Jump to content

Talk:Life

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 5.66.193.183 (talk) at 21:08, 4 September 2016 (→Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2016). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeLife was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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
DateProcessResult
October 17, 2007Peer reviewNot reviewed
June 13, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
December 30, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
April 4, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Geological history

The section entitled "Phanerozoic Eon" has more to do with geology and tectonic movements than life. Yes, the new environments promoted adaptations in living organisms, but there are better articles to discuss Earth's past geology, climate change, and the evolutionary history of life. Although it is well written, it is tangential to the topic so I propose to delete that [long] section. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battery, instead of deletion, maybe substantial reduction/summarization? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one or two paragraphs should do. I'll wait for a week or two to get more feedback from other editors. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does this sentence mean?

"with an error rate below the sustainability threshold." What does this sentence mean? Duivelwaan (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what that was supposed to mean. It also was in quotation marks, but it wasn't cited, so I removed it. KSFTC 01:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good article

I've been making several minor improvements to this article, mostly addressing the problems with the lead from the previous GA review, and I think, if no one objects, that I'll submit this article for another review soon. KSFTC 01:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't submit it. There are a lot of issues from the last review that hasn't been addresed yet. MartinZ02 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What issues were mentioned other than those those with the lead? KSFTC 17:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are some issues here. MartinZ02 (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't notice the second GA nomination. I'll definitely wait a while before nominating again. KSFTC 13:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation of draft article

A draft article I have been working on has been finished and can be found here. If no one objects, I'm going to boldly implement the draft article. MartinZ02 (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult to compare both versions and their differences. Any significant changes should be evident and probably discussed if controversial. How about a stepwise approach; edit one section at the time so it will be easier to visualize the differences. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definition in the opening sentence

I do not want to get involved in an edit war but the current opening sentence is poor. The previous version was much better. I have given my reasons for reversion in my edit summaries but another editor – who can not be bothered to provide a summary despite requests on their Talk Page - continues to revert my edits and gives a strong impression of ownership. No amount of work on an article overrides the opinion of other established editors. No reliable source provides a universally accepted definition of life, so we cannot; this would contravene our policies. The current definition does not take into account numerous contradictions and paradoxes. In my last edit summary, I raised the problem of seeds in this context, which would not be considered to be alive based on this definition. To say life is a "condition" is not helpful, either philosophically or scientifically. A condition is a transient state and cannot be used to define anything. Life unfortunately is a concept that should not be equated with consciousness. Greater minds than mine have, over centuries, attempted to find or define this "vital spark" but all have failed. There is no definition of life, all we have is a set of criteria and even these are not fully accepted. Please do not revert again without consensus. See here. Graham Beards (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The current sentence is much better. The other one leaves out a lot of details and is self-contradictory and misleading. KSFTC 02:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. As in the article abiogenesis, the lead sentence has been carefully crafted over several years and many creationists have attempted to modify it with wording that opens a loophole for their faith. Eventually, someone placed this note on the top: <!--Please do not change the lead sentence without first discussing on the talk page.--> It has helped somewhat, so I placed it here too. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia regarded by many as pseudoscience

This article makes reference to the gaia hypothesis as if it was established science. This is far from the case. Esteemed scientists in the fields of evolutionary biology and geosciences such as John Maynard Smith, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Paul Ehrlich, Massimo Pigliucci and Robert May have all harshly criticized the idea with arguments ranging from it's contradiction to current evolutionary thinking to it's unfalsifiability and as such it's inability to be a real scientific hypothesis. See for example Pigluicci [1] and Dawkins.[2]

The article should at the very least be updated to include this criticism that has been levelled against the idea since its first publication 1979. AlwaysUnite (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The hypothesis was hijacked by the New Age movement and those non-scientists are the ones that took it to the BS level. The scientific Gaia hypothesis is, in fact, the basis of Earth system science and it been openly recognized as such. Look it up. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Pigluicci, M. (2010). Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ISBN 0226667863.
  2. ^ Dawkins, R. (1982). The Extended Phenotype. Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN 0-19-286088-7.

Proposed merge with Biota (taxonomy)

The other article is a stub and it seems like they are about the same thing. MartinZ02 (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Biota (taxonomy) is a classification system of life. This article should discuss the common characteristics of life, not it's taxonomy. Biota (taxonomy) should receive separate discussion. Spacetransient (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, biota is the animal and plant life of a particular region, habitat, or geological period. My suggestion is to delete Biota (taxonomy) and leave Biota (ecology). BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2016

In chemical elements subsection of enviromental conditions section, make CHNOPS link to its wikipedia page.

5.66.193.183 (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thanks
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Life&oldid=737754842"