Talk:Embryo

For such an important word in biology, there sure isn't a lot of information on it. But, not being a biologist, I can't see anything that can be improved. I'll research it and try to improve on the article. GofG 23:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the term applies in all sexually reproducing organisms in which the zygote divides to produce an organism. Because it is so braod a topic, it is difficult to write a general summary. --EncycloPetey 23:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Your statement: "he term embryo refers to the early stages of this development, after the zygote has divided at least once, but before the process has completed to [[produce an individual." ]] is problematic. You have determined that the embryo is an individual when it reaches the next stage of development. In fact there is no basic genetic change after conception, thus making the embryo an individual.

Improving Quality

Wikipedia currently has a good foundation to start improvement of the embryo/embryology/embryogenesis trio, they have the ground work in place and just require organisation and improvement. Anyone interested specifically in helping create/organise a human embryogenesis page is welcome to join the discussion here: Talk:Human embryogenesis. Alternatively, visit and place your comments on the WikiProject: Preclinical Medicine discussion page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine -- Serephine / talk - 23:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Diploid?

In the definition "An embryo (Greek: έμβρυον) is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development," why "diploid?" I have worked in a lab studying South African Clawed Frogs (Xenopus laevis) for awhile, an organism that is tetraploid, and we have always referred to their early stages of development as "embryonic," and I believe most of the literature does as well. Is there something I missed about this word? Have we been using improper syntax this whole time?

The embryo article covers only the standard ploidy levels of animals and plants. A polyploid organism (plant or animal) will have additional chromosome sets throughout its lifecycle. So, your frog embryos are correctly termed embryos even though they are not strictly diploid. --EncycloPetey 02:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Embryology

would sympathtic editors consider a positive vote here? [1]Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Merging with Embryology

Note: The person who advocated the merger has not given any supporting reasons.

• oppose - Embryology is the study of a developmental process, and the term is usually restricted to apply to early vertebrate development whereas an Embryo is a life cycle stage found in all animals, land plants, and some algae and protists. A merger would confuse this distinction. --EncycloPetey 18:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• oppose - For the reasons stated above. --rquinn 09:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• support - Merriam Webster’s Medical Dictionary defines "embryology" as follows:

“ em·bry·ol·o·gy. 1 : a branch of biology dealing with embryos and their development. 2 : the features and phenomena exhibited in the formation and development of an embryo. ”

There is no limitation of embryology to vertebrate embryos, according to this definition. "Embryology" should be merged into "embryo." Wikipedia has a page titled "developmental biology" that says, "Embryology is a subfield, the study of organisms between the one-cell stage (generally, the zygote) and the end of the embryonic stage, which is not necessarily the beginning of free living organism." This again indicates that embryology should be merged into embryo.Ferrylodge 20:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• oppose, per EncycloPetey --Arcadian 23:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• oppose this is like saying zoo be merged with zoology or star be merged with astrology or microorganism be merged with microbiology. The study of something is distinct from the thing itself. On top of that, as mentioned by other opposers, embryology is a more narrow field of study than what is covered by "embryo".-Andrew c 15:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• oppose no reasoning given for merge. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per EncyloPetey and Andrew c. -Severa (!!!) 09:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Andrew c: The study of something is distinct from the thing itself. Musical Linguist 01:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Who Says "Embryology" is Usually Restricted to Vertebrates Whereas "Embryo" is Not?

I notice that Arcadian, RQuinn, and EncycloPetey all say that the term "embryology" is usually restricted to apply to early vertebrate development, whereas an embryo is a life cycle stage found in all animals, land plants, and some algae and protists. I had never heard of such a distinction before. Do you have any cite for this distinction?

There are quite a few books and articles about "vertebrate embryology", but there are also plenty of books and articles about "invertebrate embryology". I've just added a paragraph on "invertebrate embryology" to the embryology article. I don't see why that article should be separate from this article. A redirect would be very appropriate.Ferrylodge 04:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C. says that merging embryology with embryo would be like merging zoo with zoology, or star with astrology, or microorganism with microbiology. Is zoology defined as the study of zoos? No. Is astrology defined as the study of stars? No. Is microbiology defined as the study of microorganisms? No. Andrew C. also says that "embryology is a more narrow field of study than what is covered by 'embryo'". How so? It is obviously correct that invertebrates are just as much a subject of "embryology" as they are of "embryo".Ferrylodge 16:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is obvious, you should be able to back your assertions with verifiable sources. Please do so. Further, you nitpick AndrewC's examples, while ignoring his valid point that "The study of something is distinct from the thing itself". If you cannot address this issue, your case is without merit. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot perceive sources in my first comment in this section, then your comment is without merit and further sources are pointless.Ferrylodge 18:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of warning you about civility. Your sources do not so far as I can see equate embryos with the study of the same. Hence, provide sources which do, or merging is inappropriate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am getting exceedingly tired of your accusations, KillerChihuahua. You said that my "case is without merit". I responded that "your comment is without merit". And that makes me uncivil? Please.

