Talk:Organism/Archive 1

Misc
This page should probably be merged with life, or at least some of the content transferred. Also, some of the references appear only marginally relevant.


 * seconded.

. More should be imho. PomPom

- removed below because a similar link already goes to that site
 * NCBI Taxonomy resources (rich)


 * The Tree of Life. Its basic goals are:
 * to provide a uniform and linked framework in which to publish electronically information about the evolutionary history and characteristics of all groups of organisms
 * to present a modern scientific view of the evolutionary tree that units all organisms on Earth
 * to aid education about and appreciation of biological diversity
 * to provide (eventually) a life-wide database and searching system about characteristics of organisms
 * to provide a means to find taxon-specific information on the Internet, both taxonomic and otherwise

-- Moved to discussion page of Tree of Life


 * Green Plant Phylogeny, Research Coordination Group, "DEEP GREEN", Understanding the Diversity of Plants. A five-year effort to reconstruct the evolutionary relationships among all green plants has resulted in the most complete "tree of life" of any group of living things on the planet, including animals.

-- Removed for non obvious relevance


 * BBC News, August 4, 1999: The mother of all plants. Scientists have discovered that every plant species alive on land today shares a single common ancestor, at least 450 million years old.
 * 7 August, 2000, Fantastic fungus find Citat: "...Researchers in the US have found what is probably the largest living organism on Earth....Scientists say it covers 890 hectares (2,200 acres) of land - an area equivalent to about 1,220 football pitches. The fungus is called Armillaria ostoyae, but is more popularly known as the honey mushroom. This particular specimen is calculated to be about 2,400 years old, although it could be two to three times this age...."
 * BBCNews, 4 December, 2002, Life 'began on the ocean floor'

Bold paragraph
What is the worth of the second paragraph, and why does it need to be bold? It seems messy and oddly out of place. I understand that there are missing links in the theory of evolution, but why not have a separate section about this elsewhere in the article (ie not in the introduction), linking to a broader discussion on evolutionary biology? (I certainly hope the addition wasn't religiously inspired, by the way, something like that seriously threatens the integrity of a truth-based encyclopedia.) Jarno Veenema, 16 December 2006

edit: The text was cleaned up as I submitted my criticism. My point about the content and placement is still valid.

Vandalism
Some idiot has replaced every occurence of "organism" with "orgasm". This is why I hate this place. Theonejanitor

Just refreshed screen (03:09 UTC 14th Jan 2007) and this has been corrected

Introduction
"Two main grades may be distinguished, the prokaryotes and eukaryotes." This is wrong. Most of my books include Archaea as a distinct entity compared to the prokaryotes, simply because they are very different and show more in common to basic eukaryotic single cells than prokaryotic single cells.

Sections irrelevant to the topic "Organism"
Furthermore, the latter part of the article, from contains several sections, such as Evolution and its subsections and Ecology and its subsections that go way, way beyond the brief for an article entitled "organism". What on earth is a section entitled "Spatial relationships and subdivisions of land" doing in an article on the topic organism? The contents of these sections should be removed, and transferred elsewhere. This is not the place to discuss the topic "evolution", or the topic "ecology". Plantsurfer (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest (see above) that the superfluous sections on Ecology, Ecosystems, Biomes etc. copied below should be deleted from this article. They are substantial and potentially valuable sections, however, and may contain material of use in other articles, which is why I have moved them here, and copied them to the talk pages of articles that are closer to their home, in the hope that they can be used elsewhere.Plantsurfer (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

SUGGEST MOVE TO ECOSYSTEM

The ecosystem concept
The first principle of ecology is that each living organism has an ongoing and continual relationship with every other element that makes up its environment. An ecosystem can be defined as any situation where there is interaction between organisms and their environment.

The ecosystem is composed of two entities, the entirety of life, the biocoenosis and the medium that life exists in the biotope. Within the ecosystem, species are connected and dependent upon one another in the food chain, and exchange energy and matter between themselves and with their environment.

The concept of an ecosystem can apply to units of variable size, such as a pond, a field, or a piece of deadwood. A unit of smaller size is called a microecosystem. For example, an ecosystem can be a stone and all the life under it. A mesoecosystem could be a forest, and a macroecosystem a whole ecoregion, with its drainage basin.

