Talk:Biology
|
|
|
Pending tasks for [[Template:Articlespace:Biology]]: (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Biology&action=purge) | edit (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Biology/to_do&action=edit) - watch (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Biology/to_do&action=watch) - purge (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Biology&action=purge) | |
|---|---|---|
EntmootsOfTrolls would have liked this article to be part of User:EntmootsOfTrolls/WikiProject Body, Cognition and Senses, which provides guidelines for articles on those topics, and seeks stronger cross-linkage and cross-cultural treatment of all of these topics. ---
Re: Charles Darwin being the first to rigorously expound the theory of evolution: this is misleading. Others had advanced theories of evolution before Darwin. What Darwin did was to provide a biological explanation for evolution, through the mechanism of natural selection. Darwin actually preferred the term "descent with modification".
I realize that you are going for the highlights in this introductory paragraph. But I still think the way it currently appears is misleading.
Marco Antonio Ribeiro Maribeiro@comcast.net
"Rigorously" is supposed to distinguish Darwin's theory from his predecesors and so make the assertion fair. I say no one was rigorous before Darwin b/c no one had proposed a sensible mechanism. A theory of evolution is not a theory of evolution if it doesn't explain evolution, or at least not a rigorous one. Without an explantion, it is a theory THAT evolution (occurs) and not a theory OF evolution. At least, that's how I use such language. 168... 21:16, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I recant. Lamarck did propose a mechanism, and I just forgot it. Sorry to have argued from ignorance. What Lamarck proposed was that adaptions arose from exercize or atrophy (e.g. giraffe neck lengthens from straining to reach the high leaves), with each individual's gain or loss being incorporated into its hereditary message to its offspring. This strikes me as perfectly sensible--it's just that DNA and heredity turned out not to work that way. So I'll agree it doesn't seem fair to distinguish Lamarck from Darwin on the basis of the rigor of their proposals. 168... 05:57, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
16th Nov, 2002
Hi, I want to contribute a couple of article on Bioinformatics/comp. structure prediction, phylogenetic analysis, etc. Any suggestions/pointers ?
Cheers
Aiolos
Hi
did you check the page that already exist on bioinformatics ?
Some definitions to start ?
BTW, I think the correct plural of virus should be viri. But, who would recognize that word??
Apparently not (to my great disappointment). In Latin, viri is the plural of vir, man, while virus meaning poison is a collective and so does not have a plural. Since it is English speakers who made it singular, we are stuck with the inelegant plural viruses.
Btw, since when is viruses the plural of the Latin word virus? It might be right, but it's lame nonetheless. :(
I made that change, because that's always been the only correct plural. See, for example, [1] (http://language.perl.com/misc/virus.html). --Lee Daniel Crocker
Ok. As I said, it's still lame. I see the point about the latin, but viruses is just an ugly word. Curse this useless tongue of ours, that isn't content to steal words, but must make them ugly to boot. But I guess I'll have to live with it, or learn more of another language and move to its wikipedia.
--- Subheadings would be good. That way we could maintain the simple serial format and still mark big sections clearly.
I have an idea. We could make all pages automatically in this format. Each article would have a "text" area and a "links" area. Each article would have, thus, two text boxes, which would be displayed in the same sort of format. Now this might work...but perhaps we should bear in mind the KISS principle. --LMS
Maybe something should be said about different classification systems, besides Linnean taxonomy, like the three domain system and nine kingdom system?
The idea of having a dedicated link area to the right for all pages is interesting, although consider that there are some lengthy pages (e.g., Alchemy where having part of the page taken up with a link table would be a Bad Thing. I suspect this may play havok with some of the mathematical pages that have formulas, or pages with a lot of PRE formatted text.
I've seen other content editing systems that differentiate between two or more different "doc types", that are used to select and define a page layout. For instance, one could have one layout that is all prose, and another one that is prose plus a link list. You can imagine extending this with placeholders for pictures, etc. The downside is that this incurs an extra level of complexity that the user must face.
The link to Eubacteria has just been changed to Prokaryota, but I think that's not correct. Prokaryota are all organisms whose cells lack proper nuclei, so both Eubacteria and Archaea qualify. --AxelBoldt
You are entirely right. I've changed it back.
