Talk:Pharyngula

Biology Low‑importance

	Biology portal Pharyngula is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Anatomy: Embryology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to embryology.

Animal anatomy Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Accuracy[edit]

What seems to be wrong with the controversy section? Lizz612 16:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cornerstone of creationist attacks on evolution. The wording of the paragraph probably could be considerably improved, IMHO.--Filll 16:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/the_politically_3.html -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Richardson article refered to which questions the validity of the phayngula stage is published in a peer reviewed journal. It's certainly not creationist propaganda. However, there are some serious critics of this work. PZ Myers, author of the blog pharyngula has some strong arguments against Richardson's work. These are linked to in external links on the page. Perhaps balance would be clearer if these links were moved into the Controversy section? Djs93 (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering developing this page further as part of an educational assignment in Fall of 2013. If someone else is also working on this, please send me a message and let me know soon, so we donʼt duplicate initial efforts in page development Pitpeelorchard (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article mentions the Hourglass Model which says that "embryogenesis diverges more extensively in the early and late stages than the middle stage". This should be elaborated. What about this step in embyrogenesis that causes the organisms to have so much in common. An article on scienceblogs.com gives some detail on why this is so. It says that at the pharyngula point, "global interactions dominate—molecules are working as gradients or chains of reactions across the whole of the embryo to stake out the general body plan." Genes are being activated in such a way that the whole animal topography is well conserved. The genes involved in this processes would be good to discuss as well. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/08/basics-the-pharyngula-stage/ Pitpeelorchard (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is problematic even aside of creationis/evolutionary/accuracy. I have heard of blastula, gastrula and neurula stages - these are well covered in any scientific book about developmental biology. The picture is similar to this one here: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-haeckel-evolutionary-biology-futuyma-1998.gif however had, Haeckel was a german, so it is unlikely that he used the wording "pharyngula". At least if anyone can tell me which word he used originally, I could look it up. But as it is, the article is rather useless. 84.112.136.52 (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]