The main questions when studying an ecosystem are:


 * Whether the colonization of a barren area could be carried out
 * Investigation the ecosystem's dynamics and changes
 * The methods of which an ecosystem interacts at local, regional and global scale
 * Whether the current state is stable
 * Investigating the value of an ecosystem and the ways and means that interaction of ecological systems provide benefit to humans, especially in the provision of healthy water.

Ecosystems are often classified by reference to the biotopes concerned. The following ecosystems may be defined:


 * As continental ecosystems, such as forest ecosystems, meadow ecosystems such as steppes or savannas), or agro-ecosystems
 * As ecosystems of inland waters, such as lentic ecosystems such as lakes or ponds; or lotic ecosystems such as rivers
 * As oceanic ecosystems.

Another classification can be done by reference to its communities, such as in the case of an human ecosystem.

SUGGEST MOVE TO ECOSYSTEM

Ecosystem productivity
In an ecosystem, the connections between species are generally related to food and their role in the food chain. There are three categories of organisms:


 * Producers -- usually plants which are capable of photosynthesis but could be other organisms such as bacteria around ocean vents that are capable of chemosynthesis.
 * Consumers -- animals, which can be primary consumers (herbivorous), or secondary or tertiary consumers (carnivorous).
 * Decomposers -- bacteria, mushrooms which degrade organic matter of all categories, and restore minerals to the environment.

These relations form sequences, in which each individual consumes the preceding one and is consumed by the one following, in what are called food chains or food network. In a food network, there will be fewer organisms at each level as one follows the links of the network up the chain.

These concepts lead to the idea of biomass (the total living matter in a given place), of primary productivity (the increase in the mass of plants during a given time) and of secondary productivity (the living matter produced by consumers and the decomposers in a given time).

These two last ideas are key, since they make it possible to evaluate the load capacity -- the number of organisms which can be supported by a given ecosystem. In any food network, the energy contained in the level of the producers is not completely transferred to the consumers. And the higher one goes up the chain, the more energy and resources is lost and consumed. Thus, from an energy—and environmental—point of view, it is more efficient for humans to be primary consumers (to subsist from vegetables, grains, legumes, fruit, cotton, etc.) than as secondary consumers (from eating herbivores, omnivores, or their products, such as milk, chickens, cattle, sheep, etc.) and still more so than as a tertiary consumer (from consuming carnivores, omnivores, or their products, such as fur, pigs, snakes, alligators, etc.). An ecosystem(s) is unstable when the load capacity is overrun and is especially unstable when a population doesn't have an ecological niche and overconsumers.

The productivity of ecosystems is sometimes estimated by comparing three types of land-based ecosystems and the total of aquatic ecosystems:


 * The forests (1/3 of the Earth's land area) contain dense biomasses and are very productive. The total production of the world's forests corresponds to half of the primary production.
 * Savannas, meadows, and marshes (1/3 of the Earth's land area) contain less dense biomasses, but are productive. These ecosystems represent the major part of what humans depend on for food.
 * Extreme ecosystems in the areas with more extreme climates -- deserts and semi-deserts, tundra, alpine meadows, and steppes -- (1/3 of the Earth's land area) have very sparse biomasses and low productivity
 * Finally, the marine and fresh water ecosystems (3/4 of Earth's surface) contain very sparse biomasses (apart from the coastal zones).

Humanity's actions over the last few centuries have seriously reduced the amount of the Earth covered by forests (deforestation), and have increased agro-ecosystems (agriculture). In recent decades, an increase in the areas occupied by extreme ecosystems has occurred (desertification).

SUGGEST MOVE TO BIOME

Spatial relationships and subdivisions of land
Ecosystems are not isolated from each other, but are interrelated. For example, water may circulate between ecosystems by the means of a river or ocean current. Water itself, as a liquid medium, even defines ecosystems. Some species, such as salmon or freshwater eels move between marine systems and fresh-water systems. These relationships between the ecosystems lead to the concept of a biome.

A biome is a homogeneous ecological formation that exists over a large region as tundra or steppes. The biosphere comprises all of the Earth's biomes -- the entirety of places where life is possible -- from the highest mountains to the depths of the oceans.

Biomes correspond rather well to subdivisions distributed along the latitudes, from the equator towards the poles, with differences based on to the physical environment (for example, oceans or mountain ranges) and to the climate. Their variation is generally related to the distribution of species according to their ability to tolerate temperature and/or dryness. For example, one may find photosynthetic algae only in the photic part of the ocean (where light penetrates), while conifers are mostly found in mountains.

