Biosciences" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Biosciences. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 19#Biosciences until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2021

Preston123432 (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

thus

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hatnote

@Danielkueh: the hatnote to Biology (disambiguation) is not redundant to Biological (disambiguation). They both list entirely different contents. Both should be linked to from here. A reader needs to be able to navigate to any of the items at Biology (disambiguation) after having typed "Biology" in the search bar. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You’re right. My mistake. I misread it as biological (disambiguation). danielkueh (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Economics

Sciencesubject — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.153.172 (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2022

"change cytosine (T) to cytosine (C)" Egg002105 (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Why? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done seems like an obvious typo BiologicalMe (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion - Article for deletion on Modern Mars habitability

There is an article at AfD that may interest you. Please comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability

Biology

• glyosidic linkages should be glycosidic linkages:
• glyosidic linkages should be glycosidic linkages:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

2601:193:8300:4FE0:65EF:6CBB:1F8A:5503 (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)  Done PianoDan (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

BRD: {{Very long}}

Danielkueh, 113 kilobytes of prose is certainly too long. Longer articles' existence is not a good argument, especially when you consider that biology article will be read by younger audiences. Even Donald Trump's article is shorter than this. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I have edited WP for over a decade and as far as I can tell, I am not aware of any rule or policy that states that all WP articles must conform to a certain length. The topics listed and presented in this article are representative of all major introductory biology texts that are often used by “younger audience,” whatever that may be. And the age group is not relevant. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a student essay. Topics can and should be covered comprehensively, especially on a long and complex topic like biology. It is meant to be a reference by everyone. And why are we even discussing the length of the Donald Trump article here? It’s irrelevant. danielkueh (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article size is an editing guideline, which to quote: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. I do agree that there should be no blanket rule that make all article to be shorter than a certain length, but I see little reasons why Biology article is an exception. Many articles do just as well with short length, such as Astronomy (43 kB of prosesize). The hard thing to do here is to make stuff short while still comprehensive, not long. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have this notion that all topics should be covered in equal amounts to fit the requirements of some arbitrary spreadsheet. So what if astronomy is shorter? Like the Trump article, its length is irrelevant. Common sense states that certain articles will be short while others will be long, given the nature of the topic and how developed the article is. Once again, this is an encyclopedia. And there is no consensus for this change. I suggest you keep that in mind before proceeding further. danielkueh (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Boilogy

Cell 111.119.190.28 (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Life Sciences

DNA replication

DNA replication is the process during which a DNA molecule makes an exact copy (replica) of itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.113.140.71 (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Biology

VIRUSES:

      A virus is a submicropic infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of an organism.
   EXAMPLES OF VIRUSES.

-HIV -corona -small pox -rubella -flu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.154.110 (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

biology under the excretion

Voice concern 102.149.81.61 (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC for adding hatnotes to sections

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'll boldly close this rfc and conclude that there was a consensus in support of the proposal to add hatnotes to sections. The discussion is stale, and the one editor outside the initial disagreement voted in favor. Though hatnotes are not required, they are encouraged by WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE and in common use throughout wikipedia. The void century (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

---

RfC QUESTION- Should hatnotes be added for sections that don't already have them? The void century (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Support adding hatnotes as appropriate in this article and in fact throughout Wikipedia. Gusfriend (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

As per WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE and WP:HATNOTE, I am adding hatnotes to sections linking out to main and related articles for sections such as photosynthesis and cellular respiration:

In the parent article, the location of the detailed article for each subtopic is indicated at the top of the section by a hatnote link

• @Danielkueh has suggested that I open a discussion here. They had an issue with linking the Atoms and Molecules section to molecular biology and the Chemical Basis section to biochemistry, so I am leaving those two alone for now.
• If you have an issue with a specific hatnote please revert and respond here with POLICY-BASED arguments for why it shouldn't be there. Otherwise, section hatnotes are in line with policy and the general structure of this article.

