Talk:Organism

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'

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)

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

"Bioceramics"

A sea shell is a good example of an organism that utilizes 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)

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.

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)

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

Main article: Ecosystem

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

Main articles: Biome and ecozone

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.

This may be a stupid question...

Is a human brain cell an organism? 128.146.46.2 (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2009 (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)