Though this is a simplification of more complicated scheme, latitude and altitude approximate a good representation of the distribution of biodiversity within the biosphere. Very generally, the richness of biodiversity (as well for animal than plant species) is decreasing most rapidly near the equator (as in Brazil) and less rapidly as one approaches the poles.

The biosphere may also be divided into ecozone, which are very well defined today and primarily follow the continental borders. The ecozones are themselves divided into ecoregions, though there is not agreement on their limits.

Offensive link
I just clicked on a link saying "Genus", and it took me to "Penis". Maybe we should remove that.

Structure
I'm attempting to develop this article and integral to this development is the structure. What do people think of the following?

-Semantics --Viruses -Organisation -Features --Life span --Conscious intelligence ---Memes -Chemistry -Structure -Evolution -Ecology and interaction

Feedback would be appreciated. --Oldak Quill

19:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that there should be some discussion about the definition of life etc. but I really do not like all of this philosphical discussion about unusual concepts of organism. I think that the current article suffers from lack of clarity due to too much detail about these side issues. The important story of the article is to discuss the features that the different types of animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, archaea and virues etc. have in common that makes them organisms. The article should bring all of these things together and be a start point for linking out to the other entries for the differnt groups.

Something like:

-Definition -Features -Organisation

-Biochemistry -Evolution -Ecology and interaction

Other issues --Life span --Conscious intelligence ---Memes

--Azaroonus 20:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the problem: there isn't a fixed defintion of 'organism'. You suggested viruses were commonly considered organisms; they are not (although there are several arguements that they should be considered organisms). The section isn't philosophical, it is concerned with what "organism" means. I'll try to reduce the coverage of the article, but an article like this (that is, a very broad article) tends to deal with loads of issues. --Oldak Quill 09:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Opening sentence
"living complex adaptive system of organs" - that seems to imply multicellularity (and even more than that). Thinking of organelles as the organs would be an interesting way to look at it for a single-celled organism, but certainly not from the linked article. I'm not sure how to reword it though. TimBentley (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. According to the definition provided, E. coli is not an organism. AThousandYoung 04:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Bioceramics"
I'm moving this picture/caption here. The term "bioceramics" refers to artificial materials employed in medical applications; the use of the term in the context of natural, biological materials does not appear to be common. Perhaps just referring to it as a utilization of ceramics would fix the problem, but I'll leave that to the experts to figure out.--Eloquence* 03:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Maturana, Varela and Autopoiesis
Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela and others have developed interesting studies on Autopoiesis and the nature of living systems. These studies have interesting relations with life and organism. I think some information should be inserted here.Truman Burbank 15:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The taxon for "Life on Earth"
At this moment in the page, a taxon for Life on Earth is listed with the taxonomical name Gaeabionta. But as it is, the name Gaeabionta (or Gaeabiota) is almost never used, when you search for the name in Google, it seams to be predominantly used on the English Wikipedia and its clones. But opposed to this the name Geobiota seems to be used far more for this taxon, also the term Geobionta is used in this meaning. The term "geobiont" seems to be widely used, like in other Wikipedia's: pl:Geobiont, ro:Geobiont, but this seems to mean the same as "soil organism". Besides that, also the term Gaiabiota seems to be sparcely used. And the term Terrabiota seems also to have been suggested for this taxon.

Could anyone bring any clarity to this subject, and if so, please do. Tuganax 14:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have thought life on earth would redirect to life. Richard001 10:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, "Life on Earth" is a synonym for "Organism".
 * Proof: If it were not, it would have its own article — we even have one for life on Mars — and the goo here is far more notable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No. The distinction can be described in terms of sets. An organism is a single living thing. Life on earth is the whole set of living organisms. The two are not synonymous, and the fact that Wikipedia currently (and arguably erroneously) redirects Life on Earth to Organism cannot constitute proof that they are. Plantsurfer (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * On a conceptual level they are different. It is thus theoretically possible to entertain the POV that Life on Earth does not equal Organism. One could for example believe the there are other lifeforms (ouch! yet another synonym) on Earth than organims. It is also possible to believe that inanimate objects have life.
 * The central and most important discovery of biology as a science is however, that Life on Earth is identical with Organism. In fact, in scientific literature the two concepts have merged. Scientific text systematically uses them interchangeably. If there are other points-of-view, this is by far the majority view.
 * I think this article should strongly emphasize this central scientific understanding. I would even suggest that we move the article to Life on Earth, while leaving Organism as the text in bold. This equality is the first thing anyone visiting this page should see, even before reading the first sentence. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