Thank you, The void century (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no policy requiring hatnotes. They are a stylistic preference. The policy is simple. If there's consensus, by all means, add them. If not refrain. danielkueh (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Stylistic convention, not preference. That's why it's discussed in the hatnote policy. There's already a consensus inherent in the policy, specifically to prevent a drawn-out discussion for every minor change. The void century (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, it is not a policy. It is a guideline. Second, using the hatnote is just a technique, which we are free to apply or disregard. Also see [6] danielkueh (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. I'm aware that there are other types of section hatnote templates like template:see also The void century (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

My point is that there is no policy requiring a hatnote in every section of an article. Whether we want to include them or not is a matter of preference. Kapish? danielkueh (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Danielkueh There is absolutely nothing wrong with adding a hatnote to link a section titled "Photosynthesis" to photosynthesis. There is no strong policy reason for NOT doing it. wp:be bold. I don't have the time to argue about style. This is the exact reason for the existence of the style guide, wikipedia policy, guidelines, etc (whatever you wanna call it). Editor time is limited. Please mind mine. The void century (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Once again, the guidelines do not require hatnotes. And right now, there is no consensus for them. Do you understand how this actually works? If not, read WP:BRD. That's a guideline that actually matters. danielkueh (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

And by the way, continuing to add hatnotes even though this discussion has yet to be concluded goes to show that you are clearly disingenuous and have little to no regard for actual WP policies and process. danielkueh (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:BRD is exactly what's happening right now, isn't it? I agreed to not touch the sections you had valid concerns about. For the other sections such as photosynthesis, it appears you reverted the hatnote out of personal preference (and your personal disagreement with the style guide) and didn't have any policy-based reason for reverting them in the first place. Reverting simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not what reverts are for. WP:DONTREVERT is also apt here. The void century (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Lol, are you serious?!?! Who do you take me for?!?! The issue isn't about photosynthesis. It's about whether adding hatnotes is appropriate, which has been explained to you repeatedly. And stop trying to teach me to suck eggs. I have been editing here much longer than you. By disregarding this discussion and continuing to do what you want, you just turned this whole discussion into a total farce. Congratulations danielkueh (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You win. I will stay far away from this article. Please revert my edits to your heart's content. The void century (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not about winning. It's about process. Have a nice day. danielkueh (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok then let's have an actual process. I added an RFC. Good day to you too. The void century (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. danielkueh (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Having established that policy does not require a hatnote, why shouldn't there be a hatnote? Sennalen (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems redundant, tacky, and adds unnecessary clutter and scrolling. If others feel otherwise, then go for it. Hence, the discussion. danielkueh (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

If we're not supposed to add hatnotes from summary sections to larger main articles, then why is that style used all over wikipedia? I don't think this is a very controversial issue. The void century (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say we're "not supposed to," I said "we don't have to." To use an analogy, just because many people paint their fences white, doesn't mean we have to do it too. We can choose other colors. Likewise, there are many Wikipedia articles that don't use hatnotes. I don't understand people's obsession with them. They don't add anything in terms of content. Just more lines to scroll through. Add them if they are absolutely necessary or insightful, like the links you shared for the water section, which I thought were interesting. Anyway, if the consensus is to include hatnotes in general for each section of this article, then by all means do so. danielkueh (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: please assume I understand logic.

Sorry but I cannot make that assumption. Not when I have to explain for the umpteenth time why it is not necessary to use hatnotes. danielkueh (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

A style guideline is not an appeal to popularity fallacy. It's an effort to maintain structural consistency across the encyclopedia. Hatnotes make navigation easier, more accessible and clearer. That's why they're used for summary sections to link to the main article.

