Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 6

Need for presenting the abiogenesis in an objective manner

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to improve together this article and to eliminate the appearance of it being written by biased authors. As you all know, Wikipedia is above all a source of objective information and that can be observed in quasi all its articles. When there is a controversy regarding one topic, the arguments from all sides are presented, letting the reader to decide what is more convincing for him. When we talk about abiogenesis, the controversy around this topic in the scientific world is something that cannot be neglected and that should be reflected in this article as well. For example, Lahav Noam stated in his book, Biogenesis: Theories of life’s origin. Oxford University, New York, that a huge number of speculations, models, theories and controversies still surround every aspect of the origin of life problem. My first remark concerns (as you know already), the definition from the very beginning of this article. When something, that in Encyclopedia Britannica is defined as an idea, is presented in this article as a fact, chances are to raise questions regarding the credibility of this article. The abiogenesis definition given in this article points to some references and I had a look on these ones, to see whether they are reliable and they really support the given definition. 1. The Origin of Life famous book written by Alexander Oparin; if we go to the article Alexander_Oparin we find out that this biochemist is well-known for his untested theories about the origin of life. And further, on the same article, we find the section Theory of the origin of life. So far, it is clear that we are dealing with theories and not with facts; 2. The article Did life came from another world? is obviously dealing with a supposition (the possibility that life had extraterestrial origins), having no intention to present the abiogenesis as a fact; 3. Life from an RNA World: the ancestor within, written by Michael Yarus; this book presents the hypothesis of life originating from some RNA molecules. Most probably the abiogensis definition given in this article of Wikipedia is inspired from this book. Just that in reality we don't deal with a fact, but with hypothesis, clearly reflected in the title from the corresponding article on Wiki2 site RNA_world_hypothesis. In addition, referring to the same hypothesis, the geneticist Dover said the following: Is this a fact or a hope? I would have thought it relevant to point out for ‘biologists in general’ that not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (1024) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences (Dover, 1999, p. 218). Briefly, none of the sources above entitles us to present the abiogenesis as a fact. So, my first suggestion is to change the title to "Hypothesis of abiogenesis" and to adapt the definition, so that the reader can understand that abiogenesis is an hypothesis and not a fact. At the minimum, it can be something like "abiogenesis is supposed to be the process..." or "according to some scientists, abiogenesis is the process...". In case you have better proposals, you are welcomed. Another point that I suggest to be included is a section with critics. Those that criticise the abiogenesis theory claim that the biggest issues with abiogenesis is that the most simple living entity that can be imagined should include biological information. Information requires intelligence and it is much more than simply obtaining organic compounds (aminoacids) through chemical reactions. Making the building blocks of life is easy—amino acids have been found in meteorites and even in outer space. But just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function (Davies, 1999, p. 28). As Pigliucci said, the key to life is information (Pigliucci, 1999; Dembski, 1998). Regarding to the Miller's experiments there are more critics, best described here So, I suggest to include the aspects above in a separate section called "Critics". Epetre (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Insanity: repeating the same actions and expecting a different outcome. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Care to answer to the concrete arguments in this section and to come with your own constructive, rational arguments? Thank you. Epetre (talk) 06:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Are you seriously going to start this again? Did you learn nothing from the last time? SarrCat ∑;3 09:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Care to answer to the concrete arguments in this section and to come with your own constructive, rational arguments? Thank you. Also care to not falsely claim that I come with creationist arguments, like you did last time? This is a page for discussing about improvements and not for private chatting and personal "affaires" Epetre (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC) FWIW - As before, your concerns have already been well considered earlier - please see the "FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS" section above - as well as - related discussions above - as well as - the archival discussions noted above - as well as - the main Abiogenesis article itself - please read (and/or re-read?) the discussions above regarding your concerns - please understand that talk pages are NOT "A FORUM" or "A SOAPBOX" - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC) I appreciate to discuss in this section about the suggestions that I proposed. This TALK page is about considering other's arguments and not about rejecting them for imaginary reasons. Please have this in mind and don't play in an obtrusive manner for the second time, cause this time it will not work Epetre (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Addressing your points in order: "Bias", on wikipedia, means unfairly representing the sources. It does not mean advancing the position held by our best sources and treating other views as less significant. See WP:DUE There will always be scientific disagreement about developing theories. That doesn't equate to controversy. There is scientific disagreement right now about details within Evolutionary theory. To say "evolution is controversial" would be incorrect. We can discuss the scientific disagreement, and we do. This is original research. Have you read the article? Its summary backs up the majority view we already present. Open wikis are not reliable sources. If you want to suggest a page move, discuss that separately. That's goverened by the WP:MOS, and has to do with how the subject is most commonly identified. To change the definition, we need sources. You have not advanced any that are reliable. Intelligent design literature (like ideacenter.org) is not a reliable source for scientific content. See WP:FRINGE. Lastly, hashing out the same discussion repeatedly against consensus is tendentious. Unless you are able to suggest (in very few words) a specific change to the article backed up by reliable scientific sourcing, these attempts at pushing ID into our science articles must end.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI Notice

• Now listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SPA pushing creationist POV. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Mass extinction section seems pretty tangential

[edit] was reverted in order to discuss such a big change. I support the proposed deletion since (1) the core article is already pretty long and (2) mass extinctions seems tangential, at best. But here is a good place to make one's views known. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I also support that deletion. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless the mention of another topic is directly relevant to the topic at hand, the other topic shouldn't be mentioned.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Rv own edit - seems there's sufficient support (and worthy rationale) for removing the text/refs - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Statements about atmospheric composition need another look

Statement that currently appears twice in the text, in the sections Early Geophysical Conditions, and Current Models.

"However, based on today's volcanic evidence, it is now thought that the early atmosphere would have probably contained 60% hydrogen, 20% oxygen (mostly in the form of water vapour), 10% carbon dioxide, 5 to 7% hydrogen sulfide, and smaller amounts of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, free hydrogen, methane and inert gases."

"The current scientific model, however, is an atmosphere that contained 60% hydrogen, 20% oxygen (mostly in the form of water vapour), 10% carbon dioxide, 5 to 7% hydrogen sulfide, and smaller amounts of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, free hydrogen, methane and inert gases.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Kasting |first=James F. |date=12 February 1993 |title=Earth's early atmosphere |journal=Science |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science |volume=259 |issue=5097 |pages=920–926 |doi=10.1126/science.11536547 |issn=0036-8075 |pmid=11536547}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Trail |first1=Dustin |last2=Watson |first2=E. Bruce |last3=Tailby |first3=Nicholas D. |date=1 December 2011 |title=The oxidation state of Hadean magmas and implications for early Earth’s atmosphere |journal=Nature |location=London |publisher=Nature Publishing Group |volume=480 |issue=7375 |pages=79–82 |doi=10.1038/nature10655 |issn=0028-0836 |pmid=22129728}}</ref>"

This is mainly a list of molecular species rather than elements — e.g. carbon dioxide and methane are listed separately, although they both contain the element carbon. Yet there is a figure for "oxygen (mainly in the form of water")". Water of course contains the element oxygen but oxygen as a molecular species is another matter... I'm left wondering whether the notably high figure for "hydrogen" (60 percent) is supposed to be for molecular H2 only, or is it supposed to include hydrogen atoms in water and other compounds? How come "free hydrogen" is mentioned separately, later in the list?

Re the two citations, I looked at the James Kasting article but couldn't see anything there to justify the figures given. On the contrary, Kasting writes (p 922) "the post-heavy bombardment atmosphere was probably dominated by CO2 and N2, with traces of CO, H2 and reduced sulfur gases".

I haven't accessed the full text of the Dustin Trail article, however the abstract says: "These results suggest that outgassing of Earth’s interior later than ~200 Myr into the history of Solar System formation would not have resulted in a reducing atmosphere." I would have thought 60 percent hydrogen, 20 percent oxygen is pretty reducing??

Looks like something is wrong here... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, you seem to know about the topic and as you know, many articles are written by both experts and not-so-experts, so be bold. About the edits that concern you, one sure clue for suspect content is the term "currently" or "current" or "prevailing", since these temporal terms are often incompatible with an encyclopedia. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just done an edit, keeping James Kasting as a citation. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

More accuracy in dating events and the nature of geological periods in the PreCambrian.

