Talk:Biology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a candidate for Science Collaboration of the Month. Please visit that page to support or comment on the nomination.

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biology article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

WikiProject Echo has identified Biology as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Japanese or Spanish language Wikipedias.

	Biology was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Not kept August 11, 2006 Good article nominee Listed September 2, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted Current Status: Delisted good article

	Biology Portal Biology is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Additional information: This article is an assessed orphan; it has been assessed by Work via WikiProjects, but should be rated by subject experts in a WikiProject. See the FAQ for more info. This article is a vital article. This article is one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have.

To-do list for Biology:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Restructure article to discuss the unifying principles of the field. More information is necessary in the sections. References must be added. References must meet WP:CITET standards. Scope section needs to be renamed and cleaned up. Lead needs to be rewritten and cleaned up. Images need to be removed where they are confusing or do not add to the article. Please add or strike through as necessary. 00:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Priority 1 (top)

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic biology topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!

Contents 1 Archives 2 Delisted GA 3 Tropism 4 Evolution as the only key to Biology? 5 Unlike Other Things 6 Religion and Biology 7 Agrement 8 LEAD cleanup 9 Sigma 10 CZ-sourced text 11 request for comment 12 DNA graph 13 Citizendium 14 Life Sciences 15 Fixing this article 16 Citizendium biology montage 17 so what's the consensus? is wikipedia actually possible? 18 what about references? 19 the physical fitness 20 Medicine: applied field of biology? 21 Current Topics

[edit] Archives

• Talk:Biology/Archive1 ('02)-Aug('06),

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Agrement

I am also Christian and belive this persons statments

*CORECT (well done richard001)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Sigma

Shouldn't 'Λoγοσ' be 'Λoγος'?

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] request for comment

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

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.