Talk:Mosaic (genetics)

message: This may be an ignorant question... but wouldn't cancer be a mosaic? Since it's a population of cells that have mutated... it seems to follow the definition.
:Uh, semantically you are right, but noone ever describes cances as a mosaic. It sorta presumes the mutations are spread evenly over the organism. JFW | T@lk 17:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, when you think about it, it is all a continuum.  How different is different enough to draw the line and call it a mosaic?  You could, in principle, call any situation in which there are mutated or mixed cells a mosaic.  In my opinion it isn't so much that it has to be spread across the organism (though in natural occurrences it often is), but it is usually more defined than it is in cancer.  With cancer you rarely have a simple mix of defined genetic backgrounds.  A mosaic is usually a mix between two (or a small number) stable genotypes.  Michael James Boyle 16:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: question about cancer

message: "...there are cases where la, la, la, la, la, la, la, ala the trisomy only occurs..."
Something tells me this is not quite up to Wiki standards?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.163.131.149 (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. That was your run-off-the-mill vandalism, and has since been fixed. Thanks. The brave men and women who defend the Wiki can't get everything, so if you see further instances of blatant vandalism, feel free to fix it. --Kizor 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs Edit

message: I am going to move it down, it just looks too freaky to be up there.Miagirljmw14 (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  spider picture 

message: Although it is a rare condition, would it be appreaciated if I add information on (human) mosaicism (turner mosaicism) on this page? I've authered a couple of articles on intersexuality. Seemed only logic to reveal about turner mosaicism somewhere...  07:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information on Turner mosaicism 

message: Does Wikipedia just simply not have any staff whose job is not so much to police the knowledge presented in the articles against the external world for factual accuracy but, rather, to police the content of an article against other content in the same article? I know nothing about mosaicism (hey, guess what? If I KNEW something about it I wouldn't have come HERE to read UP on it, now would I?) so I can't say that the first sentence in the article (which requires a mosaic organism to develop from a single fertilized egg) is false. Or true. Similarly I can't say that the later sentence beginning with "Another form of somatic mosaicism is chimerism, ..." which allows for a mosaic organism to develop from more than one fertilized egg by fusing together is false. Or true.
But I STILL know they can't BOTH be true. At least ONE of them has to be false. Do I really have to find an authority for this before I can criticize the article on these grounds? What authority would I cite? An authority on logic? An authority on whether words mean the things they mean or not? I'm admitting I know nothing. I have no sources. All I know is that the article says two things that contradict each other. At least one of them has to be false. Okay, everyone, now pile on the accusations that I'm doing original research or am using Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia (because each of the sentences above is the source that contradicts the other one). I've found an inadequacy in these pages, so do what EVERY mature adult does when they've been found inadequate: attack the non-scholarly profession, standing, qualifications, and ethics of the person alleging the inadequacy. At all costs avoid addressing the inadequacy at face value, adamantly refuse to do anything to REMOVE the inadequacy (or even admit that it exists) and NEVER NEVER NEVER admit that one of those two sentences is wrong. I expect nothing less from these pages.69.86.131.76 (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See reply to following complaint. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two contradictory sentences 

message: But in reading this, I can't help but to say that unless you click every link and then every correlating link in those links... laymen will not be able to understand a word of what is being said here as the context of the topic is assuming that we already know and understand what each of these scientific terms mean. 
Wikipedia is not just for the super intelligent and while i have the patience to sort through this and click the links until I learn what is being said, I came to this topic to find out what a basic definition for a Mosaic was and didn't have the time for this. 
Can someone offer a better basic summation of the topic for laymen to understand it's meaning as the purpose of Wikipedia is for anyone of any educational background to read the topics and gain a basic understanding of the subject matter. If you talk beyond the normal intelligence level, then this topic is meaningless to most who will have need for the information. Give us a basic summation at the top and if we need further information, then we can look further. We need a better, more mainstream introduction to inform laymen of the material for which this topic is developed. Armorbeast (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Admittedly, this is not the best of articles. However:
#The whole point of hypertext is that an article does not stand alone: it is part of a collection of linked articles. So, yes, you do need to check the links! The parts of your body need all the other parts, and the bits of a complex science also need each other. And it does take time and patience to learn any science. 
#Wikipedia articles improve incrementally. Much that was rubbish at the start is now quite good. This will get better, for sure. All the same, it is shocking that the article did not mention the work which discovered the phenomenon. I have corrected this (see intro). Also, you might consult the Simple English version .
#We don't -- and can't -- have experts on every topic. Collectively, we do have what it takes to improve any page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This may sound stupid...