Drbogdan changed my two edits. http://www.pnas.org/content/98/7/3666.abstract suggests that the period of a molten planet may have only extended for a period of 10^5 to 10^7 years, which is only a tiny part of the Hadean period. See "Initiation of clement surface conditions on the earliest Earth" by N. H. Sleep, K. Zahnle, and P. S. Neuhoff (PNAS). On these grounds I am reversing your edits. [Post added? => 05:56, 22 November 2015‎ John Croft (talk | contribs)]

Thank you for your post - Yes - edits were reverted since the original text seemed better - and more consistent with the cited reference(s) in the article (as well as your own newly cited PNAS reference noted above afaik - http://www.pnas.org/content/98/7/3666.abstract) => ie, a molten phase of the Hadeon seems supported - not a possible molten phase as suggested - hope this helps in some way - as an aside, you may wish to "sign" your posts by adding 4-tildes (~~~~) to your edits on the talk-page - iac - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Drbogdan, thank you for your explanation. Your reversal makes it sound as though the entire Hadean period was molten. Indeed the most recent science, part of which I have included in my posts suggest that this was true only of a part of the Hadean. The reversals do not give this impression. How can we amend the article to suggest that the Hadean may have had a number of partial meetings lasting 10^5 to 10^7 years, only a tiny fraction of the 500 million year Hadean? Can you help with amending this to be more accurate? John Croft (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK atm - the original text re the Hadean eon in the article seems ok - and seems consistent with the cited references - as well as the Hadean article itself - the older 2001 reference you noted also seems supportive and seems to refer to a single possible (ie, "potentially", "likely"?) relatively minor "warm" phase - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on the inclusion of Panspermia

While panspermia is a reasonable theory of the appearance of life on Earth, I'm not sure it strictly speaking belongs on abiogenesis, which is the actual development of life. Panspermia only kicks that question down the road and says that life, or the necessary parts of life, came from elsewhere; it doesn't actually say anything about how life (or the necessary parts of life) actually arose. It's germane to the question of life on Earth, but is it really germane to the more fundamental question of the origin of life itself, regardless of where? The Rev (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I think it is important to explain what it is before the next section, pseudopanspermia, which is the origin of [most?] complex organic molecules needed for abiogenesis. Perhaps we can merge them? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Panspermia should absolutely be linked from abiogenesis as the only current alternative scientific theory.

Pseudoscientific or creationist theories on the other hand should be completely excluded.62.20.211.231 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Panspermia isn't a theory, it's barely a hypothesis and life still had to originate somewhere, so back to abiogenesis. Unless you're pushing primordial soupernaturalism? . . dave souza, talk 17:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is here to promote panspermia, I surely am not here to promote or deny any theory. A scientist does not 'believe' anything, emperical science is based purely on physical evidence.62.20.211.231 (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Panspermia need only be hyperlinked to the article on abiogenesis, as a related subject. There is no real need to include factual information on panspermia within the body of the abiogenesis article, when a hyperlink provides the full article on panspermia.62.20.211.231 (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Opening line of Abiogenesis

The opening line of the article suggests that Abiogenesis is an experimentally proven "natural process", when this is clearly not the case. Aminogenesis is not Abiogenesis. If neutrality is Wikipedia's prime objective, then this opening line violates that objective. Wikipedia readers are expected to draw their own conclusions, rather than being lead down the garden path or spoon fed dominant opinions. A method bordering on authoritarian propaganda. Removing constructive comments and discussion from the talk page only reinforces suspicions of biased censorship.

The only neutral, non-biased opening line is a simple definition: "Abiogenesis is defined as life arising from non-living matter." A statement which is both accurate and absolutely neutral. Refering to any unproven scientific theory as a natural process presents a biased viewpoint, regardless of how prominent or dominant that theory may be.

With viral topics there can never be a consensus, any suggestion of a consensus is wishful thinking at best, and at worst only a pretense of open discussion. Therefore with viral topics, it's best to keep the opening language as neutral as possible, and let the article rest on factual information alone. 62.20.211.231 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the boilerplate at the top of the talkpage featuring "frequently asked questions"? That is, in addition to insisting, if not demanding on sneaking in the blatant implication that life arose through supernatural methods?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course, any suggestions or implications that life arose through supernatural means are creationist nonesense. Nothing supernatural exists.

There seems to be a prevailing misconception that only three opinions exist on the origin of life, Abiogenesis, Panspermia and Creationism; This presupposition, however, could not be further from reality. Other scientific hypothesis do exist, although this article and talk page are not the place to discuss non-published, non-peer reviewed alternative scientific theories.62.20.211.231 (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Then why are you insisting that "natural process" is non-neutral?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"Three opinions??" Your arguments are textbook creationist teach the controversy. Creation science is a religious, not a scientific view. So no self-respecting encyclopedia would sneak in the idea that it is at pair with an objective analysis of reality (science). Ignorance must not be rewarded with neutrality when the point in this environment is to educate. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I have made no arguments against ambiogenesis, only against deceptively biased wording. Secondly, I am a scientist, and an atheist, so to call my arguments creationist is patently absurd. I am in fact an Anti-creationist, and on all counts you are mistaken.62.20.211.231 (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

No one is interested in what you are, the comment is on your arguments which uncannily replicate creationist arguments. Spooky, eh? . . dave souza, talk 17:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

My comments do not replicate any other comments, my comments are mine and mine alone. I am diametrically opposed to creationism and young earth theories, these concepts are absolute nonesense.62.20.211.231 (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This is the moment when you stop digging yourself deeper. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Presuming to doubt a person's intentions, when those intentions have been made plain enough, is indeed digging oneself deep into delusion.62.20.211.231 (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Now perhaps we can get to the point of neutrality, and reach a consensus regarding the opening line of the article.62.20.211.231 (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

We did, multiple times along the years here in this page. Look at the archives and the FAQ. You are overwhelmingly out of focus. Please stop. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

As such, since you're not here to peddle supernatural propositions, please to explain why "natural process" is non-neutral, even though expunging that term then leaves ample room for implication of supernatural/non-natural processes?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I read the previous discussion on the non-neutrality of the opening line, however there was no real consensus reached, and no approved changes were made to the opening line, which still remains non-neutral. When I say non-neutral, I simply mean that the term "natural process" implies that ambiogenesis is a process which has been conclusively proven experimentally, when this is not the case (yet). If and when ambiogenesis is achieved, then by all means, the opening line should read "natural process". At that moment, we can all proclaim ambiogenesis as a natural process, but not before. Surely you must agree with the reasoning, if not the conclusion.62.20.211.231 (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing ambiguous in my statement that "nothing supernatural exists", there are no metaphysical or supernatural processes or entities. Science does not involve itself with the realm of the imaginary, science only seeks to explain physical processes and entities which can be detected and measured directly with our senses with the aid of instruments.62.20.211.231 (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that Amino-genesis has been quite successfully achieved since 1953, which proves that aminogenesis is a natural process, which is essential to the survival of early life on earth, since any theory of life must also include a theory of proteins, and without amino acids there can be neither life nor proteins to sustain life, so aminogenesis is an important precurser to life, although it is not absolute proof of Abiogenesis as a viable process, natural or otherwise. Incidentally panspermia does not preclude abiogenesis as a 'cause' of life, it only concerns itself with life's place of origin, or method of delivery.62.20.211.231 (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Chemical evolution is the central core of this article. Now, are you going to tell us something we don't know and cite a reliable source, or you just want to "debate" your poor understanding of the scientific method? BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has lived up to it's colourful reputation for fastidious hairplitting, strawmen, ad hominems and other logical fallacies. I will just ignore all that and get to the point. Aminosynthesis is not chemical evolution, the term evolution does not apply to chemicals, only to living organisms. This article is specifically focused on the concept of Ambiogenesis, which is the process of autocatalytic synthesis from a few basic chemicals, including : hydrogen, methane, water, and ammonia - activated by a high voltage spark converting gases into plasma. The admixture eventualy catalysing and forming a primative living prokaryote, which should eventually evolve into a more complex cell (membrane bound organelle), the earliest organelle most likely being a chloroplast, deriving it's energy from sunlight, and the first organisms likely being chlorophytes. I have a fairly good understanding of cell biology, although this is not my field of research. There is no aspect of the scientific method which I am not intimately aware of and well practiced in from real life experience, rather than reading Wikipedia articles. As for citations, I will leave that to the petulant dilettantes at Wikipedia. I've made my case for neutrality, now the choice is yours to either implement a simple compromise solution : "ambiogensis is defined as.."or continue misleading the uninitiated. I have nothing more to say on the matter. You will undoudtedly want to have the last word, so by all means indulge yourself. All the best.62.20.211.231 (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for participating in the talk page, but in Wikipedia, if there is something wrong with an article you just fix it. Of course that means you have to do the legwork and not just tell people what should have been done. You have the permission to change the article, you claim to have the knowledge too. Every editor here is just a volunteer, like yourself. If you don't want to bother with the legwork, you have no right to complain. In here, "he who does not work, neither shall he eat" Darwinian Ape ^talk 12:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Leg work is an excellent choice of words, as in this case a bit of leg work, such as referring to Abiogenesis: Revision history, would reveal the reason why such changes could not be made. QUOTE: "(cur | prev) 16:10, 18 April 2016‎ Apokryltaros (talk | contribs)‎ . . (248,036 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 62.20.211.231 (talk): Achieve concensus first. (TW))".62.20.211.231 (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Then why haven't you explained why, if you're not here to peddle alternative explanations, is "natural processes" not a neutral statement? (Or provide reputable sources, either, but...) I mean, yes there is WP:BeBold, but that doesn't mean everyone else is explicitly forbidden from reverting controversial changes made, either.