Obviously, the two words "embryo" and "embryology" are not synonyms. However, there is no requirement of synonymousness for a redirect. Are you saying that there is such a requirement?Ferrylodge 18:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) When I have stated that if you cannot address the central objection, your case is without merit; but you simply toss "without merit" back at me without addressing the central concern, yes that is uncivil. You are basically saying "Oh yeah! Well, you TOO" which is an ad hominem tu quoque. I find ad hominem attacks uncivil, yes. Do you consider them to be acceptable?

I am saying that the study of embryos covers content which would not make sense under embryo, and it is a separate topic. Researchers, methodology, history - there is scope for all of that in Embryology, not in Embryo. The amount of information in either is more than sufficient for an article. Generally, merging is done when two terms are synonymous; nearly synonymous, or very small articles which are sub-topics within the same topic. Hence, if there were a stub on wheat production in country A, same in country B, etc, and none were really big enough or important a topic enough for their own article, then a merge to Wheat production might make sense. You make no such case for this suggested merge. The topics are not synonymous nor nearly so; and both are full sized articles with information even not covered yet. What is your rationale for suggesting a merge? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, it might be helpful to stick to English rather than Latin, for those who may be unfamiliar with what a “tu quoque” is. As I understand it, you’re saying that you’ve made a criticism, then I’ve said you yourself are guilty of that very thing you’ve criticized, and therefore I have dismissed your initial criticism. In other words, as I understand your use of this Latin term, you’re asserting that I’ve engaged in the “two wrongs make a right” fallacy.

Your “tu tuoque” characterization is incorrect. Your criticism was: “If you cannot address this issue, your case is without merit.” My response was: “If you cannot perceive sources in my first comment in this section, then your comment is without merit and further sources are pointless.” Thus --- far from dismissing your initial criticism --- I instead asserted that I had already addressed that criticism.

Moving along past the Latin references and the personal criticisms, let’s address the articles and their content, okay? You say that: “Researchers, methodology, history - there is scope for all of that in Embryology, not in Embryo.” That is a somewhat refreshing argument; certainly it's different from those presented previously at this discussion page. However, ultimately, I believe that argument fails. First, you have cited nothing in the current “embryology” article that would be inappropriate in the “embryo” article. Second, there are numerous articles in Wikipedia about a particular thing, which discuss not only the structure and functioning of the thing, but also the history of human knowledge about the thing, methods for using or analyzing the thing, et cetera. I hope you do not require a long list of links to be convinced of that. And, may I assume from that new argument of yours that you do not find the previous arguments persuasive?Ferrylodge 19:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Tu quoque means "thou also", or as I said above "you too!" hence not incorrectly used. Since my concern was that "The study of something is distinct from the thing itself", no your sources did not address that. I am well aware of articles which have a "study of (topic)" section. There are also topics in which the two are separate articles. Why do you feel a merge is indicated? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The study of something is distinct from the thing itself. That is true. But that does not mean that the respective articles must be distinct. As you say, articles may have a "study of" section.

I never asserted that Andrew C. created such a section, but others have, and I see nothing wrong with it. Moreover, I have not dismissed Andrew C's notion that the study of something is distinct from the thing itself. I not only addressed his specific examples (which you call "nitpicking"), but I also said that there is no requirement of synonymousness for a redirect and therefore the fact that the study of something is distinct from the thing itself should not preclude a redirect (which cannot possibly be considered an ad hominem on my part).

Anyway, as to your question, "Why do you feel a merge is indicated?" For several reasons. Wikipedia suggests that, "perhaps it is better to add the text to a related page (especially if the text is not very long); that page can always be split later, after it has grown." The embryology article is currently short, so its content can easily be moved to the embryo article without making the latter too long. Having two separate articles creates a problem of redundancy and confusion, because much information will be suitable for both articles. There is also an article on embryogenesis, so I think we are over-doing it with the embryo- articles. There is no more need for a separate embryology article at this point, than there is for an article on embryologists. I don't see why we need to treat the embryology article any differently at this point from the Vaccinology article, or the Ripperology article, or the Angelology article.Ferrylodge 20:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge: I'd suggest you back off on the ad hominems period, whether tu quoque or not. While tu quoque may not have been used in the standard manner, the allegation of an ad hominem was correct. Additionally, you further exacerbated the problems with the snarky "it might be helpful to stick to English rather than Latin". Cool off and keep the discussion civil. •Jim62sch• 21:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jim, all of these assertions that I have made an ad hominem seem to be based on the assertion that I wrote something “without addressing the central concern”. Therefore, I want to make absolutely sure that I now address your central concerns, without dismissing anything that you have said.