Is "The Tree of Life" project open content? If not, why are we linking to it? --LMS
- Can we not even link to copyrighted sources? I thought we could. Mswake 12:08 Aug 6, 2002 (PDT)
- If the concern is copyright infringement, then we definitely CAN link to "the Tree of Life". Linking to someone's front page is always fair use, however, there is/was some dispute about "deep linking". In this context, "deep linking" would mean linking to a page about a particular species.--adam
The pages on The Blind Watchmaker and Richard Dawkins mention something called "The Williams Revolution" -- but have no further explanation. Does anyone know what this is? I couldn't even find a biologist named Williams. Mswake 11:46 Aug 6, 2002 (PDT)
The logical order is:
Archaea -- Eubacteria-- Eukaryota User:Rojclague22.30 Aug 09 2002
I moved this specialised link:
- What is degenerative disease?, http://www.nutritionreallyworks.com/WhatIsDegeneration.html : A look into the nutritional deficiency aspect of degenerative disease.
to the Disease article. I also added Disease with subclassifications for Infectious diseases and Genetic diseases in the list of fields to cover the additions made by previous user. -- Lexor 17:52, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
Changes to Preamble
Dear Lir: I have had little to do with writing this article, so I am not being defensive when I say that, although I recognize that your recent changes to the preamble are well-intentioned, some of them seem to be doing more harm than good. I think that it is evident that quite a lot of thought has gone into both the substance and the presentation of this article. In particular, the preamble has been stable for a while in part because it is reasonably well balanced with the rest of the article. Could I suggest that you use this "Talk" page more often to discuss or propose changes that might already have been considered by some pretty smart people? Thanks. Peak 05:46, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
How about you use the talk page yourself, to address whatever your concern might happen to be. I'm not psychic, you know... Lirath Q. Pynnor
Dear Lir: The preamble as of 168...'s last change (16:30, 6 Jan 2004) is fine. Please do not incorporate any of the changes that you have previously proposed and which have been rejected. If you want to CHANGE existing work, then please discuss your ideas on the Talk page.
As I mentioned above, I have have had little to do with writing this article, and have had even less to do with writing the DNA article, so I am writing mainly as an observer and a "concerned Wikicitizen". These articles were generally very good and in places excellent before your intervention. Everyone makes mistakes, and most people are naturally defensive when their mistakes are pointed out, but it is also important to spend the time reflecting on one's assumptions and other people's attempts to point out one's mistakes. If you cannot do this, then you should refrain altogether from CHANGING other people's considered work. Otherwise your persistence in propagating your own mistakes and POV will look more and more like harassment. Peak 01:05, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Recruiting for Wikibooks Biology book(s)
Warm greetings from sister project Wikibooks where I am writing a general biology textbook all by my lonesome. My profs donated a sizable bunch of notes that make up the structure of an entire introductory biology book. However these notes are in outline form and need to be fleshed out into full text. Then, some images .. I am confident that this will become the standard college text over time but need some help to get it there. --karlwick
Where is the Requests page for Biology?
I was looking around Wikipedia on the "Request a Page" and couldn't find a Biology/Biological Science category anywhere. How odd... and I doubt Health Science would be the place to put up a request for a specific organism in the animal/plant kingdom.
The block of pictures showing "the variety of life"
I'd like to suggest including a picture of a human in the block of pictures showing "the variety of life" (which currently shows bacteria, a fern, a gazelle, etc.). Doing so would reinforce the notion that humans fall under the study of biology just like all other terrestrial organisms. Moreover, it would help to illustrate the true variety of life that exists on Earth; humans (because of their intricate cultures) are kind of unique compared to other species. —Vespristiano 06:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I have no objection to adding an image of a human elsewhere in the article (perhaps next to section on anatomy), but I don't think it's necessary to add it in the initial block of four. I mean, it's not like we don't have many articles extolling the uniqueness of humans, and I think it's worth emphasizing some of the non-human life especially in the biology article. --Lexor|Talk 13:26, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
List of photos for plants.
Hi
I am a german wikipedia-contributer (nickname lumbar). I own a lot pictures (GFPL) of plants, all names in the latin scheme (the names have been verified by two biologie-professors of my university).
Here you can find the list:
and here is my galerie with fotos I already uploaded. All are in commons and are catogerized.
Because the list is so long I need some help. I split it up in 4 tasks:
- Select good pictures (some plants have more than one pic)
- Improve the pics (sharpness, crop the pics, colours...)
- upload them to wiki-commons
- link them to the en and de wikipedia.
Is anyone here willing to help me with one or more of the steps? The pics are not yet online. Please answer on my german discussion page.
- I am now done with the uploading. Here you can find the galeries: A-M and N-Z. I hope you will use them! Lumbar
- You might also want to ask on the talk page for botany, that page was more actively edited than was this one, until I did a major rewrite recently, but I'm not much of a botanist. I can help with the linking step. --Lexor|Talk 13:17, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
- I added a comment there. Thanks. Lumbar
one-celled organism studied in school
Can anyone answer this Biology question: [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk#one-celled_organism_.28commonly_studied_in_intro-Biology.29) ?
Jawed 06:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
hey
k machin estan estas ondas de las celulas no?