You will find, by carefully reading through every paragraph, that I have already answered this question. QUOTE: "When I say non-neutral, I simply mean that the term "natural process" implies that ambiogenesis is a process which has been conclusively proven experimentally, when this is not the case (yet). If and when ambiogenesis is achieved, then by all means, the opening line should read "natural process". At that moment, we can all proclaim ambiogenesis as a natural process, but not before.".UNQUOTE. Accountability and ethics in science make bold premature claims such as "natural process" unacceptable, when such a process has not yet been achieved experimentally.62.20.211.231 (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yet you also refuse to explain how expunging "natural process" for ethical reasons will not then mislead readers into then assuming it was some sort of super or non-natural process that started abiogenesis. But, hey, everyone in Wikipedia is evil and wrong for not kowtowing to your expertise.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is pitting an 'appeal to nature fallacy' against a 'personal incredulity fallacy', topped off with a 'tu quoque'. An accurate definition and comprehensive article are enough to give the reader an understanding of ambiogenesis, as the standard scientific theory of the origin of life on the planet earth.62.20.211.231 (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You never heard of chemical evolution, so you keep deleting "natural process" from the introduction, because it has not been "tested" nor "proven". Although not all natural processes are open to 100% experimentation, that does not make them unnatural. In addition, lots of testing has been done on abiogenesis using different lines of reasoning and technical approaches (did you read the Wikipedia article you are fighting? Noticed the References section?); lots of experimental work has been done, and the evidence —experimental or not— is subject to specific principles of reasoning in accordance with the observed laws of nature. In contrast, intelligent design/creation science is not giving the scientific world good reason to take you seriously when you claim ID is an equally rigorous "opinion" than science (as you wrote above). It really seems to me you are following your ID manual very-very closely, and you are trying to give the impression that there is a scientific debate in Wikipedia and want to teach us the controversy. By all means, proceed. I am now starting to be amused. Every time we shed light in the natural world, superstitions retreat a bit further back into the shadows. I like that "standard" as you call it. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Here you are building another strawman, on the self-delusion that anyone here is advocating Intelligent Design (which is creationist nonesense). Why you persist in flighting windmills is a complete mystery. The term 'chemical evolution' is a misnomer used to desribe several processes including stellar nucleosynthesis. The term evolution in biolology refers to natural selection of living species, which does not apply to chemicals, since chemicals are not living organisms which adapt to their environments through mutations.62.20.211.231 (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is no such a thing as an "unnatural" process, if something is real then it is natural. The word "natural" is a tautological word that will encompass whatever process there may be behind the origin of life. (let it be coincidence, aliens from another dimension or even god) We may not be able to explain it now, perhaps never, but that won’t change the fact that it will be "a natural process." As for the supernatural, it's just a cop out buzzword that has no place in the scientific method. In science we must assume everything real is natural. If your only objection is to the usage of natural process, that is my take on it. Darwinian Ape ^talk 14:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Without getting into ontological arguments, or symantics, the term 'natural process' as used in the article actually refers to a naturally occuring process, rather than making a subjective distiction between what is natural or unnatural. I argue that a naturally occuring process is one that is 'known' to occure in nature by observation. Thus far - no such process has been observed to occur in nature. My concern is that abiogenesis could turn out to be the bastard child of Spontaneous generation and Phlogiston.62.20.211.231 (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

No chemical, biological or physical law has been discovered that would prevent life from emerging by abiogenesis. Until then, it will continue to be considered a "natural process" by mainstream science and by Wikipedia. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with ontological argument or semantics. It actually is about epistemology. There is no way to "occur" other than naturally, because the concept "natural" is a tautology. And tautologies are nice when you need to name something without really defining it. Observation is irrelevant, we know it's always going to be natural, that's what a tautology is. As you very well may know, naturalism, by dealing with absolutes and tautologies, lack the falsifiability of empiricism, thus technically a flawed concept. But it sure is practical and we can't go anywhere without being a wee bit practical. Darwinian Ape ^talk 16:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

On this point I absolutely agree with you.62.20.211.231 (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Ambiogenesis is directly linked to Big Bang Theory, on the premise that if the cosmos had a beginning (a creation event), then life must also have had a beginning (an ambiogenic creation event). I argue that an eternal cosmos would not require a creation event for matter, nucleosynthesis or life, since all chemical elements and life would be sempeternal (preexisting). According to occam's razor - the most simple explanation is the most likely. I reject the whole concept of creation events (theological or scientific) as creationism. Big Bang theory is built on the hypothesis that stellar redshift is due to the doppler effect, completely ignoring the much more simple possibibilty that redshift is due to refraction. The discovery in 1999 that molecular hydrogen (H2) is ubiquitous throughout the intersetllar medium, would explain redshift as being caused by the refractive index of ambient molecular hydrogen at the temperature and density found in the interstellar medium, the explaination requires no imaginary entities (dark matter, dark energy, et al) nor does it require expansion or inflation. Best of all it does not require ambiogenesis as an explanation for life, if life has always existed and is ubiquitous in the cosmos, it could easily be distributed by meteors. This hypothesis also requires no miraculous cosmic explosion of a singularity, or a creator-deity (God) as an explanation for everything that exists. It requires nothing what-so-ever other than molecular hydrogen.62.20.211.231 (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, though it boils down to natural process. If what you described is to be proven true exactly as you said, it will be a natural process thus our usage will not change. Unfortunately, as much as I enjoy discussing these things, we are approaching to WP:FORUM alarmingly fast. To return to the real issue, as tertiary source we have to base everything in secondary reliable sources, in this case, scientific sources. You need to show us examples in scientific sources, that discussing or hypothesizing the origin of life being something other than a natural process if you still want the natural process bit to be removed. Because as much as I would wish otherwise our discussion here is irrelevant to the rest of the scientific community :)Darwinian Ape ^talk 16:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

So now you want to delete "natural process" because YOU believe that life always existed in this eternal universe? You will be better served at some online discussion WP:FORUM; see WP:SOAPBOX. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it's important to cite published, peer reviewed sources, and here it is - <href="http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html"></a>.62.20.211.231 (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That link mentions nothing about life nor abiogenesis. However it is extremely funny that is states "The Doppler interpretation of the redshift is a variation of the Creationist theory". This is no coincidence coming from you. I'd suggest you do the Wikipedia tutorial and familiarize yourself with the goals and pillars of this encyclopedia. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That is true, it does not mention life, however, the implications of this discovery do not require a leap of the imagination to conclude that abiogenesis would no longer be a prerequisit for life to exist. Admittedly it also does not exclude the possibility of ambiogensis either. The jury is still out until ambiogenesis has been achieved experimentally, I'm not against the idea of ambiogenesis, only the suggestion that it's the "Only Explanation Possible".62.20.211.231 (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)ne