Sorry to be direct, but this is where I feel you seem to be misunderstand what the guideline actually says. The guideline DOES NOT require the use of hatnotes. It merely states that hatnotes can be used and how to use them. Do you see the difference? And no, not every WP article needs to include them. I can assure you the sky will not fall just because we don't have them and vice versa. Again, leave it to consensus. I am willing to accept either outcome and you should too. That's the purpose of having this discussion. danielkueh (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• I don't understand. That seems like the crux of the issue. The void century (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think so too. I'm done explaining. I'll let other editors weigh in. This is what this RfC is for. Good night. danielkueh (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I have been editing here much longer than you. Then you should know know not to revert minor edits just because you don't like them. The guideline also DOES NOT ban summary hatnotes or require that I ask for permission before adding one. The policy encourages their use. If you don't like a hatnote, you need a better reason than seems redundant, tacky, and adds unnecessary clutter and scrolling before doing 5+ reverts.

And you especially shouldn't be sending me personal messages like:

• Why are you being a recalcitrant?!?!
• Hello!!!! Anyone home?!?!
• Coming on my talk page with an edit warring template after YOU reverted 5 edits. only 2 of which you gave a WP:DONTREVERT-valid reason for.
• do me a favor and don't fuck up the page
• Do you understand?!?! Do I need to explain it you again? You are a clearly a newb
• if you can't be bothered to discuss, then you shouldn't be on Wikipedia
• you just turned this whole discussion into a total farce
• Kapish?
• stop trying to teach me to suck eggs
• Lol, are you serious?!?! Who do you take me for?!?!
• you are clearly disingenuous and have little to no regard for actual WP policies and process.

WP:CIVIL. enough said. The void century (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I stand by every one of my statements. That said, unless you have something insightful to add to this discussion, I’m done responding to you. I will wait for others to weigh in so that consensus can be reached. danielkueh (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment @The void century: No summary of the RfC question is visible on the summary page at WP:RFCA or the subpages containing this listing. Such a summary should be brief and neutral. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I added the question, but not sure how to get it to show up on WP:RFCA The void century (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2022

“Biology is defined as the study of living organisms, their origins, anatomy, morphology, physiology, behaviour, and distribution.”

Life is teeming in every corner of the globe – from the frozen Arctics to the searing Sahara. And with over 8.7 million species documented till date, the earth is the only planet in the universe where life is known to exist.

Advancements in technology have opened up even more insights about life and its constituents. For instance, discoveries such as viruses have scrutinized traditional definitions and pushed scientists to look at life from a whole new perspective.

Branches of Biology Biology caters to these intriguing aspects through various sub-disciplines or branches. Some branches are intertwined with other disciplines of science.

For instance, theoretical biology is a branch of biology that encompasses mathematical models to investigate certain principles that affect life.

Quantum Biology deals with biological processes that are quantum mechanical in nature – such as the conversion of energy into more usable forms. Other branches of biology are as follows:

Divisions of Biology Anatomy Anatomy Biotechnology Biotechnology Botany Botany

Ecology Ecology Genetics Genetics Immunology Immunology

Microbiology Microbiology Physiology Physiology Zoology ELUKOTI M B (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hatnotes: Part II

I understand that this subject has already been discussed once before, but my claim here is distinct from the last. You see, I have noticed a sort of unorganized template being used in these hatnotes, that being the beginning text. Some of them have “see also”, other ones have “further information”, and the last being “main article”. These 3 are used incorrectly. As stated in main article, “Use of this template should be restricted to the purposes described above. It is not to be used as a substitute for inline links or further template.” That means that these 3 cannot be used interchangeably. The first of these I want to discuss on is “see also”. An example of its incorrect use is in speciation, which links to a see also on… speciation. The reason why this is invalid is because see also RELATES to other articles. It is not THE article. In other words, see also is used when articles are somewhat connected to the subject but NOT when it is the subject. Secondly, with further information, this is a little more difficult to explain, but essentially, it deals with the connection between the subject in the article and another subject of another article. What makes this different from the template main article? Main article simply talks about the subject in general, and as one can infer, most of the paragraphs in this article are general. Therefore, most if not all of the hatnotes in this article should use “main article” and nothing else. Maybe a few “see mores” here and there, but almost no “further information” templates shall be used. Thank you for reading. Senomo Drines (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I support changing to main article template where appropriate. I think i added "see also" templates instead of "main article" to stay consistent with what had previously been used for other sections in the bio article, but I agree they should really be main article. The void century (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The intention, now that the article has been cut down, is that each section SHOULD BE a very short summary of its topic, so that a MAIN link will be appropriate. If the remaining summary does not summarize the linked article, well, the summary should be tweaked, without making it any longer. Hope this is clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Time to split

