Talk:Introduction to genetics

message: Explanation: Some animals have red hair as a dominant trait.
By specifying "in humans" The explanation would avoid possible confusions.
(I'd change it but I don't know how to change the text below images.)--Teuf0rt (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Change "Red hair is a recessive trait." To "Red hair is a recessive trait in humans"

message: Encyclopedia Britannica itself, our gold standard in encyclopediae, has 5 or 6 different levels of articles. I have no problem with extended teaching materials in Wikiversity and wikibooks. However, I think there is a place for shorter more accessible articles here of an introductory nature. 
We do not have 5 or 6 levels like EB, but only 3 (Simple Wikipedia, introductory articles and main articles). This is a major goal of Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible and has resulted in several other introductory articles: :Category:Introductions has the list. 
The more accessible we make our material, the better, as far as I am concerned. The more ways we present of doing this, the better.--Filll 19:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Amen to that. We have an advantage as an online encyclopedia and we should ensure that we use that to our advantage. We are more flexible and readily changeable. We can adapt easily and evolve efficiently. So even if Encyclopedia Britannica didn't do it themselves, we should! It makes this resource that much more accessible to people. And thats what wikipedia is all about isn't it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.40.74 (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why have introductory articles 

message: :simple:Genetics - It's a good start - perhaps even better than this one - but Punnet squares refuse to appear overnight without my input. *sigh* Adam Cuerden talk 18:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple English Wikipedia is not to make everything easy to understand for non-technical Wikipedians. Simple English Wikipedia, as has been stated multiple times on its pages, is for people who don't understand English, not for people who don't understand the technicalities of a subject. Read the purposes, people. --Heero Kirashami (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite correct. Many of our readers (probably most) do read and understand English at some level. We do try to simplify the English, and in some areas the content also, or rather the expression of the content. Our genetics article takes an historical approach because that is a good route into a subject that many readers will not have been formally taught. If I can comment as an author, I found the main difficulty was the interface with cell biology, which has so vastly expanded in recent years. It's an open question as to whether genetics and cell biology should be taught together or separately in universities today. I must look around for sources on viral genetics, because that has been so much in the news. We don't really cater for it on Simple English: previously no-one would have dreamt of teaching it at school level. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple English Wikipedia 

message: I've started a discussion on the Genetics Wikiproject talk: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Genetics#Introduction_to_Genetics considering whether this article should exist (compared to the current Genetics article, which is FA), and asking if anyone has a clear idea on what to do with it. If you're watching this page and are interested in the article, please chime in! Thanks! Madeleine ✉ ✍ 06:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article exist? 

message: Please post reviews below, I'm particularly interested in pieces of the article that are hard to understand or assume too much prior knowledge. Thanks to everybody who can contribute. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim, your note on the [Village pump] was an excellent idea. Nbauman (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not drawing any traffic. I'm going to leave another note. Nbauman (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read it. It's about as simple as Genetics is going to get, good job. The only slightly complicated part is the inheritance, but I don't know any way you could explain it better. It's a complicated subject, after all. Matriak (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is, which is easier to understand: the current version or the original version before it was challenged in the RFD and completely rewritten? Nbauman (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews and comments

message: Hi all
excellent work btw !
just a couple of major points i would like ppls opinions on.
At the moment the line 
"The way genetics and environment interact to produce a trait can be complicated:"
this seems to imply that the environment has an effect on the production of the trait whereas i believe a more accurate line would be
"The way genetics and environment interact to affect a trait can be complicated:"
it is also my belief that this still does not accurately show that a trait is in fact an inherited DNA function and NOT affected by environment, simply that the trait can be overridden by environment. It does not matter if your family has a history of heart disease and you live in a high fat environment, put that same person in a low fat environment and the risk of heart attack is suddenly greatly decreased - however the trait for heart attack due to arythmia (for example) is still present. This environment does not remove the trait, it simply masks it.
in the section Genes and Inheritance
"You can think of this process like mixing two hands of cards, shuffling them, and then dealing them out again." - perhaps this could be changed to express more fully the function (or simply removed) ?
"You can think of this process like a pack of cards. The mother has hearts and clubs, the father spades and diamonds. When we reproduce the father gives one set and the mother one set. This means that the child could have Hearts and spades, hearts and diamonds, clubs and spades or clubs and diamonds." this also gives an introduction into basic phenotype classing  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.111.33 (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed changes 