One or many giraffes?
Responding to User:Plantsurfer's original comment above: At first I thought you were referring to the biosphere as the meaning of Life on Earth. Reading your comment again, I see the issue is something else. The article on Giraffe is not about "single living giraffe", it is about "the whole set of living giraffes". The same applies to this article. This is not about "one of those tiny bacteria" in the picture, it is about all bacteria on Earth — and not only about bacteria, but all forms of live on Earth. All these living things are organisms, i.e. members of the organism family. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (Moved comment by User:Plantsurfer here from above after edit conflict. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC))
 * The fact that "life on earth" is composed entirely of "organisms" does not make the two terms synonyms. Life on earth is a collective noun meaning all organisms (on earth). The singular "organism" has a much more restricted meaning. It can refer to a single fish, for example, and in the plural to a specified subset of terrestrial "organisms", but organism(s) can also include so far hypothetical extraterrestrial life-forms, for which the term life on earth would clearly be inapplicable. Plantsurfer (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So what you are suggesting is that we have two separate articles: Giraffe to cover individual giraffes and Giraffes on Earth to cover all giraffe populations collectively. No, this is not the way Wikipedia works! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not what I am saying. Read it again. Plantsurfer (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic material
Large sections of this article read like an essay, containing much philosphical discussion about the nature and definition of an organism, that reads like personal opinion and lacks citations or even much in the way of uncited factual information. These sections are therefore unencyclopedic, and in my view have no place in this article. Plantsurfer (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This may be a stupid question...
Is a human brain cell an organism? 128.146.46.2 (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In the order that you asked your questions: Yes and No. Smartse (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There was only one question, although it looks like you're commenting as if the topic was written as "Is this question stupid?" In which case, how smart are you with such a response? Bainst (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * An entire human is a single organism. No, an individual brain cell from a human does not constitute its own organism. -The Mysterious El Willstro 71.181.140.237 (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ive seen this thing before. Its a general confusion over the difference between a single cell thats an integrated part of a larger organism, and actually independant single celled organisms. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the difference? Bainst (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion
I suggest that Life on Earth does not redirect here, since the two concepts are not synonymous. There could be organisms on other planets, and they wouldn't be "life on Earth". Leptictidium (mt) 20:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well until life is found somewhere else it would seem sensible to leave it as it is IMO. Smartse (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact they are exact synonyms. As you can see in the Taxobox in the article Organism is the root of the scientific classification of organisms. This identity is the most important discovery of the science of biology and the most important piece of information contained in this article. As you evidently did not know this before, the article hopefully was able to enlighten you.
 * If life would be found elsewhere, then scientists would need to invent new vocabulary to distiguish between Earth organisms and the abstract concept of basic units of life. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. - If we were to accept your point-of-view, that extraterrestrial life would consits of organisms, then this article should be renamed Life on Earth and Organism should be redirected to Life. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Image layout


Can someone more adept with image positioning try and sort out the text around this image? I've tried but can't get anything to work without introducing acres of white space using the {-} template. Thanks Smartse (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Restoring content - where is the beef?
I have restored some of the content deleted from the lede by on 13 May 2008. The article still has a problem: after the lede the article covers viruses and superorganisms. (What the hell are they?) The article should instead focus on organisms. In yesterdays version you had to read half way through the article before reaching any concrete information on organisms. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Superorganisms
I went ahead and deleted the whole large (4k) section on superorganisms. It has no relevance here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
There has been vandalism to the taxobox, (cellphone etc) that is being missed on the reverts. I am not familiar with this article and there are so many reverts that I am not sure what the most recent "non-vandalised" version is. Somebody in the know fix it.... Antarctic-adventurer (talk)  13:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, should be good now. Cubathy (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow that was fast! Good job. Looking at the "View history" this page is regularly vandalized. A shame. I guess that a group of you keep this page on your watchlist Antarctic-adventurer  (talk)  14:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Some factual inaccuracies
First of all, cells are part of the very definition of life. Viruses are classified as non-living particles.

