Talk:Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 7, 2022. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abiogenesis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 90 days

Abiogenesis received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on February 2009 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Some users have noted that many of these questions should be included in the text of Abiogenesis. The reason for their exclusion is discussed below.

The main points of this FAQ (Talk:Abiogenesis#FAQ) can be summarized as:

The occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, and there is ongoing research and competing hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.
Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis.
It is against Wikipedia policy for views without scientific support, such as all known objections to abiogenesis, to be included in a science article like Abiogenesis.

More detail is given on each of these points, and other common questions and objections, below.

To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why won't you add criticisms or objections to abiogenesis in the Abiogenesis article?

A1: Our policies on Wikipedia, in particular WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, require us to provide coverage to views based on their prominence within reliable sources, and we must reflect the opinion of the scientific community as accurately as possible. While there are scientific objections to hypotheses concerning abiogenesis, general objections to the overall concept of abiogenesis are largely found outside of the scientific community, for example, in religious literature and is not necessary to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate, per WP:NECESSARY. There are articles covering some of those religious views, including Objections to evolution, Creationism and Creation myth, but we cannot provide significant weight to religious opinions within a science article, per our policies.

Q2: Why is abiogenesis described as though it's a fact? Isn't abiogenesis just a theory?

A2: A "theory" in science is different than a "theory" in everyday usage. When scientists call something a theory, they are referring to a scientific theory, which is an explanation for a phenomenon based on a significant amount of data. Abiogenesis is a phenomenon scientists are trying to explain by developing scientific theories. While there isn't one unifying theory of abiogenesis, there are several principles and competing hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred, which are detailed in the article. Wikipedia describes the phenomenon of abiogenesis as a fact because the reliable sources from the peer-reviewed scientific literature describe it as a fact.

Compare it with the theory of gravity, by Isaac Newton. It explains how gravity works, and it was superseded when Albert Einstein provided a more complete explanation. That doesn't mean that the factual existence of gravity was ever held in doubt.

Q3: But isn't abiogenesis unproven?

A3: The scientific evidence is consistent with and supports an origin of life out of abiotic conditions. No chemical, biological or physical law has been discovered that would prevent life from emerging. Clearly, abiogenesis happened, because life exists. The other option is that life is a product of a supernatural process, but no evidence to support this has been published in reliable sources. There is plenty of evidence that nearly all the components of a simple cell can and do form naturally, but it has not yet been shown how molecules eventually formed self-replicating protocells and under what environmental conditions.

Q4: Abiogenesis is controversial, so why won't you teach the controversy?

A4: Abiogenesis is not controversial according to the reliable, published sources within the scientific community. Also, see Question 1.

Abiogenesis is, at best, only controversial in social areas like politics and religion. Indeed, numerous respectable scientific societies, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences, have issued statements denouncing creationism and/or ID.^[1] In 1987, only about 0.15% of American Earth and life scientists supported creationism.^[2]

Thus, as a consequence of Wikipedia's policies, it is necessary to treat abiogenesis as mainstream scientific consensus. Besides panspermia, there are no scientifically supported "alternatives" for this view.

Q5: Has abiogenesis ever been observed?

A5: No. How this happened is still conjectural, though no longer purely speculative.

Q6: How could life arise by chance?

A6: Based on the cited peer-reviewed scientific research, it is thought that once a self-replicating gene emerged as a product of natural chemical processes, life started and gradual evolution of complexity was made possible – in contrast to the sudden appearance of complexity that creationists claim to have been necessary at the beginning of life. Life did not happen just because there were huge intervals of time, but because a planet has a certain range of environments where pre-biotic chemistry took place. The actual nature of the first organisms and the exact pathways to the origin of life may be forever lost to science, but scientific research can at least help us understand what is possible.

Past discussions

For further information, see the numerous past discussions on these topics in the archives of Talk:Abiogenesis:

The article is not neutral. It doesn't mention that abiogenesis is controversial.

The article should mention alternative views prominently, such as in a criticism section.

Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 1#ADD TITLE

Abiogenesis is just a theory, not a fact.

There is scientific evidence against abiogenesis.

Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 1#ADD TITLE

References

^ See List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design.
^ As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. Earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." See also Public beliefs about evolution and creation, Robinson, B. A. 1995. for a discussion on acceptance of evolution.