At 285kbytes, this article should be split. One starting point is to remove the (generic) chemistry section. Another possible aspect might be to contract or cut the sections focused on animal anatomy. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Support split with section summaries and links to split off content with hatnotes. Gusfriend (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Smokefoot This edit is pretty bold. I'm not opposed to condensing the discussion of chemistry, but biochemistry and molecular biology are important topics to cover. Can you figure out a way to keep some discussion of the chemical basis for life while removing the bloat? The void century (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello The void century: Yes, I realize that my removal of the chemistry section was possibly overly bold, or at least very assertive. If you or others think that the action was ill-advised, then go ahead and revert. Here are my thoughts: First we need to pare Biology down to about 40% of its length for readability sake (by my reading of the guidelines), so I decided to start with what I felt was obvious: lopping off chemistry. Second, our article on Chemistry does not begin with an overview of physics (by my reading), it just dives in. As someone who works on the chem-biochem border, I do appreciate the key role of biochemistry in life sciences. But I dont think that readers needs to understand chemical bonding to appreciate core themes in biology. The more difficult part is actually ahead: where do we massively cut and compress further? My thinking, preliminarily, was to start at the other end of the article, ecology. Thanks for taking the time to message me and think about this issue. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. The chemistry article mentions physics and has a brief summary of physical chemistry, but like you said, it's not taking up a ton of space. Similarly, this article could have a shorter summary of biochemistry and molecular biology. I like the way Brittanica's article begins with "Basic concepts of biology" after the lead section. The void century (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Time to split. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose on the principle that proposing a split based on the size of the wikisource, which is completely irrelevant, is stupid. The article is 20,000 words, which is quite long, but I'm not sure that's inappropriate for a topic this important and ramified. Fact is, many or most of the sections already start by linking to a Main article, so maybe all that's needed is to pare down the summaries in this article a bit. EEng 14:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  "Stupid"? Really? To a colleague? --Smokefoot (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  I mean it with great affection, of course. But yeah, c'mon, the wikisource size is utterly irrelevant to anything. The prose size is 127k or 20k words, and that's what matters. And to repeat: complex topics need long articles. EEng 15:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  I completely agree. This article should not be split as it serves as a broad overview to other related sciences. Also, Wikipedia articles can be as long as possible only if the added discussion of text is of necessary relation to said article. In which case it is, or at least seems to be. Chemistry and taxonomy are a part of biology and needs to be discussed; however, I do agree that it should be a summary and not a lengthy tangent. Senomo Drines (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  I want to point out that the article is not too long. Readers can still read it comfortably. Cwater1 (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  It's pretty long, but the prominence of biology necessitates a long article. The void century (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• I just cut the word count by 2% in 40 minutes (including a bathroom break and helping the elderly widow upstairs with her remote control) by tightening and cutting discursive material. That's what needs to be done. EEng 18:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that condensing the summary sections in the article is the way to go. A full-on split is unnecessary. I also cut the word count significantly by condensing the chemistry section a few weeks ago The void century (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Building on your start, I cut it to the bone. EEng 22:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus to split here, rather a feeling that the structure is correct, as are the "main" links in the subsections, but that the summaries in those subsections are rather too long and should be cut down. The discussion has been allowed several months to run. As such, I'm closing this now with "no consensus to split", and an invitation to editors to do some condensing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Update: I've cut it down by half, and it looks a lot cleaner. Just realized it's a GA ... I think I never did a slash-and-burn on a GA before, but it certainly needed it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2023

Bold textI would like to edit this page to add something that I learned that isn't in this artical that I feel as if people should know. TownvilleWidgets12 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Not done: if you have a specific request, like change "xyx" to "abc" then please say so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)