The reference to 'creationist theory' is independent of my own conclusions. I have held the same conclusion that Big Bang is a creationist theory my entire life. The fact that other scientists share the same conclusions only reinforces the argument.62.20.211.231 (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally Big Bang theory itself was first proposed by a roman catholic priest Monsignor Georges Lemaître, on the advice of Pope Pius XI.62.20.211.231 (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Getting back to the opening line of the article - my intention is simply to hold Wikipedia accountable to scientific ethical objectivity, and nothing more. I have made my case, and now I will leave it to the editors of Wikipedia to decide. On a humourous note.. the hilarious irony of being accused by everyone here of being a covert ID creationist, when in fact, as a hardcore atheist and anti-creationist - true ID creationists and young-earthers would regard me as "the antichrist", made me laugh aloud so hard, my wife wondered if I were chatting with another woman. So, many thanks to all of you for a good laugh, and no offence taken. On the positive side, a precedent has been set, and your profiling spectrum is no longer binary, (e.g. limited to proponents of standard theory and ID young-earth creationists). Other modes of scientific thought do exist. All the best.62.20.211.231 (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple of important (imho) problems with the lede:
1) The Urey-Miller experiment did indeed turn the study of abiogenesis into a respectable area of scientific study. The historical fact was (and unfortunately continues to be) invoked as a demonstration that conditions on early Earth could (and probably did) lead to the formation of amino acids and proteins. It deserves mention IN ITS HISTORICAL CONTEXT, but it should not, as is now the case, be used to justify the claim that early Earth conditions allow the formation of those compounds. As we now understand it, the chemicals compositions (reactants) Miller, et al. used are NOT those believed to have existed on the early Earth. Also, I don't think using the weasel word "similar" helps inform the reader. Why not just admit that our understanding of early Earth conditions have changed, but that the conclusion that amino acids and proteins could and probably did form under these conditions continues to hold up today?
2) Panspermia is very poorly defined here. I suggest that its importance is that there are possible ways that life could develop on other planets and in other star systems and be transported here on comets, space dust, or meteors making the LOCATION of the development of life different from the general assumption that it originated on the early Earth. These theories also allow a much less constrained set of initial conditions for life to originate in.
3) Abrams wild speculations about extremely early life (~10 My after the BB) should not be included in the lede, their basis simply isn't well established enough (but they deserve mention in the section devoted to panspermia).
4)'According to one of the researchers, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth … then it could be common in the universe."' This exact sentence is found in several Wikipedia astronomy articles. Simply because some "researcher" said it, does NOT make it worth including in the lede! Without knowing what precise conditions are needed for abiogenesis, there is just no justification to say that if it happened once on (early) Earth, then it is common. (Earth is special (meaning NOT common) in a number of ways including its small size, (possibly) the Giant Impact Event with the consequent changes to atmosphere and climate, and the presence of a very large moon (relatively speaking), the existence of a geomagnetic field, and our plate tectonics, as well as what we don't have (high levels of radiation, frequent heavy bombardment, etc.)./\. While I will not be surprised if we observe exo-planetary atmospheres with possible bio-markers, wild enthusiasm for the suggestion that since rocky planets are common, and they are, that therefore life must be common is not a neutral POV.
One last thing, the lede should make it clear that life is meant to be "life as we know it".Abitslow (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

1) I agree; there is increasing evidence that many essential molecule types might have been delivered to Earth by asteroids, comets, and interstellar dust.

3) I agree that his mathematical model does not merit mention in the leade. It enjoys of no evidence and has no apparent support.

4) I agree in that it is one man's assessment/hope that should NOT be included in the leade. Scientists simply don't know. Rocky planets are common, so that is only one "check" on a very, very long list of requirements for carbon-based life. I'd tone it down for POV/bias but not delete it.

Thank you for the feedback. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

"It is thought to have occurred"'

This seems like WP:WEASEL. Why not "it occurred"? Thought by whom? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead missing important statements

Frankly, I've never heard of this term before today, but I am not a biologist. I came here from some low quality pages (like [1]) which seemed to be disputing whether this concept is accepted by the scientific community, but it looked to me like those pages had a (cough, religious, cough) ax to grind. Still, I am surprised the lead (and the entire article, for that matter) doesn't state whether this is a proven theory or an unproven hypothesis, nor whether this is universally accepted, disputed or controversial. In fact the lead reads somewhat heavy - very technical, full of sciency details, and sadly, is a harder read then those low quality pages I saw before. They maybe biased and amateurish, but they are more informative, particularly for people who are not science majors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is generally tacitly assumed to have happened, because even though much remains unclear, so far no evidence that clearly defies a naturalistic explanation has been discovered and scientists are optimistic a more or less comprehensive naturalistic explanation will be found eventually. Unless and until some evidence is unearthed that appears to defy a naturalistic explanation, it makes no sense for scientists to actively consider supernatural explanations, even though they can't be ruled out in principle. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

A couple months late here, but I would add that there is direct evidence associated with the process as well. All the steps involved have plausible mechanisms; the primary uncertainty is about which ones actually happened, and (to some extent) the order in which they occurred. There's some speculation that for some parts the evidence we'd need to be certain might no longer exist, but there are a few things (like the prior existence of RNA-based life) that are generally accepted. Sunrise (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Added section on life in the Solar System

I suggest it should have pointers to life on Mars and Life on Europa. These speculations have important bearing upon our thinking on Abiogenesis. John D. Croft (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There is this template: {{Life in the Universe}}. I am not a fan of it, but it is in use. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abiogenesis. 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/20130301064911/https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/reports/annual-reports/2009/arc/ to https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/reports/annual-reports/2009/arc/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

"Origin of life"

The phrase "origin of life" was used by Oparin back in 1953, and by many authorities since; and since biologists essentially all agree with Darwin's suggestion of a single origin, the common and singular phrase known to millions is to be preferred. I understand that a case could be made for multiple origins, all but one being lost, but it's not the phrase that is found in a thousand textbooks, and we should go with the consensus in the literature. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Thank you for your comments - and suggestion - yes - seems *entirely* ok with me at the moment - especially with appropriate reference(s) to cite as support of course - perhaps - there's a way of presenting both - ie, the narrower "Origin of Life" (per Darwin's single origin suggestion) and the broader, less restrictive, phrase "Origins of Life (OoL)" - to include currently unknown origins (terrestrially and/or extraterrestrially) that may someday be found (or, at least, considered for a search?) - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Oldest evidence of life WP:SYNC issue

I've waded through multiple article about this and found mismatches, to finally reach here. Just from the lead, ""the earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates from at least 3.5 billion years ago..possibly stromatolites discovered in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks .. found in 4.1 billion-year-old rocks...". Now compare this to the other articles:

• Evolutionary history of life (GA since 2009): "The oldest undisputed evidence dates to 3 Ga. Other finds in rocks dated to about 3.5 Ga with geochemical evidence to show the presence of life 3.8 Ga. However..*goes to refute this mildly*" (this of all my examples ought to surely tally here)
• Prokaryote "Prokaryotes were laid down approximately 3.5 billion years ago," (only one which tallies)
• Don't know if these two are can be considered since I think evidence from forms have been formed besides them? Other fossil forms besides Stromatolites or other organisms besides Cyano?
  • Stromatolite "The earliest fossils date to 3.7 billion years ago." (didn't make any other clarification)
  • Cyanobacteria "might date from more than 3.5 Ga ago, but this is disputed. As of 2010 the oldest undisputed evidence of cyanobacteria is from 2.1 Ga ago, but there is some evidence for them as far back as 2.7 Ga ago. "

This is likely a WP:SYNC issue since this is the main article and someone with expertise can rectify this. There's probably more but via wikilinks this is the path I went through. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Derivation of the name needed.

In common with many such articles, there should be a discussion of how the name is created:

a - not bio - life, living genesis - creation.

Thus, a-bio-genesis is a creation (of life is implied] from well, non-life. My Ancient Greek is not good enough to do this exactly :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.196.176 (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Verb in lead defintion

Writing:

• "natural process by which life arises from non-living matter"

makes it sound as if this happens inevitably or routinely, whereas science concludes it was a very difficult, ancient event, which no longer occurs naturally due to competition from already existing life. This inaccurate impression could give a point of attack for creationists.

I propose changing the text to clarify the precise question:

• historical: "natural process by which life arose from non-living matter"
• experimental: "natural process by which life can arise from non-living matter"; how it could be done in a modern experiment, independent of how it originally happened
• both: "natural process by which life arose or can arise from non-living matter"

The last one seems to best describe the scientific inquiry on this subject. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magyar25 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

How many times did life appear on Earth?