message: If the gene coding for brown eyes is dominant over the one coding for green eyes how can there be people with greenish-brown eyes?
2009-07-24  Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What you have described would be a single gene with codominant alleles.  It's actually much more complex than that.  There are multiple genes in different chromosomal locations that affect eye color, hair color, and skin color in humans.    See OMIM for a discussion of the various genes involved. Agathman (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The heritability of eye colours 

message: Another possibility is to simply move or copy this article to Wikiversity.  Wikiversity is the place to gain technical knowledge about a variety of subjects.  One advantage of placing this article at Wikiversity instead of here, is that people who would like to increase their level of expertise on genetics would be able to actually discuss the subject with Wikiversity's mentors.  I'm guessing that some people who would go here for a less technical overview of genetics might also need the support network provided by WV.  --AFriedman (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to copy the content, there is nothing stopping you as the licenses are compatible. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should have been deleted, or at the least transwikied per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 03:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy to Wikiversity?

message: I've noticed that on the lead section, the words "fail to" cross onto the top left corner of the glossary box. It looks a bit awkward, honestly. Does anyone know a way to get the words off of the glossary box? (I'm still learning how Wikipedia works, so any advice and help would be much appreciated.) The Unraveling Spool of Thread (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. That isn't how it appears on my computer. What screen resolution are you using? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A Minor Issue

message: For the most part, this article does an excellent job describing the basics of genetics.  However, this paragraph (currently the third paragraph in the introduction) is factually incorrect:
Some traits are inherited through our genes, so tall and thin people tend to have tall and thin children; such traits which result due to inheritance alone are called genotypes. Other traits come from interactions between our genes and the environment, so a child might inherit the tendency to be tall, but if they are poorly nourished, they will still be short; such traits which are manifested due to the combined action of inherited genes and environmental circumstances are called phenotypes.
This paragraph describes genotype as "traits inherited through genes" (paraphrased) and phenotype as "traits due to the interaction of genes and environment." (again paraphrased.)  This is flat-out incorrect; see the relevant pages for genotype and phenotype for the correct definitions.
That the environment and genes interact to produce phenotype is described in paragraph two; the actual terms "genotype" and "phenotype" are introduced and described in the subsequent section "Genes and inheritance."  Thus, the relevant topics are well-covered elsewhere, so I will delete this paragraph.  Feel free to discuss this change here.
Luceth (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genotype vs Phenotype 

message: I have occasionally heard that bacteria have hundreds of genes and vertebrates tens of thousands. Should the article address the question of how genes may be counted?Jim.henderson (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many? 

message: You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of  Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by  suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the  Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations list useful for updating this article and related articles 

message: (Disclaimer: this is my first participation in any talk page; and w/r G.E. I am a only lay person who's done a little reading.) "Other genes that can be put into crops include a natural insecticide from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis." This says that the relevant gene is an insecticide that comes from a bacteria. (Minor: bacteria -> bacterium.) What I believe it should say is that a gene from a bacterium produces or creates or makes (a protein that is) an insecticide. In sum, I suggest something like: Another gene being put into some crops comes from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis; the gene makes a protein that is an insecticide.  Brec (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a distinction worth making in the article. Thanks for your attention to detail. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem sentence re G.E. Bt gene 

message: Hi. The article chromosome sends readers here for an introduction to the topic (of chromosomes), but this article actually makes no mention of that topic. Problemo! Howunusual (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Above "Problemo" fixed 1 year and 11 days later!: see revised Lead. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chromosomes 

