Biology is currently a good article nominee. An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article, and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer. Nominated by Fireyair (talk) at 22:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Biology has been listed as a level-2 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This page has been rated as B-Class.

This subject is featured in the Outline of biology, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, comprise Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.

	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

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biology (Rated B-Class, Top-importance) BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles Biology portal v • d • e 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 project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated B-Class) 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. ??? 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. WikiProject Citizendium Porting (Last updated: Never) Citizendium PortingWikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium PortingTemplate:WikiProject Citizendium PortingCitizendium Porting articles v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles by working in any useful content from their Citizendium counterparts. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. This article is out of date with its Citizendium counterpart and needs to be updated. Current with its Citizendium counterpart article as of: Never

edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for Biology:
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)

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 22 Vandalism? 23 foundations of modern biology 24 Retzius Cell of Leech 25 Hatnote needed? 26 Error? 27 History of Biology Link 28 Biology From A Teenage Viewpiont 29 Research: Evolution section 30 Theorectical Biology 31 humans 31.1 History of Biology 32 Branches of Biology - reference 33 Reversion 34 Intro and the rest 35 GA Review 35.1 Starting runthrough of article 35.2 Going to fail article soon if no responses appear 35.3 Resuming review

[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)

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)

[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)

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)

[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)

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

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)

[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

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

[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)

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)

[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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

More to come.