First, I am very sincere when I say that it might be helpful to stick to English rather than Latin, for those who may be unfamiliar with what a “tu quoque” is and what an “ad hominem” is. As an attorney, I try to avoid legalese, especially Latin terms. See here. My comment was not intended to be “snarky”. Fancy Latin terms are not helpful, in my view.

Jim, you also say that “the allegation of an ad hominem was correct.” I disagree. KillerChihuahua asserted that I was tossing the phrase “without merit” back at her without addressing the central concern. And what was that central concern? It was Andrew C’s point that "The study of something is distinct from the thing itself". I absolutely did address that central concern before being charged with an “ad hominem”.

Before KillerChihuahua made this charge, I had already addressed Andrew C’s specific examples (which KillerChihuahua dismissed as “nitpicking” on my part). Additionally, I had also already addressed Andrew C’s larger point that "The study of something is distinct from the thing itself"; i.e. I had already said that there is no requirement of synonymousness for a redirect (and therefore the fact that the study of something is distinct from the thing itself should not preclude a redirect).

I am not going to back off anything I have said at this discussion page, because none of it was uncivil or inappropriate.Ferrylodge 21:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I think perhaps that you are unaware just how aggressive your writing style is. You remind me of several lawyers with whom I've come into contact while serving on juries: so cocky and arrogant, so sneakily dismissive of the opposition, so clever in embedding ad homs that whatever merits the client's case might have had were hoisted on his lawyer's own petard. Generally, the more aggressive, the more unctious, the more smoothly one can work in ad homs while staying just barely on the good side of objects, the less merit the case being presented has. And that is precisely what is happenining here.

As for your disagreement with my comment, you are, of course, free to disagree. Like you however, I will not go back on what I said.

As a linguist, I agree that most people should probably stay away from Latin: such a beautiful and complex language, it is easily and frequently misused. Of course, English presents its own difficulties: "synonymousness" is not a word, the correct form would be synonymity. Cheers. •Jim62sch• 22:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As a linguist, Jim, you should probably consult page 1325 of the Random House Webster's College Dictionary (c. 1999), where you will find the word "synonymousness." There is also a word on page 649 at the top of the right-hand column that seems apt, given your accusation of incivility (together with your accusations that I am "sneaky" and "dismissive" and and "arrogant" and "aggressive" and "unctious"). Cheers.Ferrylodge 22:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm partial to the OED myself. In any case, what I should have noted was that "synonymousness" is quite rare, and was primarily used in the mid- to late-19th century, and that synonymity is the preferred term. NTW, I also typoed unctuous. Page 649 does me little good as I do not have the dictionary you mention. By the way, I note that I stated, that "You remind me of several lawyers with whom I've come into contact while serving on juries..." -- yes, that opening statement makes a difference to the semantics of what I said, and negates your charge of incivility. •Jim62sch• 20:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Jim, you remind me of several horses' asses I've met, not that I'm being uncivil of course.Ferrylodge 20:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I missed this clever piece of badinage. Too funny. Estne cortina ollae? •Jim62sch• 17:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cortina = "kettle" and olla = "pot." The old adage — at least, that's what I think Jim62sch meant. I don't really know Latin. -Severa (!!!) 17:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Vere! (Indeed).  :) •Jim62sch• 21:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize to everyone here that I somehow contributed to this mess above. It seems like any time I disagree with Ferrylodge, the conversation ends up getting on the attack/defense emotional/personal side of things. I know that he and I have a history of conflict, so perhaps I shouldn't have commented at all, but at least I can recognize conflict. So I am going to withdraw myself from this discussion, as I have done on other pages where I disagreed with Ferrylodge, as a gesture of trying to smooth things out. Good luck all, and I'm sorry.-Andrew c 21:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C., there is nothing for you to apologize about. All you did was register opposition to merging the two articles, and you gave your reason. While I disagreed with your reason, I didn't think your brief comment was uncivil at all. Ferrylodge 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Changed part of Status of Human Embryo

The article stated that Christian ethicists claim that the human embryo is a person, but it is not necessarily only Christian ethicists. Also added about Peter Kreeft.