Evolutionary biology Top‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biology High‑importance

	Biology portal Abiogenesis 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology High‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology High‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Abiogenesis is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Complaints about the lack of young Earth creationism, intelligent design, or similar points of view are inappropriate content for this talk page. For an overview of how Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy applies to creationism or young Earth-related topics, please see the FAQ at Talk:Evolution.

Text and/or other creative content from Origin of life was copied or moved into Abiogenesis. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

On 1 July 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Origin of life. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Theories stated as facts[edit]

I'm not trying to help the creationist vandals of this article, but this article opens with a statement about how abiogenesis occured. Andndoes so as if the explanation given is a statement of fact and not just a statement of one of any different theories of abiogenesis. That's all I wanted to add. Even abiogensis is theoretical, but it's being treated as observed fact. 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:67 (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have in mind that "theory" does not have the same meaning in everyday talk and in scientific talk. In science, Abiogenesis is accepted as a fact (even if we say that life started on Venus or Mars and then moved here by panspermia, it would have still started there, and the road from non-living to life would still be Abiogenesis). A theory in science is not a dubious fact, but an explanation of the precise way something happened. Cambalachero (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a "theory" in the same sense as "theory of evolution", "cell theory of life", or for that matter "gene theory". There is no doubt among biologists that life works in these ways, however revisable all theories are in, er, theory. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP is clearly using Theory in the sense of unproven but educated assumptions, not hard facts. The wording should be changed to reflect that it is theory. Criticisms of this theory include how entropy had to decrease a long way before biological processes would let it increase again. As well as how such complex genomes came to be so fast from nothing but free floating, individual bases. 2405:6580:D420:5C00:483D:F518:3E09:635D (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funny call creationists vandals when abiogenesis is only speculation and pseudoscience because it was never replicated in laboratory. 87.1.32.122 (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a usual thing to clarify, I started the essay Wikipedia:Theory, to define in a few words concepts like "theory", "hypothesis", "fact", "law", etc, how they relate to each other and the differences between each of them. The Wikipedia article is fine, but it may be a bit too complex for that, and the comparison of scientific ideas would be a bit out of place. Cambalachero (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's already in the FAQ at the top of this talk page: Q2. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protomembrane molecules produced in hydrothermal vents?[edit]

Possibly worthy studies? => On 10 January 2024, chemists reported studies finding that long-chain fatty acids were produced in ancient hydrothermal vents. Such fatty acids may have contributed to the formation of the first cell membranes that are fundamental to protocells and the origin of life.^[1]

References

^ Purvis, Graham; et al. (10 January 2024). "Generation of long-chain fatty acids by hydrogen-driven bicarbonate reduction in ancient alkaline hydrothermal vents". Communications Earth & Environment. 5 (30). doi:10.1038/s43247-023-01196-4. Archived from the original on 13 January 2024. Retrieved 13 January 2024.

Drbogdan (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DrB, this is one of an infinite chain of ever more minor aliphatic detail. The key point, which was already evident, is that such molecules were available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Book "How Life Works" (2023) worth considering?[edit]

A review by scientist Denis Noble of a new book entitled "How Life Works: A User’s Guide to the New Biology" (2023) by Philip Ball (editor of the journal Nature) may be worth considering?^[1] - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Noble, Denis (5 February 2024). "Book Review of "How Life Works: A User's Guide to the New Biology" by Philip Ball, Pan Macmillan (2023) - It's time to admit that genes are not the blueprint for life - The view of biology often presented to the public is oversimplified and out of date. Scientists must set the record straight, argues a new book". Nature. 626: 254–255. doi:10.1038/d41586-024-00327-x. Archived from the original on 5 February 2024. Retrieved 5 February 2024.

Drbogdan (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds an interesting book, relevant to Biological determinism and perhaps other articles. The review doesn't mention the origin of life so can't say whether it has any relevance here; and "in any case" it's just a former Nature editor's opinion. I find Ball's books (such as on Patterns in nature) always informative and thoughtful. The reviewer Denis Noble is a physiologist with a chip on his shoulder about the excessive dominance of one of Tinbergen's four questions – Phylogeny (evolution) in biological discourse, arguing, surprise surprise, that another of the four, Mechanism (physiology), is grossly undervalued... Whatever Ball says about the origin of life, I'll hazard a guess that Mechanism is advocated. I'll finish by observing that the Abiogenesis article already gives Mechanism quite a strong crack of the whip, not least describing theories based on the "free" energy from white smokers, where the proto-organisms were able to exploit this energy even before they had DNA, ribosomes, and synthesized enzymes to implement Phylogeny along with Mechanism. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Life Began in a Shallow Lake?[edit]