Second, where in Sam Hill did you guys get "Gaeabionta" as the taxon for the clade of all life? I find it very suspicious that I never saw it anywhere outside Wikipedia. -The Mysterious El Willstro 71.181.140.237 (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Reproduction as a "must" for organism
Dear Wikipedia Contribuitors,

please, receive a respectful greeting. I observed that "reproduction" is part of the description of "organism" but I understand there are organisms such as mules that can hardly reproduce in regular conditions. Can you do something to reflect that fact in the definition? Thanks in advance.George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I gather the requirement for reproduction isn't always taken seriously as for many species the breeding pair rather than an individual organism is the reproductive unit. Also organisms too old or infertile to reproduce are still organisms. Some sources substitute autopoiesis (self-assembly/self-maintenance) for reproduction to include such organisms, but not everybody's happy with that. Zagubov (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Lichens
Should lichens be included here or are they a kind of superorganism; actually how do they fit in? Zagubov (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The beginning of organisms.
Organisms consist of two parts, one part is the body and the other is the mind. Bodies are dualities of matter and electromagnetism which organizes matter under direction of the laws of nature of the material space time. Mind is the duality of memory and the soul which remains in dynamic state within the limits of the memory in the immaterial space time. Both, the body and mind are subjected to motivation. Organisms form a dynamic spectrum of differentiation. The spectrum varies in one direction because more complicated organisms arise from simpler organisms. This means that there is a beginning to organisms. In the border between matter and live units, two elements are required for change. The two are motivation and the instruction for the kind of change. One of the characteristics of organisms is their short cycle of existence and frequent reproduction. Material units exist for a long time and they repeat after a very long interval of time. The reason for the difference is the motivation. Motivation from the perfect centre, which motivates matter, is located on the largest ring of the converging spiral and it acts slowly while electromagnetism, which motivates organisms, changes very fast because of its location in the centre of the spiral. The simplest organism consists of four molecules, each a unit of matter. Electromagnetism, which the four molecules contain within themselves, joins them into one unit. Each of the four molecules can unite with identical molecule because of identity of their electromagnetism. Using this method, two units of four molecules are created as one system. This causes change of polarization and repulsion instead of attraction. The two separate organisms of four molecules each are ready to repeat the cycle of changes. The plurality of such organisms grows as 2 to power of ‘n’ in (0<n<oo). The mind of this first organism is the static soul and memory is a group of the laws of nature directing changes. KK (78.146.74.112 (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC))

Neomura
It has been asked when Thomas Cavalier-Smith proposed the clade "Neomura". Perhaps it was already in 1987. For sure, in his paper ''Cavalier-Smith, T. 1987. The origin of eukaryote and archaebacterial cells. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 503: 17–54'' he uses the term. However, I'm not sure if he used it in exactly the meaning required.--Smht% (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting Life form?
In 2005 this article had a POVFORK at lifeform, but it in 2006 was (with other spelling variations) redirected here. In December 2010 a new article was created at Life form which has now been moved to List of life forms. I do not think we need a separate article for Life form any more than for Life on Earth. I have now redirected all the spelling variations on life form to this article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Scope of definition
Is a human being considered to be only the sum of an interlocking set of molecules? This viewpoint would seem to exclude the supernatural component believed in by religious people.

Should we mention that some scientists, as well as other academics such as philosophers and theologians, dispute this?

Might we also mention that no one (so far) has been able to "assemble" molecules into a living unit? This might be relevant to the discussion of whether life is more than the sum of its (natural) parts.

Note: I am not advocating any particular point of view; I'm just asking whether other viewpoints are allowed mention in this article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone who has been around Wikipedia for a while should be familiar with the notion of due and undue weight. Mention of religious belief has no place in this article. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So you're saying it's obvious that the scope of this article is limited by physical science? That doesn't make sense, because Outline of physical science refers to the study of "non-living systems, in contrast to the life sciences." Hence, my question.


 * I don't see what "undue weight" has to do with it. I'm trying to clarify for the readers what the scope of the article is. In my 10 years here, I've frequently found (and helped to correct) scoping problems. This looks like yet another one. Would you like to help me with it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am saying no such thing as "the scope of this article is limited by physical science." Setting up that straw man was something you just did on your own. Rhetorical shenanigans like that, along with your protestation that you are "just asking" leave me disinclined to engage you at all. Convince me of the depth of your knowledge in the life sciences, and I might change my mind, but for now I will go with "that which may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence." __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're not saying it has that limit, then, does this mean you don't object if I mention the lack of that limit in the article? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Empty word games are unsatisfying. Better to get consensus here before putting it in the article. Bring reliable sources. and show some depth of understanding of biology. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just Plain Bill - please distinguish between the 'beginning' and the further 'development' of living organisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.163.167 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a concrete suggestion for improving this article? This talk page is not a forum for discussing abiogenesis or evolution. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Protozoa
Protozoa are defined in wiki as "a diverse group of unicellular eukaryotic organisms". This doesn't seem to square with the definition of an organism given here: "all types of organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development" I can't see that protozoa, for example, would fit within this definition in terms of the normal meaning of growth and development.