ISTM that this is an interesting question which deserves some discussion. If life appeared once on Earth, did it also appear more than once? Do we have any evidence or reasoning for an answer? I have no citations for an answer, but I recall the argument being that once life was established any new appearance of precursors of life would be quickly consumed by established life forms. TomS TDotO (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't find anything worthwhile on it either. A search elicits a lot of creationist material. As for why it isn't happening now, the instant consumption of materials is one reason, as you say; and were any new, ultra-simple life form to appear, it would be outcompeted in every way by all the species around it. Without reliable sources, this won't go in the article any time soon. And for any IP editors wishing to talk about this, this talk page is NOT A FORUM. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Spin off earliest life article

We could spin Earliest biological evidence for life on Earth off as its own article. This article is strictly about the origin of life, not the earliest life. The earliest life discovered is likely many millions of years after the event. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we'll certainly not find the first living thing as a fossil; nor is the LUCA equivalent to it. I'm not sure the title is quite right, however: it isn't the evidence which is early, and is palaeontological or geological evidence "biological"? Perhaps something like Earliest life forms would work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It would have to be something like Earliest known life forms or something, since these aren't the earliest lifeforms, but just the ones we know. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, go for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I kinda don't know how to spin off articles actually. I'm not a scientist either, so I am not sure on what title to go with. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap and Harizotoh9: FWIW - yes - *entirely* agree - created the "Earliest known life forms" article - for starters only => copied brief passages from several relevant articles, including Abiogenesis and Outline of life forms - hope this helps in some way - Comments Welcome - and as well - help in developing the newly created article, if possible, Welcome also of course - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Drbogdan, not quite done, there are three broken citations. Smile, enjoy, etc etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Thank you for the note - my previously added "done" template referred to the creation of the article - not the finished article - which may be ongoing at the moment - note: unable at the moment to locate any broken citations in the "Earliest known life forms" article => more specific details welcome - Thanks in any regards - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Brief followup - ok - located all three broken citations - all citations have been repaired - and now seem ok - please let me know if otherwise - Thank you *very much* for your help with this - it's *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Now that there is a dedicated article, we can reduce the section on earliest life in this article. Abiogenesis overlaps with discoveries about earliest life, but this article is about abiogenesis itself. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thermodynamic dissipation

This section describing the origin of life as an irreversible thermodynamic process has been unfairly deleted by an editor without due regard to the importance of this physical-chemical perspective. When the section was first published over 4 years ago, there was a request by a managing editor for a thermodynamic viewpoint on the origin of life in the Abiogenesis article. If any new editor has any questions or doubts about this section, which has been part of the Abiogenesis page for over 4 years, it should be discussed and a consensus arrived at, not simply deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksarasofi (talk • contribs) 06:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Material sourced only to primary scientific literature is inappropriate for Wikipedia, a tertiary source. Secondary and tertiary sources must be provided when challenged. Any editor can challenge such sources, which is what I am doing. The challeged user (that's you) must provide adequate secondary sources. Also, the material is sourced to a single author, which runs afoul of WP:UNDUE. This article is overlong enough. Also, it's pretty obvious that you are Karo Michaelian. Abductive (reasoning) 06:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

To suggest that I removed improperly sourced content without due regard to its importance is total nonsense, as explained in my edit summary, viz ... This section is totally reliant on primary sources, and they all are lead authored by the same person. Not acceptable to rely on primary sources in this way. Do not re-insert this content without better sourcing. Also, what is a "managing editor"? -Roxy the dog. bark 17:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Then you should have suggested changes to improve the article and not simply deleted it. Deleting a scientifically valid and verifiable perspective on an important problem in this manner could be construed as either censorship or even vandalism. By the way, are you the same editor with two different usernames "Abductive" and "Roxy the dog"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksarasofi (talk • contribs) 07:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I have now re-written the "Thermodynamic dissipation" section, including new sourcing to secondary and tertiary levels. This in response to the criticisms of editor "Roxy the dog"/"Abductive". In fact, the sourcing to Michaelian and collaborators now becomes secondary to the primary sources of Boltzmann, Onsager, Prigogine, Schrödinger and others. I have also reduced the size, leaving out unnecessary details. If any editor is still not satisfied with these changes, please do not delete them but instead use this Talk page to suggest improvements. I believe that a non-equilibrium thermodynamic perspective on the origin of life is essential to a complete description of this very important problem. Ksarasofi (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• You better not be implying that User:Roxy the dog and I am the same person. Abductive (reasoning) 22:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• At the very least, this section is overlong. I am sure User:Ksarasofi won't mind if editors trim out some of the excess verbiage? Abductive (reasoning) 22:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Abiogenesis. 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/20150824074726/http://www.im.microbios.org/0801/0801023.pdf to http://www.im.microbios.org/0801/0801023.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019172800/http://www.dli.gov.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005b73_455.pdf to http://www.dli.gov.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005b73_455.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129051724/http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/2014/6/24/hydrothermal-vents-could-explain-chemical-precursors-to-life/ to https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/2014/6/24/hydrothermal-vents-could-explain-chemical-precursors-to-life/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140227184503/http://amesteam.arc.nasa.gov/Research/cosmic.html to http://amesteam.arc.nasa.gov/Research/cosmic.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Not proven nor disproven

How is this useful? See above FAQ Q3. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 22:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Minor point, the Britannica isn't an acceptable source for current science. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate and Doug Weller: Of possible interest re FAQ Q3 at Talk:Abiogenesis/FAQ => recent change as follows: rm "on Earth" phrase in text - seems better - and may now allow, more broadly, for panspermia => "... supports an origin of life out of abiotic conditions ..." - *entirely* ok to rv of course - esp after discussion and/or comments - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I realized that I didn't provide the full context, sorry about that. I of course started this thread in relation to this edit by Pure Statistics. I should at least have pinged the editor, who I am inviting to read our talk page FAQ. @Drbogdan: I don't see a problem with this update. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 21:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Systems chemistry

I couldn't find a page about Systems chemistry and in particular its relation to the Origins of Life. This is a field that has emerged over the last 2 decades or so, with roots in prebiotic evolution (see for example, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1759-2208-1-1). Do you think it warrants a dedicated page or a sub-section? omermar 12:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Omermar: If more than primary sources can be found about it, I think it'd be a nice addition (both the article and possibly a mention in this article). —PaleoNeonate – 19:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Thank you. Here are two additional links:

Quora link2 omermar 02:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. An entry was created. omermar 06:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Arise vs Arose

Shouldn't the definition say "the process by which life arose" (past tense) or "can arise", since this process is no longer occurring, being preempted by already existing life. I see this has been debated previously: one user imagined abiogenesis still occurring on other planets, but this is pure speculation, not empirical science. As far as we can observe, the processes of abiogenesis no longer occur beyond the very first stages, since our environment has been changed comprehensively by life forms, and any pre-biotic structures are immediately consumed.

This is an important point to clarify to the naive: "If evolution is so well established, why doesn't life spontaneously form today?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magyar25 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I think since the term is used in astrobiology, abiogenesis might be happening -or will be happening- on other planets or moons. Yes, we could do a better job explaining that abiogenesis was a fact on Earth (or delivered to Earth) and is a speculation for some other planets. As to your second question, evolution is not abiogenesis; life did not arise on Earth "spontaneously", but was a molecular process of increasing complexity that took millions of years. That is at the top of the introduction. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I am aware that this has been addressed numerous times before, but the opening sentence still misrepresents the degree to which this topic is understood. Since the mechanics of abiogenesis are not fully described in the sources given, and neither of the conflicting hypotheses have been confirmed by any experimentation, the opening sentence should reflect the speculative nature of the topic. This is not the same as introducing creationist viewpoints or attempting to invalidate abiogenesis; it simply should not be presented as a complete and empirical explanation for the origin of life. The rationale given in the FAQ basically amounts to, "Whenever the chemical process by which life forms from non-living matter is discovered, it will be called abiogenesis." It is very important not to overlook the fact that the actual process of abiogenesis is a total mystery, as indicated by the source material. 99.123.156.169 (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Not logged in

But the thing is, inserting modifiers like "hypothetical" would then give the mistaken impression that the event of abiogenesis, itself, may or may not have occurred, and won't actually do much for reminding the reader that it is the understanding of the processes and circumstances of abiogenesis that are within the realm of postulation.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes - *entirely* agree with the comment above by Mr Fink re the reverted edit - perhaps another way of presenting this is as follows => seems a natural event requires a natural explanation - the natural universe had no life early on - then afterwards, there was life - a natural fact of the matter - from non-life to life - not whether life happened or not - the existence of life itself is evidence that such a natural event happened in fact - how exactly this happened in a natural sense is not known, and represents the primary challenge of abiogenesis - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The IP's reasoning sounds to me like the usual way of creationist thinking: "if I don't understand it, it cannot exist". --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

