Talk:Morphogenetic field

message: Please discuss if you for some reason don't agree with the merging! 
:Well, morphogenetic fields are accepted by the scientific community, whilst morphogenetic fields (Rupert Shelldrake) are rightly ridiculed as nonsense. Such a merge would be like combining astrology with astrology astronomy. Jefffire 09:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Jefffire against a merge (though I presume the statement should read "...like combining astrology with astronomy"). Regardless of the position one has on Sheldrake's opinions, the two concepts are demonstrably different - enough so that two articles are appropriate. -- MarcoTolo 15:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Object to merge, per the section of WP:NPOV that says views held by tiny minority need not be covered at all. Odd nature 17:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (Oops. See my immediately following comment on identifying which proposal you mean.) No-one is proposing they are synonyms. The merge is explicitly recognizing the subset relation you mention. The existing article on Sheldrake's conception of morphogenetic fields already contains a considerable amount of information on the more general morphic fields which is necessary to explain the special subset which is morphogenetic field sensu Sheldrake. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 03:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (A different merge proposal?) Sloth_monkey, I think your comment may be mixing up two merge proposals. This section here is about a proposed merge of two articles dealing with two (unrelated, imo) conceptions of morphogenetic field; there is no proposal to merge this article here with morphic field. Your comment might be in relation to a different proposal, merging two articles, neither of which is this one here. See talk section of morphic field. Do have a read of the discussion first, please. My comment above was actually in relation to that other merge proposal. Sorry for any confusion. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 03:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (Whoops - this comment should be part of the Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake) into Morphic field discussion) - moving comment to Talk:Morphic_field#Merge with Morphogenetic field (Rupert_Sheldrake). As an example of a similar article structure, consider lacZ. lacZ is a structural gene, and a part of a larger genetic structure called the lac operon. lacZ redirects to the article lac operon - not because the two terms are synonymous (they're not), but because having a standalone lacZ page is not necessary: everything that can be said about lacZ fits nicely into the larger lac operon entry. This merger proposal is the same - not a suggestion that the two terms are equivalent, just that the sub-topic Morphogenetic field (per Sheldrake) can be accommodated as a (large) section of the Morphic field entry. -- MarcoTolo 03:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. That is why I directed sloth_monkey to the appropriate discussion area. If he still feels the same way after checking out that other merge proposal, he can and should say so. Let's not discuss it here, please. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 13:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As indicated, I think we have reached a fairly plain consensus against this merge; with no prospect of it being revived. I'm removing the flag indicating a proposed merge. -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging of the two morphogenetic field articles proposed

message: I am currently writing a new historical overview section. The existing reference to Turing and Thompson is not really appropriate; the ideas are much older. I am using the sources currently listed as a basis. The reference to Turing and Thompson seems to have been taken from the morphogenesis article, which might also stand a review. It could be that this article here should be kept fairly brief, with more of the technical material under morphogenesis. Comment from biologists particularly welcome! -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 03:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right - Turing and Thompson were a little late given that the MF concept was "in the air" in the 1920s. Which sources are you using for the re-write? Gilbert's stuff is usually pretty accessible - this might be a place to get some info (though I've only skimmed it). -- MarcoTolo 06:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a review focused more directly on MF itself, this paper by Gilbert, Opitz, and Raff has some good background and might be useful for "reference mining" as well. -- MarcoTolo 06:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been using a pile of papers I have been able to find and read, and now the historical section is up. I think this helps to clarify the whole concept a lot. -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical overview 

message: I've tried to re-write the intro using slightly more accessible sources (where "accessible" means either textbook sources, online sources, or both). While I think the concept is (slowly) becoming better explained, I'm afraid I may have been overly verbose. Suggestions on tightening-up the prose would be appreciated. -- MarcoTolo 05:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks pretty good. I've been slow putting up a historical introduction, which will help clarify further, I think. (Addendum. It's up.) -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work - the historical perspective is quite helpful. -- MarcoTolo 07:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  I'm pleased to see the progress which has transpired while I was looking elsewhere!  :-)  Anville 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro copyedits 

message: I just reverted the following addition by  to the "Historical development" section:
[NOTE: A Cell function can only be defined shape. This states that by communication between cells will enable the cell to cahnge it's shape. If this happens the Anti-bodies will hunt the mutated cell down and destroy the cell.]
If anyone can figure out what it's supposed to say, feel free to reinsert it with appropriate clarifications.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A Cell function can only be defined shape." 

message: I have rated this article as 'start' class.  It would be nice (for the general reader) if this article had a section on what the implications are for this idea.  As in, why does the average person care about this, what diseases or treatments might it relate to, what kind of research is being done, and so forth.  If memory serves, there was some very interesting work being done for aplastic anemia that is based on this understanding of cell development.  Also, if there is any opposition to this idea (I'm aware of none), then that should be mentioned.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comments

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Morphogenetic field. 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  tag to http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/contents.php?vol=41&issue=6&doi=9449452
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609062554/http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=3&id=18 to http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=3&id=18
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) 21:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)