message: Substituted at 19:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Since 2015, there are many advances in the understanding of DNA and genetics that are not yet reflected here or in the main article.
A short, non-comprehensive list:
# DNA has two codes embedded in its information; the protein codons, and a meta-code for expression and control.
# There are 22 known amino acids that can be encoded in DNA (e.g. pyrrolysine (?sp) can be coded by the amber stop codon)
# Portions of the DNA can be transcribed to several different classes of RNA, not just messenger RNA for protein making. There are promoter RNAs, interfering RNAs, etc.
# Gametes are not just egg and sperm, there are a number of different forms of sexual exchange.
# Not all DNA is found in chromosomes. Chromosomes are a feature of eukaryotic cells, bacteria and archaea have other DNA forms.
# DNA methylation and other chemical ligations control promoter and stop codon recognition.
# genes may contain introns and exons that need to be edited and spliced before use.
# much has been learned about DNA damage and repair that needs an introductory mention.
# mutations are often "single nucleotide point" mutations [SNPs] that should be mentioned.
I will endeavor to make simple explanatory expansions within the freamwork of the existing article. I wanted to see if there are suggestions or comments before doing so.
Redwolfe (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent advances in genetics not reflected here 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Introduction to genetics. 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/20080526034018/http://www.med.umich.edu/opm/newspage/2003/kidheight.htm to http://www.med.umich.edu/opm/newspage/2003/kidheight.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429042057/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_What_are_the_risk_factors_for_breast_cancer_5.asp to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_What_are_the_risk_factors_for_breast_cancer_5.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080210023634/http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/basics/tour/ to http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/basics/tour
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515113857/http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/disorders/mutations/ to http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/disorders/mutations/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527163721/http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIMechanisms.shtml to http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIMechanisms.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527163711/http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIICGeneticvariation.shtml to http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIICGeneticvariation.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080804214137/http://museum.thetech.org/ugenetics/eyeCalc/eyecalculator.html to http://museum.thetech.org/ugenetics/eyeCalc/eyecalculator.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) 20:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Just to the right of that beautiful rotating gif appears the phrase "In the case of a daughter with alleles for both red and brown hair..." I honestly don't know exactly what one has to do with the other. My possibly incorrect understanding is that an allele is an example of a nucleotide and the nucleotides are the bars that hold the two backbones together. So my question is: Where in this gif would I find the daughter's B allele, her b allele, and her Bb genotype? I gather from the first few comments on this talk page that this is an introductory article, so perhaps my question is fair game.
Page Notes (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Genes and inheritance section 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Introduction to DNA and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 3#Introduction to DNA until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Introduction to DNA" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Components of the double-helix are not described clearly in Wikipedia, especially in the technical articles.  In a desperate search for a clear identification of the nucleotides, I found in the Genes and inheritance section here: nucleotides are identified as "plate-like units in the center".  Can we please use a spiral staircase analogy for the double-helix and say the nucleotides are the steps in the spiral staircase?  Another point of confusion in this section is in the Punnett square.  Capital "B" is used for the brown allele, so can we please use lower case "r" for the red allele, instead of "b"? Rtdrury (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarity in the Genes and inheritance section 

message: The definitions in the respective Wikipedia pages do not appear to differ between genotype and genome. This is also evident in most definitions I found. Is there a difference? Clarification would help - and perhaps a mention in the Introduction to Genetics article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_genetics).
“The genotype of an organism is its complete set of genetic material”(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype). There is a somewhat different definition of genotype from the NHGRI at NIH (https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/genotype).
“a genome is all the genetic information of an organism” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome).
It would also be informative to discuss the genetic information of the entire population of an organism. Does it have a name? How many more genes are present in the population of an organism than in a single individual? Presumably unknown but the current academic thoughts (or lack of) would be interesting. QuietJohn (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genome, genotype and genes of an entire population