Talk:Homology (biology)

message: The Sequence homology section is becoming as long and richly structured as the rest of the article put together, so I propose we split it out as a new article in its own right (currently, Sequence homology redirects here), leaving behind a "main" link and a short summary. It isn't badly cited but there are paragraphs lacking links that would benefit from such. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I've boldly gone and split the article out, leaving a linked summary in the article body, and a paragraph in the lead. There's much to tweak at both ends of the link. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work . A paper worth referencing in the sequence homology section here: Inkpen,S.A. and Doolittle,W.F. (2016) Molecular Phylogenetics and the Perennial Problem of Homology. J. Mol. Evol., 1–9. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! By the logic of the split, we'd write about it in the other article, and then (if it was a big enough point) briefly mention it here also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Sequence homology

message: The criticism section is VERY poorly referenced, original research and should be removed, User:WilliamJamesHerath who has a conflict of interest is edit warring to include it against consensus. Theroadislong (talk)
:A better way of describing it is "embarassingly bad" and "indicating a total lack of knowledge of anything that's happened in the past 40 years of evolutionary developmental biology".  The paragraph of confirmation bias is literally nothing but a baseless assertion with zero evidence, the second paragraph suggests that he doesn't even understand the definition on homology as he clearly confuses it with homoplasy (which is literally the exact opposite phenomenon), and his characterization of DeBeer's work is ignorant of literally the past 40 years of evo-devo which perfectly address these questions.   User:WilliamJamesHerath is clearly ignorant of such fundamental concepts as Hox genes, segmental homology, ectopic expression, gene duplication, signalling proteins, Turing patterns, and immunohistochemistry. User:WilliamJamesHerath, if you genuinely want to learn about this topic, read "From DNA to Diversity" and "Endless Forms Most Beautiful", both by Sean Carroll.  But right now your level of knowledge and reasoning is painfully, embarrassingly ignorant of so much science that it's like listening to a flat-earth believer. HCA (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm glad it's been removed as it was point-of-view pushing "original research"—utterly lacking in either originality or knowledge of research, but that's by the by. The section added nothing to the article and did not belong in it. If its author had taken the trouble to look up what is known of the subject, he would have discovered some of the evidence described in the rest of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Can you create section name 'Homologous organs', so it will be easy to find someone. AlistairMcMilan (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  If I am not wrong, can you create new section ? 

message: Hello,
I have been working with paleontologists recently and was informed the illustration titled "The Cretaceous snake Pachyrhachis problematicus had hind legs (circled)." on this page actually depicts a Eupodophis. I made the change on Wikimedia Commons but am now trying to alert users of the image on Wikipedia so they may correct the mistake. FYI (to help rename without losing content) both Eupodophys and Pachyrhachis had hind legs, the main differences lie in the shape of the head.--Flor WMCH (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistaken illustration