It is clear from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism#Semantics that there are various definitions of the term organism, for instance some exclude viruses. In my opinion the article should refer to the various definitions and to the implications arising from each.

LookingGlass (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Evolution section
What follows the Universal Tree picture is a discussion of LUCA, the root of the tree of life, and the genetic code and doesn't really seem all that relevant to 'organism' to me. I do think a short paragraph about the origins of organisms might be appropriate with perhaps a link to history of life or tree or life or common descent or genetic code depending on what is said. But we should not just move this section elsewhere, because most of what is in this section is very controversial and some of it even conflicts with what is said in other parts of the article (for example, the universality of the code). I would say that LUCA is still the dominant paradigm in biology (for better or worse) and here it reads as though it is definitely refuted. There are many different ideas of LUCA. The cited article by Doolittle argues that there never was a single cell with a genome that had ancestral copies of every gene around today. This is not at all the same as saying there is no single cellular ancestor (which might still be true). Many (perhaps most?) still accept a single cellular LUCA (LGT doesn't obviously affect this - for example, Gogarten and others who accept massive LGT still talk about LUCA) and others (such as Woese) talk about LUCA as a population. A quick search shows a huge number of papers trying to determine the properties of LUCA, etc. As for the genetic code, the slight variability of the code has been used to argue that it must have evolved only once and not in parallel (identity might indicate it is the only possibility, but very similar but not identical indicates single source + evolution). Obviously some people like the author of this section think that is a bad argument, but that is interpretation, not encyclopedia fact. --Jdvelasc (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree, and notice that no-one has disagreed since this comment was written. The paragraph beginning "It is now clear that the genetic code is not the same in all living things ..." is referenced to one 1995 paper, and is not the consensus view; I can't find a single post-2005 paper which takes this view. So I am going to remove the entire paragraph. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)



organ is a group of tissues —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.195.69 (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Here, I have deleted a paragaph that seems to regard a the existence of a LUCA as necessary to there being "Tree of Life", a vague term of unclear relevance; is inosculation permitted? Unless the phrase is given a clear sense, I discourage its use. The paragraph also denies the existence of homologies among viruses, but there are surely shared characteristics that are very like homologies. Peter Brown (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

An innovative approach to the definition of 'organism' and 'life'
At present the first line of the definition of the Wikipedia page about what is an 'organism' suggests the following: "In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system, such as a vertebrate, insect, plant or bacterium. All known types of organism are capable of some degree of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development and self-regulation (homeostasis)." One can now try using the philosophical demand that a proper definition should always be separating between cases that do or that don't fit the definition. Moreover, a concise definition should not know exceptions, which implies that it must be able to deal with 'difficult cases'. If one analyses some of the concepts in the present definition of an organism (cited above) we encounter words such as 'contiguous', 'living', 'all known types of organisms are capable of some degree of response to etc.' Now one needs a proper definition of what is 'contiguous' and whether any contiguous thing is an organism. The use of that such a thing must be a 'living system' does not seem to solve the problem, because one now needs a definition of what is 'living'. In the discussion section of wikipedia about the definition of life, I have suggested that a circularity arises if Wikipedia indicates that organisms are living systems, and that living is defined as a property of organisms. On the same talk page a solution was suggested which starts with defining the concept of the organism first. In order to define what is an organism, a ranking is used of the structural complexity of unitary systems. This ranking is based on an innovative interpretation of the classical 'scala naturae', a 'ladder for complexity'. This novel ladder has been called the operator hierarchy. Based on the operator hierarchy, all the types of unitary systems, called operators, can be ranked. Next, a choice is made to indicate specifically those types of particles on the complexityladder that are minimally as complex as the cellular type of organisation as 'organisms'. In this way, the bacterial type, the endosymbiont/eukaryotic cell type, the bacterial multicellular type, the eukarytic multicellular type, and the neural network type of organisation (and all future more complex types of operators) are called 'organisms'. Based on this approach, an entity is an organism because it shows the properties that come with a specific level of complexity on the 'ladder' of the operator hierarchy. This results in the following suggestions for definitions: A bacterial cell is an operator and an organism as long as it can in principle realise autopoiesis based on its cell membrane and autocatalytic set of chemicals. An endosymbiontic/eukaryote cell is an operator and an organism as long as it can in principle realise autopoiesis based on the interaction between the host cell and the endosymbiont. A bacterial or eukarytoic multicellular organisation is an operator and an organism as long as it realises autopoiesis based on the cooperation between cells as defined by plasma strands. A neural network system is an operator and an organism as long as its dynamics allow it to survive based on a sensory interface and second order neural interactions. Based on this viewpoint it is no longer problematic to include in the definition of organism also frozen/dessicased organisms (such as dried bacteria or seeds). And it is neither problematic to include infertile organisms because these show the structural properties for survival (which is considered a sufficient condition). Of course, reproduction is necessary for multiplication and may lead to evolution, but these derived aspects can be viewed as being not of primary importance for a definition of the organism. Moreover, the fact that not every organism reproduces debunks the assumption that reproduction is a necessary condition for an organism.

