User talk:Genetics411

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Welcome, Genetics411!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
Learn about some of the Wikipedia landmarks by trying our Wikipedia scavenger hunt!
If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
Wikipedia has a vibrant community of editors. The village pump is a great place to see the goings on.
Remember to use a neutral point of view!
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun! – Clockwork Soul 16:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Took Out an Edit of Yours While Reverting...[edit]

Hello Genetics411, I accidently took out an edit of yours while reverting a previous vandalism on the Down syndrome article (the edit which added the nonsense photo caption). Please feel free to readd your edit, thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 06:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With drill[edit]

Hi genetics - the removal of "with a drill" was actually discussed on the talk page - you might want to undo that one. Thanks for the help !! Sandy (Talk) 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch![edit]

I think we might be kindred spirits, and you have much more depth in biology etc than I do. So you might be able to help me a bit. I would be glad to get your opinions anyway.

I have hit a road block or two when trying to improve the lead section on evolution and in the "fact and theory" sections of the evolution and the Creation-evolution controversy articles. I have compiled a comparison between the different proposed sections of text at Talk:FactandTheoryComparison and at Talk:Evolution/LeadComparison and there is a discussion of this at Talk:Evolution. I would appreciate it if you took a peek and let me know what you think. Thanks !!--Filll 20:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homology (biology)[edit]

Thanks for reverting one more on this article—I didn't mean to leave the irrelevant comment in but to revert to the previous version. Oops. Grouse 01:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zygosity[edit]

Genetics411, If you have time, please look at Zygosity and weigh-in on the talk page about the proposed split. It would be good to have the opinion of someone interested in genetics. Dr d12 23:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

non-peer reviewed material[edit]

I disagree quite strongly with your edit summary "non-peer reviewed material has no place in an encyclopedia" [1]. If it's notable , it belongs in an encyclopedia. We're not here to present only information that is "true", but to document all relevant debate. From WP:NPOV

"human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. We are committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense, surely a well-established meaning of the word "knowledge".

It may not be peer reviewed, but if it's notable, that doesn't matter for the decision to include, though it's certainly worth mentioning in the article. I'm really not quibbling with the decision to delete, at the very last that material you reverted may have qualified as POV under Undue Weight, but I did want to say something about the peer review rationale for the deletion. Peer review might matter a lot in judging the merit of research in the real world, but it's not a criterion for notability, or inclusion in an encylopedia. Best regards. Pete.Hurd 04:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Genetics411. You and I seem to be having a mild edit war, that I'm sure you and I can both avoid through dialogue. Specifically you have removed my contributions about Wolfram a number of times.

Please be aware of the WP:Three_revert_rule before you remove my edit again. Regardless, I know that Wolfram can be a bit of an abrupt egotistical fellow, and as such many have issues with the man, his ideas however are different stories and as I’ve pointed out the Natural Selection discussion page his ideas about Natural Selection propose new ways of looking at evolution.

Although bioinformatics and not biologists are more quickly responding to Wolfram’s views, his arguments are still significant. It is possible that biologists haven’t reacted to him, because his expertise is outside of the field, or they don’t understand the consequences.

I’ve included the rational for noteworthiness in the discussion page. I’m happy to move the comments about Wolfram to other sections if you feel it would me more appropriate in other sections, but I must ask you to please stop censoring what you do not accept. However, let me know how we can work through your concerns and find an agreeable middle ground.

WikiRat1 17:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mention what Wikipedia is and what it isn't. Wikipedia is a collision of ideas. Each little collision contributes to weariness. However the sum of the thing is greater than its parts. One reason I'm personally interested in Wolfram, is I've seen evidence to his ideas elsewhere. Check out this paper for example (In fact the author of that paper, Lila Kari - has written many papers on computational biology which smack of Wolfram. Now Lila Kari's work devoid of Wolfram, is merely interesting. Her work with Wolfram's ideas as as foundation, formative. I don't know if it makes sense to portray biological systems as computations, but certainly the gap between biological systems and mathematics is being bridged in our generation by bioinformatics. Perhaps this collision between my edits and your views has contributed to a sense of weariness, but perhaps it counld instead contribute to dialectic.WikiRat1 17:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia != truthiness[edit]

Ummm, I think you misunderstood my comment about WP:NPOV. WP does not have the job of vetting points of view for their truth, but has the job of accurately representing whatever notable debate exists in the world outside the encyclopedia. It's totally appropriate to note and source the great deal of scientific skepticism about Wolfram's theories, but the fact that so many notable scientists have gone out of their way to criticize Wolfram's work means that discussion of his book belongs in an encyclopedia. This is not to say that his theories necessarily deserve extensive coverage in Natural selection. I'm not sure if you mean to cast aspersions on WP for this holding this official policy, but I hope you will think it over a bit, maybe see some of the wisdom in it, and continue to make the valuable contributions you have been making so far. Best Regards, Pete.Hurd 18:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I agree - and my comments were for Genetics411 rather than for you. I don't mind Wolfram's views being integrated into the article in other sections or what have you - those are editorials views. However Wolfram, IMHO, has presented the ONLY credible criticism of Natural Selection. In doing so - he doesn't hide the fact he is criticizing the theory, or mask as any thing else. But in censoring wolfram what is being achieved is that a critical view point is being ommitted (look at the attempts - Wolfram isn't peer reviewed? Wolfram isn't peer reviewed by BIOLOGISTS! Or how about his views are fringe? His views are FRINGE to those who support Natural Selection ONLY i.e. biologists - certainly not to bioinformaticists, or mathematicians who have been historically unable to join the debate about living systems and understand the tools Wolfram has used to build up his views).

The problem here is a much larger problem, and that is that observations about biological diversity, and about genetic processes is increasingly being made by computer scientists who are able to do regular expression searches and possess the skills not traditionally required in biology, and by others, not biologists. This is exactly why Wolfram's criticisms, or observations that fell out of Conway's Game of Life, or studies on regular expression matching processes, that directly compete with natural selection should be included that article. If they augment the debate - they are noteworthy. This is the case here. There is only one reason why they are NOT be included - not because they are fringe, or because they are not meaningful, but to comfortably preserve an idea that until recently has enjoyed favourable status. This is course is contrary to Wikipedia's policy.

WikiRat1 19:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WikiRat1, my comment above was for Genetics411 (in response to this comment on my talk page) not you. I don't see any censoring of wolfram, the A New Kind of Science page seems to a good job of documenting the vigorous debate about the status of his theroies in mainstream science. The argument seems to be that including the rather extensive material you want in Natural selection runs against WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Pete.Hurd 21:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]