Talk:Epigenesis (biology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Plants (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Biology (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Epigenesis (biology) is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Made a minor tweak of the article removing a direct quote and replacing it with a paraphrase. Reads better that way, direct quote wasn't necessary. Ceramufary (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Addition[edit]

It would be worthwhile to note the mechanisms by which epigenesis occurs. For instance, the abstract from a study performed by Waggoner in 2007 (see link) suggests that such epigenetic mechanisms include "chromatin-remodeling via histone modification and DNA methylation, RNA associated gene silencing and chromosome inactivation, and genomic imprinting." A thorough outline of these processes would go a long way in describing the epigenetic process. Moreover, the same paper outlines ways in which changes in epigenetic regulation can result in diseases. A section describing the consequences of epigenetic changes would be a good addition as well.

Hope these suggestions may prove helpful. Slj758 (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

What you suggest sounds fine, I would just go ahead and do this and others can tweak it if it needs it. thanks Peter morrell 09:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This article needs work.[edit]

I put in the needs-work template because this article reads like a stub, but it has too much information to not be better organized. It needs, in my humble opinion:

  • A better opening topic sentance
  • Some sections
  • Some coherency between sections which allow for the information to flow a little.
    • Not so much techno-babble, maybe some more information that laypeople can relate to?
  • The references are nice, but they could be formatted better, using Wikipedia's citation templates (for books), I believe.

{{cite book | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | publisher = | date = | location = | pages = | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = }} There you go. Have fun. Rhetth (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Reference[edit]

Aristotle did not conceive epigenetics. It was Jean-Baptiste Lamark. Reportedly, Darwin considered his theory as a very good complement to his. Unfortunately, 20th century focused itself entirely on genome as the only source of changes in organisms. Only in the last decade or two epigenetics became hot topic in labs, with some considering even culture and environment under the umbrela.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Another Incorrect Reference[edit]

Creationism is irrelevant here. Creationism proposes miraculous, non-evolutionary origins of life on Earth, not with the development of individual organisms. The bigger scientific debate from von Helmont to Pasteur concerned biogenesis versus spontaneous generation of individual organisms.

Confusion with Epigenetics[edit]

There seems to be a lot of confusion in this talk page between Epigenesis and Epigenetics. The last sentence about honey bees should be removed. This is a very specific example of polyphenism, or even, more broadly, epigenetics, NOT epigenesis. Even the BBC article that is referenced discusses this as an example of epigenetics, not epigenesis.

To address the other comments below (but not to change the article, as these comments, correctly, have no influence on the present state of the article): Lamarck can, in a very broad sense, be given some credit for his preconception of epigenetics--though his understanding of 'the inheritance of acquired characteristics' was much different from our present day understanding of the mechanisms of epigenetics - but again, epigenetics, not epigenesis. Likewise, creationism has no part in an article on epigenetics, but it does have historical relevance to the understanding of the difficulty in accepting epigenesis as opposed to preformationism.

There should also be an additional section that expands epigenesis as a mechanism of inductive development, in contrast with the cell-autonomous development through preformation (preformation as a very real developmental mechanism, not to be confused with the incorrect theory of preformationism). If others agree, I can work on this. Apoptic (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)