More information about this innovative approach to defining what is an organism, and what is life, can be found on the following website: http://the-operator-theory.wikispaces.com/HOME, notably on the page about organism and life: http://the-operator-theory.wikispaces.com/Definition+of+life%2C+the+organism%2C+and+death On these pages you may also find lists of recent publications about the definition of life and organisms, e.g. in Foundations of Science, Biological Reviews, and in European Review.

I hope the above suggestions will contribute to the Wikipedia website, by offering innovative thoughts about how one can define what is an organism and what is life. Kind regards dr.dr. Gerard Jagers op Akkerhuis 81.207.79.153 (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What about dead organisms?
Does the definition ignore dead organisms by saying “contiguous living system”? Everything Is Numbers (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Even dead organisms are still living systems. A rotting body is still alive with decay.  Lova Falk     talk   12:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. That's good to know. Though maybe I should point out that the word “living” there links to the article life, which reads, “Life ... is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have ... from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death) or else because they ... are ... inanimate.” But I trust that this is not a big issue. Everything Is Numbers 21:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Calling a dead organism a living system, may well represent a big issue in the present context, because it causes a lot of confusion. As a solution the following suggestions may help. A dead organism may with preference be called a 'corpse'. A corpse is no longer an organism, even though it still has the appearence of its former organismic organisation. A corpse lacks the properties by which it can be recognised as an organism. As was indicated above, in the chapter on "An innovative approach to defining 'organism' and 'life'", a new scientific framework exists, called the Operator Hierarchy, that uses a modern 'ladder of complexity'(the steps on the ladder are based on the combination of closed structural and functional topology). With this approach, subsequent types of organisation can be ranked according to complexity, in a strict way, from quarks to organisms with brains. Using this ranking as a basis, it becomes possible to define what systems are organisms. For this purpose one selects only the systems in the Operator Hierarchy from the level of the bacterial organisation and higher. In the past years, this way of defining the organism has been discussed in a range of scientific papers. More information about this methodology can be found here: http://the-operator-theory.wikispaces.com/Definition+of+life%2C+the+organism%2C+and+death This novel approach may offer to Wikipedia a pathway toward a solution of the long standing and difficult problem of how to define what is an 'organism'. And after one has defined what is an organism (or more specifically, what system types (plural) can be indicated as different types of organisms), one can proceed with using this information as a basis for a definition of life. Kind regards, Gerard Jagers op Akkerhuis 137.224.252.10 (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Was there a universal ancestor?
This section, as it stands today, is not in accord with the article about the Last universal ancestor (LUA). The text seems to be highly POV, specifically taking the viewpoint of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. It seems that Intelligent Design requires that the LUA hypothesis fail. As it stands, this section promotes a pseudoscience. --Bejnar (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * After discussion at Talk:Last universal ancestor, I have changed this section to agree with the main article. --Bejnar (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Organism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5w9oPfm4a?url=http://shiva.msu.montana.edu/courses/mb437_537_2005_fall/docs/uprooting.pdf to http://shiva.msu.montana.edu/courses/mb437_537_2005_fall/docs/uprooting.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907081933/http://shiva.msu.montana.edu/courses/mb437_537_2004_fall/docs/uprooting.pdf to http://shiva.msu.montana.edu/courses/mb437_537_2004_fall/docs/uprooting.pdf
 * Added tag to http://opbs.okstate.edu/~melcher/MG/MGW3/MG334.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050119112427/http://www.sb-roscoff.fr/Ecophy/PDF/00-Fisher-NatWis.pdf to http://www.sb-roscoff.fr/Ecophy/PDF/00-Fisher-NatWis.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Organism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030624180658/http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/jpitocch/genbios/bi04syllabsu03.html to http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/jpitocch/genbios/bi04syllabsu03.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030629122745/http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/jpitocch/genbios/surveybi04.html to http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/jpitocch/genbios/surveybi04.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Vague reversion of a newbie
Here, you have reverted 72.4.31.83's very first edit with the hopelessly vague edit summary, "not adhering to manual of style". What happened to WP:Please do not bite the newcomers? The MoS is over 1200 words long, and most of its sections have either shortcuts or links to more specific articles which could have been cited in the edit summary of your reversion. So vague a justification is no better than no edit summary at all, though the standard is to provide one when reverting except when eliminating spam. While there are some problems with 72.4.31.83's edit (minimally, it is ungrammatical), it was clearly well-intentioned. Peter Brown (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * First, this discussion belongs on my talk page not here. While I agree the editor had good intensions I stand by my revert. Both the edit summary and the edit itself were blatantly grammatically incorrect. If the editor understands English grammar they should have proof read and corrected it. If they have such a poor grasp of it they really don't belong here. I'd like to thank you for contributions to Wikipedia and wish you a good day sir. - Samf4u (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Philogeny
I am not a native speaker, but IMHO it should be "Phylogeny" from greek "phylon" (stem), referring to the tree of life. It has nothing to do with "philo..." (love of...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.201.59.254 (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