To 99.123.156.169: The forces (laws) of nature are universal, therefore, events in the universe have natural explanations. Throughout human history, every time a mystery is enlightened with a natural explanation, superstitions invoking supernatural beings are forced to retreat back into the darkness. Living in the darkness (denying knowledge) is a choice. The scientific evidence and consensus is that the Big Bang happened, and since there was only energy in the beginning, life had not happened yet. Following accretion, life on Earth emerged at some point through natural means. That is abiogenesis. The possible explanations on how it happened (scientific hypotheses) MUST exclude magic (creationism) if we really want to understand reality; those are the hypotheses this article is presenting. Panspermia aside, there is a possibility abiogenesis may have happened —or may be happening— on other habitable planets, so astrobiology mission concepts aim at detecting habitable environments where prebiotic chemistry might take place. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC) (formerly BatteryIncluded)

How to access reference for oceans taking 3,000 years to rain out of clouds

The paper is "Annihilation of ecosystems by large asteroid impacts on early Earth" by Sleep, Norman H.; Zahnle, Kevin J.; Kasting, James F. et al. It is in the reference list but I do not know how to access it to check if the reference supports exactly the text for which it is given as a reference. I thank you in advance for any help you can offer. - Fartherred (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I have not read this paper, but the full article is here: [2] (PDF). Thank you for verifying unclear entries in this article. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to change "Primordial soup hypothesis" to "Heterotrophic origin of life hypothesis"

I would like to change the term "prebiotic soup hypothesis" to the most appropriate "heterotrophic origin of life hypothesis". I think we can start an article that describes in detail the proposals of Oparin and Haldane, as well as Darwin's "warm little pond" and all the implications that these proposals had. Also adding the current state of the hypothesis. The article on the Prebiotic soup should simply describe the characteristics of the ocean and the atmosphere in the primitive Earth as a fundamental part of the heterotrophic theory. Avazquez-salazar (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Is panspermia being presented as a "metaphysical theology?"

"Periodically resurrected (see Panspermia, above) Bernal said ......"

While the article doesn't really make this clear, I could only reasonably determine that the panspermia hypothesis is being periodically resurrected. Perhaps it is only Bernal's argument that is periodically resurrected.

The following paragraph seems to indicate that "[t]he idea of evolution by natural selection proposed by Charles Darwin put an end to these metaphysical theologies." Should a reader interpret this to mean that panspermia is a theological hypothesis and that this idea ended with Darwin? Is the idea "that life's origins on Earth had come from somewhere else in the universe" also an idea that that ended after acceptance of natural selection? The panspermia article seems to indicate that the idea has become a more detailed scientific hypothesis, and the history section doesn't mention theology at all. Has panspermia, at least the very general idea "that life's origins on Earth had come from somewhere else in the universe," ever been a theological idea? The panspermia article seems to indicate that it started as a vague idea, unrelated to theology, and progressed to a more scientific hypothesis, or multiple hypotheses that attempt to explain the general idea.

Should Bernal's argument that panspermia is both unscientific and tantamount to qualifying terrestrial life as divine interference be recognized as the "metaphysical theology" with respect to the general idea of panspermia that ended after Darwin's mechanism was widely accepted? 45.30.100.86 (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Darwin had no theory of abiogensis, so I don't see how his work would relate to panspermia. E.g., we're the offspring of bacteria brought from Mars by a meteorite, then natural selection rules, would do. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree in that that entry is poorly worded, and is unrelated to Darwin's theory of evolution, even if one considers hypothetical extraterrestrial microbes evolving on Earth. Cleanup is needed. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It is conceivable that in the future we will discover spores on an interstellar visitor that contain DNA with a genetic code related to that of Terran lifeforms. That would falsify the hypothesis that current Terran life originated on Earth and lend strong support to the panspermia hypothesis. So, clearly, the latter does not belong in the realm of metaphysics.  --Lambiam 22:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Conjectural slant

At present, the lead finishes off with the following nugget:

According to biologist Stephen Blair Hedges, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth ... then it could be common in the universe."

I take one look at that, shake my jowls, smoke pours out of my ears, and I still have no clue precisely what tenuous Bayesian prior that statement is smuggling into the conversation.

Suppose that life is common in the universe, in all cases with separate origin. Then would be a distribution of how "fast" life originated in each case, and in all the cases where life originated "fast" the sentient life forms (if life has gone that far) would conclude that life was common in the universe; and in all cases where life originated "slowly" the sentient life forms (less likely than before than life has gone that far) would conclude that life is uncommon in the universe. But since the fast process would dominate the demographics, we can be pretty much certain (in the case that life is common and independent) that most life believes that life is common.

Man it's amazing what a little elementary logic can deduce about statistical belief distributions concerning exogalatic civilizations you've yet to encounter.

One of the problems here is that the word "fast" is ludicrously subjective. The Bayesian prior embedded in "fast" could not be elucidated by a thousand autistic Rabbis in neuro-electrical mind meld.

This is pretty much a cosmological Laffer curve: it's zero at his end, it's zero at that end, it's positive somewhere in between, therefore it's necessarily smooth with a singular local maxima (independent of time dynamics or any others systems consideration) and we can thus derive macroscopic policy implications through this amazing crystal ball whose characterization most definitely does fit into the margin of the world's smallest book.

To my sensibility, that concluding line better belongs in Astounding than here on Wikipedia (at least not without a long paragraph delineating the many radically simplifying assumptions baked into the inherently Lafferesque reasoning process). — MaxEnt 14:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Glancing at the parts of Prof. Hedges's CV shown in his WP article, I suspect he has a better basis than most of us for estimating Bayesian priors regarding life's timelines. I don't really have a horse in this race, but would be interested to see more context in the form of relevant abstracts of his writing. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@MaxEnt and Just plain Bill: FWIW - yes - *entirely* agree with the comments posted above by User:Just plain Bill - in addition - seems the LUCA of all known life forms on the planet may be 355 genes - if the earliest known life forms contained these same 355 genes also (we don't know this of course afaik), then, to me at the moment, such a set of genes seems too complicated to be de novo on the early Earth - [actually, one gene, let alone 355, seems too complicated to me] - nonetheless, if so, such biochemical complexity may have begun much earlier, and well before, the formation of the Earth - and consequently - there may be other suitable places in the universe for life to have been seeded and started - at least imo atm - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The intro must be the general state of current knowledge, and it should not cherry-pick one person's assessment. I suggest that if you can find a reference that deals with this (panspermia), you could write a better sentence to replace the quote by Stephen Blair Hedges. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