I agree, and am removing Christian, because it will certainly be correct then. Rds865 (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

new article added to embryos

I think this artice should be added to the page, it's about the dangers of embryos, look below:

Dangers of Embryos

The dangers of embryos that have recently been discovered is that when a person dies, they do not really just decompose on the earths surface, but rather start to degenerate through the process of reverse-embryotic-cell-division; in which the body turns from an old person (or whatever age they died at) to a younger person, then eventually back into a baby, a Fetus, and finally an Embryo. This Embryo stays dormant for sometimes thousands of years until it gains of large amounts static energy from supernatural phenomena. The dormant energy builds up to the point where it can no longer be contained, and the Embryo is violently shot up into the atmosphere at extremely high speeds. Neither humans nor machines can see or detect these atmosphere-destined creatures due to the high speeds at which they travel. The Embryo soon finds itself joined by billions of other Embryos continuously circling in the earth’s atmosphere, Thus recycling the resources necessary to sustain life on earth eventually reabsorbs the embryo’s energy. The time spent in the atmosphere by an Embryo usually lasts for several years.

The effects of these Embryos have recently been negative on the environment. There has been such a large increase of the human population lately; hence a large amount of deaths that have led to an increased amount of atmosphere bound Embryos. These Embryos in the atmosphere allow heat energy from the sun to go through to the earth, but they don't let the excess energy reflected from the earth leave the atmosphere. Instead, they trap in the heat and globally warm up the earth. This is contributing to the same negative effects as global warming has. Causing the melting of the earth and so on. One last danger of the atmosphere bound Embryos is that when they speed up extremely fast, they burn up in the earths atmosphere creating harmful gaseous compositions sometimes in the form of smog, and further contribute to global warming, air pollution, and other thick dark clouds of health hazardous smog. source: Quantum Man and his site

What? Are you serious? I hope not. 24.77.21.240 (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Frozen embryos

Is there an article about their freezing and storage? Шизомби (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete this?

However, human embryos have been cloned,[4] in which case no new genotype is established.

I was going to delete this, but thought I'd better run it by everyone first. I thought it was rather irrelevant in regards to the "status" question. Afterall, uniqueness of genotype has never been a prerequisite for personhood (twins) by any ethisist I'm aware of. I suppose I could add a sentence saying so, but I prefer not to go point/counterpoint if I can help it. Anyway, if no objections by Christmas, I'll get rid of it.--Son of lucas (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

A) Aren't zygotes single-celled embryos. This article suggests that they are different. B) Not all animals begin embryogenesis with mitosis. Drosophila begin by replicating their DNA until they have ~5000 embryos and then cellurization occurs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.83.251 (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The single cell which results from fertilization is a zygote. By definition, an embryo only exists after mitosis begins, and usually this means cell division as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Status section

Some balance to the Status section should be added. I've provided some context to the "Debate" that takes place.

But a balanced approach to the scientific opinion on the matter should be provided.

As for the last line, the link to the NIH, the citation doesnt seem to support the statement. It seems that the language is stretching the intent of the article mentioned.

Wageslave (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

First ever

I added this so that readers of the world will find that: First genetically modified human embryo - Scientists's first genetically modified human embryo stirred criticism from London-based watchdog groups, Center for Genetics and Society and Human Genetics Alert, that say it's a step toward creating "designer babies." Dr. Zev Rosenwaks, director of the Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, presented the research at meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, which was reported on May, 2008 by The Sunday Times of London. Rosenwaks altered the embryo that had extra chromosomes, making it nonviable, by inserting a gene marker.news.yahoo.com, Genetically modified human embryo stirs criticismwww.nytimes.com, Engineering by Scientists on Embryo Stirs Criticism --Florentino floro (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your addition reads like a news report rather than an encyclopedia paragraph. Also, this article is not only about human embryos, but about all kinds of embryos, including camels, fish, daisies, and all manner of such things. Having an entries section about genetically engineering an embryo of a human is not in keeping with the article's scope (which is already rather heavy on coverage of the human embryo). --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Definition

This article implies that an "embryo" exists from fertilization. But elsewhere I've seen it said that a zygote and blastocyst precede the embryo. So which is it? Are a zygote and blastocyst a type of embryo, or are they an earlier stage that is distinct from an embryo? This is purely a matter of definition, but we ought to try to get it clarified in the article. I'll try to get some refs that clear this up.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical events

I would like to know more about how and when was the idea of embryo evolved. when was it establisehd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.22.199 (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)