✅ Plantdrew (talk)

Focus
The topic of this article is the organism, but the current text wanders off the concept of the organized individual into discussions of the cell, of classification and phylogeny and the history of life. In short it is poorly focused, perhaps by vague association with concepts like life, biology, cell, species, and indeed plant and animal. In addition, the most unfocused sections are very poorly cited, suggesting (un)original research and editorialising without the benefit of authoritative biological sources. The article needs radical pruning. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Composed of cells
I don't think all organisms are composed of cells is correct, unless you're allowing a cell to have more than one nucleus. For example, I was taught that fungi don't have cells, just hyphae containing multiple nuclei. But a fungus is still an organism. Musiconeologist (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * and do all organisms function as an individual? Perhaps the definition and the suitability of its source needs to be reconsidered. Plant surfer  20:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Removed, it does show exactly what the rest of the article argues, that attempts at simple all-encompassing definitions always go a bit wonky around the edges. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Musiconeologist's complaint is bizarre. Prokaryote cells don't have any nuclei. Fungal hyphae are typically described as cellular. Aseptate hyphae with many nuclei are "weird" (as are the multinucleate plasmodia of slime molds). Dikaryotic (septate) hyphae with exactly two nuclei per cell are also a little weird in the grand scheme of things. But "a cell is a thing with exactly one nucleus" is not a definition of a cell that is used.
 * I assume all organisms are composed of cells was intended to distinguish the topic of this article from non-cellular life (which primarily covers viruses and viroids). I don't know, maybe there's a whole literature I'm not aware of out there that parses the difference between organisms and (forms of) life. I am inclined to think of viruses as maybe being "organisms" (individual and lineages affected by evolution) but maybe not so much as "life" (having self contained metabolic/chemical processes working against entropy is a part of how I would define life). Plantdrew (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There's undoubtedly a whole lot wrong with the complaint. The attempt to delineate life-as-opposed-to-viruses is possibly attractive, but in several ways barking up the wrong tree, not much to do with organismality anyway (i.e. there is a cloud of woolly sheep in a fog -- life, organism, individual, cellular, ...) none of which throw much light on any of the others, but rather each seek definition by waving vaguely into other parts of the cloud). The cellular thing is not even seen as logically necessary: it just happens that that's how life-on-earth is, out of a total number of samples=1, i.e. we've no idea really. The rest of the article doesn't go into the cellular thing, and since being cellular is neither necessary nor sufficient for organismality, that's probably just as well. I suppose you could argue that being a single free-living cell makes you an organism... which leaves you having to decide if you're happy treating a spermatozoon as an organism, in that case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)