References

If the Universe is Teeming with Aliens ... Where is Everybody? by Stephen Webb (Springer, second edition, 2015, ISBN 978-3-319-13235-8) discusses abiogenesis from a Bayesian perspective on p. 284 ff., concluding on p. 288, "In other words, with the evidence we have available to us, the fact that we are here is entirely consistent with a low probability of abiogenesis. The fact that life arose early here gives us little confidence in the belief that life must be common elsewhere."  --Lambiam 17:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The introduction uses the language: "Abiogenesis or origin of life is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. This is not neutral. The idea that life comes about from non-living matter as being a purely natural process is a claim not a fact proven to a full enough extent to invalidate creation tales, which aren't just tales if they prove to be accurate. Human knowledge of nature is nowhere near the point of being able to explain the origin of life such as to say its just a "natural process." -Inowen (nlfte) 19:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC) From User talk:Inowen: You repeated insertion of POV and "Citation needed" tags are not appreciated, as there are 4 high-quality references stating the natural process. In total there are 338 references in this article to natural biochemical evolution and related processes/hypotheses. None are about magic. Thank you. Rowan Forest 23:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC) The problem with stating that life (on Earth) began through purely natural processes is that its overstated; there currently is no substantial explanation for the origin of air and water let alone life. In looking at the four sources listed in the article, it would be either: A: * a mischaracterization of sources to state that all life came about by way of natural processes, B: * an overstatement on the part of the source, to claim that these theoretical processes were sufficient to generate all life. In the paper by Petro published in Microbiology, the author starts with a very general opening which appears to be inclusive: "Different viewpoints, many with deep philosophical and historical roots, have shaped the scientific study of the origin of life. But then states there are only two possibilities which cover everything: Some of these argue that primeval life was based on simple anaerobic microorganisms able to use a wide inventory of abiotic organic materials (i.e. a heterotrophic origin), whereas others invoke a more sophisticated organization, one that thrived on simple inorganic molecules (i.e. an autotrophic origin) which is a very disingenous way of writing, and along with other factors, keeps the source outside of the high-level category. -Inowen (nlfte) 00:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC) […]is a claim not a fact proven to a full enough extent to invalidate creation tales, which aren't just tales if they prove to be accurate." Please see the FAQ section above as well as "young Earth creationism" section regarding creationism. In a nutshell, creation science is religious rather than scientific because it stems from faith in a religious text rather than by the application of the scientific method and observation of actual phenomena. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Yes - *entirely* agree with the comments by User:Rowan Forest above - and as well => please see the "FAQ section above" - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC) A scientific theory is not proven unless it is proven completely. If the issue is that "abiogenesis" (why not just title this "origin of life") is in the context of science, then state upfront "in scientific theories about the origin of life, abiogenesis is.." and then state it is a collection of theories about life on Earth coming up from the muck, but which has *areas which are seriously incomplete.* State also that there is a relationship between scientific worldview and atheism in which science thinks exclusively of creation theories which do not have a supreme being, and instead of categorizing other theories, rather atheistically disapproves of the idea of an invisible extraterrestrial supreme being made of quantum fabric that through quantum chemistry and without human approval or help seeded the life on Earth and has silently guided its evolution. -Inowen (nlfte) 01:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC) I advise you to take a wiki-break. Abiogenesis is not atheistic, for the mere reason that God could have created the initial conditions which have permitted the apparition of life. I mean at the moment of the Big Bang. God cannot violate his own laws. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC) PS (continuing): There is a common sense root to atheistic theories of biogenesis which is that the universe and nature must have come first and any life developed within in accord with the physical laws of the universe. That leads many to jump to the idea of life on Earth developing on its own through crude chemistry, and so its easy to label those ideas "up from the muck" theories. And its underestandable because the idea of being created by a "supreme being" has the problem that the Supreme Being has to have come from somewhere, and then "origin of life" discussions which accept that life doesn't just come "up from the muck" have the difficulty of asking how the Supreme Being was created. "If people came from God, where did God come from?" And then they are vindicated somewhat in asserting that though we humans were created, the Supreme Being therefore was himself a creation of Nature through some kind of natural genesis process, perhaps one which honors the idea of localized loops in the quantum fabric through some kind of energetic events forming a kind of cognitive organ which then learns to survive in its own environment. Thats the flow of arguments. So theres some common sense in the abiogenesis idea, but its not to be overstated and its not to misreperesent theories as fact. And its not to replace origin theories which have the Supreme Being in them as also a scientific possibility, explainable in their own way. -Inowen (nlfte) 01:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC) For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC) The point is "non-scientifc views" is inaccurate; these are "scientific" views also, and its prejudicial to call only "up from the muck" theories "scientific." PS: Calling all theistic theories categorically "non-scientific," then all scientific theories are (by simple logic) atheistic. And then the binding between the words "scientific" and "atheistic" are examined, and the binding fails because science (at this time) has a refutation of atheism as prejudicial (and its also a political entity encroaching into the science domain). -Inowen (nlfte) 02:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC) PPS: A scientific theories of a Supreme Being article needs to be written, of which Boltzmann's brain is one. -Inowen (nlfte) 04:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC) The main problem with theistic theories being "non-scientific" is that their proponents today have neither the ability nor desire to demonstrate how these theories can be tested with or be used to do science, i.e., the problem with Intelligent Design, which was marketed as an alternative to evolutionary biology, but was designed explicitly to insert blatant anti-science religious propaganda into science classroom curricula while flouting US laws that explicitly prohibit such situations.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Yes theists are tyically lacking in fluency when it comes to dealing with using the common language in the way logical form of argument. Religous language needs a translation dictionary. -Inowen (nlfte) 08:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC) @Inowen:, tell me, how does fluency factor into the situation of neutrality when theists unanimously present neither the ability nor desire to put forth a scientific explanation of how and why "GODDIDIT" (or "DESIGNERDIDIT") ever since Catastrophism fell out of vogue during the 1700's due to its explanation of "Biblically undocumented cycles of biblical creations following biblical catastrophes" being simultaneously unsatisfying and unobservable?--Mr Fink (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Science isn't atheistic. He conflates metaphysical naturalism with methodological naturalism. Imho, science is agnostic: cannot know/say anything, good or bad, about God (or gods). God has been razored out of science by a monk. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC) User Inowen is abdicating for creation science, but we don't have to analyse it all over again because: The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science fails to produce scientific hypotheses, and courts have ruled that it is a religious, not a scientific view. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC) -- Issue is lack of Neutrality, not Creation science -- The issue isn't one of Creation Science but one of neutrality, where the language in the article that declares that: "Abiogenesis or origin of life is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter is not NPOV because it asserts a thesis that life comes about through an "up from the muck" process only, which is vastly overreaching and overstated, and categorically rules out "down from the stars" theories. Rowan claims science is agnostic, then the POV here is that science and the article should remain agnostic and not atheistic. (An editor Apokryltaros (labelled as Mr Fink) claimed the right of closing the above discussion, which was improper in my view. He also removed my comment from his talk page.[3]) -Inowen (nlfte) 05:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC) PS: (If the term "abiogenesis" is reserved for a science point of view, it needs to declare it upfront, and relinquish the redirect from "origin of life" which will be a disambiguation which then will include scientific and theistic views. The fact that "origin of life" redirects here, and this article then is claimed for a-theistic theories, loses the argument). -Inowen (nlfte) 06:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC) A) Firstly, the article lede describes the most logically plausible scenario put forth the most popular and well-supported theories. Secondly, Panspermia has its own page, and is not discussed in depth here. Thirdly, you are not, and have not been clear or fluent on what you want done in the article, especially since you and your complaints about atheism sound dangerously similar to creationists and other anti-evolution/anti-science-themed editors who come to this talkpage with the obvious intent to rewrite the article into something far more friendly to Creationism. You need to explicitly state what you want, and explicitly articulate it in a way that does not run afoul of WP:UNDUE, WP:Original Research, WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. I mean, what is your complaint about the article being atheistic? Because it precludes mention of God or some other supernatural creator being? If that is your complaint, then it runs afoul of the boilerplate warning forbidding such discussions. If it isn't, then you are not being clear. Fourthly, I can delete whatever I want from my own user talkpage within reason, and deleting your trivial complaint from my own user talkpage is within my editing rights in Wikipedia.--Mr Fink (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Comment @Inowen: I've removed the RFC tag. Please see WP:RFCST for how to write a neutrally-worded RFC (that other readers even know exactly what they're being asked). Also follow the various links from there for more information, especially see the essay WP:Writing requests for comment. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Abiogenesis and creationism are not equivalent scientific concepts and there is no controversy about that: Scientists and even the courts of law ruled that 'creation science' is not science but religion. So: A) This science article deals with scientific principles, which by default, are neutral; therefore: B) No disambiguation is needed. And C) A scientific concept that seeks an evidence-based explanation to the origin of life, does not have to "relinquish" the redirect from origin of life to articles on folk tales. By now it is clear that your arguments are in the WP:ICANTHEARYOU realm. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC) @MrFink. Your theory about "the most logically plausible scenario" is your opinion of what is out there in terms of research, and has no place on Wikipedia. Or its a scientific opinion gone off the reservation, and is exceeding its the bounds of its home domain. Even Dawkins agreed that he "can't be sure God doesn't exist." Panspermia and abiogenesis and other ideas each need to be discussed at an origin of life article. To redirect "origin of life" here is a hijacking of that term. Atheism/agnosticism: The agnostic approach is fine with me, and the atheistic approach fails. That should be agreeable. Boilerplate: Boilerplate is not an argument, its a claim to authority in some document, which cannot seriously have the power to state that improving the article by removing POV is precluded. @Rowan Forest: Scientific theories dont just include "up from the muck" theories, but other ones as well. Science is no authority at this time in explaining how life began, and so the general topic "origin of life" as a topic must include panspermia and those "folk tales." Creationism isn't the issue here, its the POV claim of ownership of the origin of life title. "Seeks an evidence-based explanation" is market-speak from atheistic science. 'God leaves no footprints which you can see with a microscope only miracles you can see with common sense.' Be agnostic instead, like you noted above. -Inowen (nlfte) 23:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC) We're getting tired of your accusations of atheism. There's no "atheistic science" vs. "theistic science", that's a figment of your imagination. And panspermia means abiogenesis somewhere else than the Earth. This discussion should be closed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC) You have a losing argument because hijaking the origin of life title is excessive and promotional. 'Origin of life is not something exclusively under the domain of current scientific theories because these theories lack an explanation of for example water and air and other necessary constituents for life on Earth. These theories tend to be materialistic and simplistic. -Inowen (nlfte) 00:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC) There are no non-materialistic theories in mainstream science, see WP:GEVAL. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Materialism is bad, as the philosopher's use the term, because it points to the stone, and not the cloud, as the source of the river. The origin of life title needs to be surrendered to include extraterrestrial and non-materialistic ideas about life's origin. Science is just not there yet. For those of us who believe in an invisible quantum creator being, its quite simple; the invisible quantum creator being did it with quantum chemistry in accord with an incredibly deep design that only scientists can appreciate the depth of. -Inowen (nlfte) 00:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Quantum flapdoodle. "because it points to the stone, and not the cloud, as the source of the river" does not even make sense, literally interpreted. Wikipedia is mainly a venue for expressing views supported by established science and peer-reviewed scholarship (and perhaps reputable press, for certain subjects). Editors are supposed to understand this, to wish this and be competent at doing this. Supporting mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is, therefore, required of all editors. Failure to respect mainstream science leads to the loss of disputes, and may result in being blocked and eventually banned. Strong adherence to mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is what made Wikipedia one of the greatest websites. So, dissent from mainstream science and mainstream scholarship will be perceived as an attack upon Wikipedia itself. If you want to win a dispute, your claims must be backed by reputable science or peer-reviewed scholarship. If you cannot honestly do that, then you must refrain from making a particular claim. And remember, Wikipedia is just a mirror, mainstream science and mainstream scholarship exist outside of Wikipedia and cannot be changed through editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia merely reflects them. So if you want to change science/scholarship, you have to be a scientist or a scholar; Wikipedia is not the venue for revising scientific opinion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC) @Inowen:, can you make a specific suggested change to the article while not wasting everyone's time by running afoul of WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ICANTHEARYOU or WP:SYNTH with your angry whining about the imaginary injustices of materialism and science?---Mr Fink (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC) @Tgeorgesu: "Wikipedia is mainly a venue for expressing views supported by an established science" but then that gets into a game, and real science does not make claims it only makes observations. And in writing about science we have to be neutral. NPOV trumps both the religious POV and scientific POV. And so if you want to change science/scholarship.." Richard Dawkins has already done that, when he said he cannot disprove the existence of a God. If the existence of a very large and powerful being cannot be disproven by a leading scientist what does that tell you? The specific changes suggested are already stated. Take out the language which says origin of life == natural process, and make origin of life an article which covers the various origin of life theories, including non-rigourous ones. -Inowen (nlfte) 00:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC) WP:GEVAL, WP:STICK, WP:SNOW: there is no way of measuring qi, prana or the astral plane, therefore mainstream science only observes matter. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC) What you're demanding we do can not be done as per WP:UNDUE--Mr Fink (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Measurements and materials science aren't the point. Neutrality is. -71.198.244.54 (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC) And what you're demanding isn't neutrality.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Yes, this whole topic is an insult to thousands of Christian, Muslim and Hindu scientists who according to Inowen do "atheistic science". Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Potential problem with Stephen Blair Hedges quote in lead