Recent studies^[1]^[2] seem to support the hypothesis that life may have begun in a shallow lake rather than otherwise - perhaps somewhat like a "warm little pond" originally proposed by Charles Darwin? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Horn-Muller, Ayurella (17 February 2024). "A shallow lake in Canada could point to the origin of life on Earth". CNN. Archived from the original on 17 February 2024. Retrieved 17 February 2024.
^ Haas, Sebastion; et al. (9 January 2024). "Biogeochemical explanations for the world's most phosphate-rich lake, an origin-of-life analog". Communications Earth & Environment. 5 (28). doi:10.1038/s43247-023-01192-8. Archived from the original on 17 February 2024. Retrieved 17 February 2024.

Drbogdan (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Abiogenesis section 7.2.2 Temperate surface bodies of water. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic dust particles spread life to Earth - and elsewhere?[edit]

New studies (2/18/2024)^[1]^[2] seem to provide support for the notion that panspermia may have been a way that life began on Earth? - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gough, Evan (18 February 2024). "Life Spreads Across Space on Tiny Invisible Particles, Study Suggests". ScienceAlert. Archived from the original on 18 February 2024. Retrieved 18 February 2024.
^ Osmanov, Z.N. (7 February 2024). "The possibility of panspermia in the deep cosmos by means of the planetary dust grains". arxiv. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2402.04990. Archived from the original on 18 February 2024. Retrieved 18 February 2024.

Drbogdan (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some people had a heavy night's drinking and some loose chat at a cosmology conference? Seriously, there's nothing new here. There's no suggestion cells could survive on dust impacting Earth's atmosphere – the results are predictably fiery. Could chemicals arrive? Sure, they do that all the time, as the article already accepts; but a wide range of organic molecules were certainly synthesized by processes on the early Earth, as the article also discusses, so the panspermo-dustio-chemo-theory brings precisely nothing to the table. Sorry but we can do better than this, and it's a waste of time on the talk page, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: (and others) - Thank You *very much* for your comments re this and all related discussions above - they're *all* greatly appreciated - and very worthwhile imo - Yes - *entirely* agree - you may be *completely* right about all this of course - but to rule out such notions fully may not be the better road - viable materials hidden away deep within such cosmic dust particles (or even some particles somewhat larger - or even a lot larger) may continue to be a possible way of distributing such (LUCA-related?) materials throughout the cosmos I would think - there may be other ways (maybe not yet thought about for one reason or another) as well - I would think a miniscule amount of such material (maybe even a single reproducible molecule?) may be sufficient to start the entire process going if settled in a life-friendly location within the universe - with an estimated 10²⁴ stars and Earthlike planets in the observable universe,^[1]^[2]^[3] there may be an astronomical amount of life-friendly locations available - to and fro so-to-speak - in any case - Thanks again for all your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, panspermia simply means "abiogenesis upon another planet". tgeorgescu (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - life either began de novo on Earth - or started elsewhere - and was transported to Earth by panspermia - that's ultimately the concern of many these days I would think - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither I nor (more importantly) the article "rule it out completely". My point was and is that the article covers the subject already; further, it's more than adequately treated in the subsidiary articles on panspermia and pseudo-panspermia. Already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: - re: "rule it out completely" - sorry - my phrase was intended to be academic, and not at all otherwise - seems my wording could have been better - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First we should determine with some certainty that Mars, Venus, or perhaps the Moon were habitable and had life in the past. Then we may discuss panspermia, if life migrated from one of those celestial bodies to Earth, or the other way. Otherwise, talking about it is like discussing the sex of angels. Panspermia can not work from one planetary system to the next, simply because of the distances and times involved. Let's assume that there was a planet with life in the Alpha Centauri planetary system, the one closest to us, and a meteorite is ejected from it, with some of its local life on it. And let's assume that it's not just any life, but one of those extremophiles who can survive in really harsh conditions. And let's assume that they survive the planetary ejection. And let's assume that they have enough protection to survive the conditions of outer space. Yes, I know, too many assumptions (and that means, too many factors that may not go as desired). Well, even if by some miracle that meteorite heads in the direction towards us, it would take it tens of thousands of years to arrive... and what kind of life could survive that long? Cambalachero (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambalachero: (and others) - Thank You for your *excellent* comments - panspermia seems unlikely based on your comments of course - but panspermia - in the form of forward contamination from Earth - may have already occurred in fact - after all - one example (there may be others - maybe many others?) is that Tersicoccus phoenicis, a bacterium which resists sterilization, was not cleaned from devices sent into space - and may currently be on planet Mars (and elsewhere?) - further - seems humans are really, really filled with microorganisms^[4] which suggests that where humans (or their devices) end up in space, so too do other life forms - panspermia may be easier than some may think - and life, like water, may find a way, so-to-speak - and may have found such a way much earlier in the history of Earth as well - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That may happen, yes, but again, wait until we find life on Mars before discussing if it's native life, natural or artificial panspermia. Otherwise, there's no point to it. Besides, this is the talk page of the article about abiogenesis, and that scenario would have nothing to do with it. Cambalachero (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Staff (2020). "How many stars are there in the Universe?". European Space Agency. Archived from the original on 17 January 2020. Retrieved 18 February 2024.
^ Mackie, Glen (1 February 2002). "To see the Universe in a Grain of Taranaki Sand". Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing. Archived from the original on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 28 January 2017.
^ Mack, Eric (19 March 2015). "There may be more Earth-like planets than grains of sand on all our beaches - New research contends that the Milky Way alone is flush with billions of potentially habitable planets -- and that's just one sliver of the universe". CNET. Archived from the original on 1 December 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2024.
^ Kolata, Gina. "In Good Health? Thank Your 100 Trillion Bacteria". Archived from the original on 4 December 2023. Retrieved 22 February 2024.

