Talk:Biology

Archives

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

Agrement

I am also Christian and belive this persons statments

*CORECT (well done richard001)

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)

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)

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)

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.[1][2] 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)