[1] See List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design.

[2] As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. Earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." See also Public beliefs about evolution and creation, Robinson, B. A. 1995. for a discussion on acceptance of evolution.

[CEE-20240110-3] Purvis, Graham; et al. (10 January 2024). "Generation of long-chain fatty acids by hydrogen-driven bicarbonate reduction in ancient alkaline hydrothermal vents". Communications Earth & Environment. 5 (30). doi:10.1038/s43247-023-01196-4. Archived from the original on 13 January 2024. Retrieved 13 January 2024.

[NAT-20240205-4] Noble, Denis (5 February 2024). "Book Review of "How Life Works: A User's Guide to the New Biology" by Philip Ball, Pan Macmillan (2023) - It's time to admit that genes are not the blueprint for life - The view of biology often presented to the public is oversimplified and out of date. Scientists must set the record straight, argues a new book". Nature. 626: 254–255. doi:10.1038/d41586-024-00327-x. Archived from the original on 5 February 2024. Retrieved 5 February 2024.

[CNN-20240217-5] Horn-Muller, Ayurella (17 February 2024). "A shallow lake in Canada could point to the origin of life on Earth". CNN. Archived from the original on 17 February 2024. Retrieved 17 February 2024.

[NAT-20240109-6] Haas, Sebastion; et al. (9 January 2024). "Biogeochemical explanations for the world's most phosphate-rich lake, an origin-of-life analog". Communications Earth & Environment. 5 (28). doi:10.1038/s43247-023-01192-8. Archived from the original on 17 February 2024. Retrieved 17 February 2024.

[SA-20240218-7] Gough, Evan (18 February 2024). "Life Spreads Across Space on Tiny Invisible Particles, Study Suggests". ScienceAlert. Archived from the original on 18 February 2024. Retrieved 18 February 2024.

[ARX-0240207-8] Osmanov, Z.N. (7 February 2024). "The possibility of panspermia in the deep cosmos by means of the planetary dust grains". arxiv. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2402.04990. Archived from the original on 18 February 2024. Retrieved 18 February 2024.

[ESA-2020-9] Staff (2020). "How many stars are there in the Universe?". European Space Agency. Archived from the original on 17 January 2020. Retrieved 18 February 2024.

[SU-20020201-10] Mackie, Glen (1 February 2002). "To see the Universe in a Grain of Taranaki Sand". Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing. Archived from the original on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 28 January 2017.

[CNET-20150319-11] Mack, Eric (19 March 2015). "There may be more Earth-like planets than grains of sand on all our beaches - New research contends that the Milky Way alone is flush with billions of potentially habitable planets -- and that's just one sliver of the universe". CNET. Archived from the original on 1 December 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2024.

[NYT-20120613-12] Kolata, Gina. "In Good Health? Thank Your 100 Trillion Bacteria". Archived from the original on 4 December 2023. Retrieved 22 February 2024.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]