The quote essentially states that life arising quickly on Earth suggests that life might be common throughout the universe. While a common assumption, some people have challenged this using Bayesian reasoning; for example, in this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.3835.pdf Should this criticism be mentioned somewhere in the article? (I just noticed that there was a similar discussion held previously here, but nothing seems to have changed due to it. I have found a research paper specifically dealing with this topic, and I feel that bringing the discussion up again might be worth it. Diamond Blizzard talk 22:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@MaxEnt, Just plain Bill, Drbogdan, Rowan Forest, and Lambiam: As no one seems to have noticed, pinging the editors who were involved in a similar past discussion (that had not lead to any changes, apparently) about this new information.Diamond Blizzard talk 03:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Our NPOV policy requires that when there are opposing views, we do not present one view with the exclusion of others. As far as I can tell, among the researchers who have seriously applied Bayesian reasoning to the situation, Hedges is the odd man out. As his statement is from an (unrefereed) email, it is in fact entirely possible that it was the result, not of a careful analysis, but of the typical kind of incorrect statistical reasoning people are known to be wont to apply. In my opinion by far the simplest solution is to remove the last sentence from the lead. If that meets with resistance – as it likely will – the next solution is to make a small section on the implications of the fact that life started soon on Earth for the abundance of life elsewhere in the universe. That section can start with the statement by Hedges, followed by the observation that other researchers, however, applying Bayesian reasoning, have questioned the validity of this conclusion, referencing the book by Webb as well as the article by Spiegel and Turner – which has actually been published (link to PNAS), so this can be cited instead of an arXiv link.  --Lambiam 09:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

FWIW - seems that the Hedges' quote - According to biologist Stephen Blair Hedges, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth … then it could be common in the universe." - may include abiogenesis, as well as panspermia - however - the Spiegel/Turner reference seems to only consider abiogenesis, and not panspermia - might this be a consideration in the discussion? - that the quote is a more general statement, than a particular statement derived from a study (seemingly) dealing exclusively with abiogenesis? - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Drbogdan and Lambiam: While I do not believe the study I mentioned takes panspermia into account, I don't know whether Stephen Blair Hedges' statement is referring to that either. We have to be careful, as we should not be introducing WP:OR into articles. I think if possible, finding more context for Hedges' quote should be done. I would support removing the quote from the lead and instead adding a new section about Bayesian analysis in the article body. It should also be noted that the Spiegel and Turner article does not say that abiogenesis is rare, or even that it is likely to be rare, but only that it is at least possible that it is rare, given the evidence we have so far. (I don't know about the Webb book, as I have never read it). Finally, I have found another article about Bayesian analysis and abiogenesis, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.08033.pdf . This one does not directly give any probabilities (and specifically mentions the Spiegel and Turner paper, among others, to note that the posterior is sensitive to the prior), but describes how various potential experiments and observations could constrain the abiogenesis rate value. I'm not sure, but it might be worth mentioning, as well as checking out some of the sources used for that paper. Diamond Blizzard talk 05:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The book by Webb appeals to the article by Spiegel and Turner for the Bayesian analysis, so it is not an independent source and can be left out of the equation – except perhaps for the general preference for secondary sources for statements such as that other researchers question some conclusion. In the context in which Hedges made his statement to AP's Seth Borenstein, the whole issue of panspermia did not arise; the study on which he is commenting ("Potentially biogenic carbon preserved in a 4.1 billion-year-old zircon") does not refer in any way to the panspermia hypothesis. Also, Hedges is known to be critical of the panspermia hypothesis (Hedges, S. Blair. 2009. "Life". In The Timetree of Life. ISBN 0-19-160898-X). So, obviously, his pronouncement that evidence of early life on Earth makes life elsewhere in the universe more likely does not build on the panspermia hypothesis. And actually Spiegel and Turner do consider panspermia; see the section Independent Abiogenesis. It is also obvious that not ruling out panspermia in a Bayesian analysis can only make universal life more likely, so this can only bring their conclusions even more in opposition to Hedges' conclusion. (In terms of Bayesian analysis, this should be considered a routine calculation, so any (implicit) appeal to this is not OR.) Indeed, Spiegel and Turner do not say or suggest that abiogenesis is rare; the only point is that the seductive jump from evidence of early life on Earth to the conclusion that the universe teeming with life is now more likely is unwarranted. It may or may not be teeming with life, but the Terran evidence does not tell us much one way or another. In conclusion, I see nothing standing in the way of noting that Hedges' statement is challenged. As to using the article by Chen and Kipping as an additional source: normally that should not be problematic, but in view of the apparent sensitivity of some of the editors of the article I am wary of using a study that is not peer-reviewed. When citing Spiegel and Turner, make sure to cite the PNAS article, not the arXiv preprint.  --Lambiam 08:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK atm, the Stephen Blair Hedges quote, as stated, may include abiogenesis and panspermia - since the quote itself does not specifically exclude panspermia, panspermia may not be ruled out imo - also - updated post comments to the PNAS reference - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The Stephen Blair Hedges quote, as stated, may include divine intervention, since the quote itself does not specifically exclude divine intervention, so divine intervention may not be ruled out either. Just saying.  --Lambiam 21:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lambiam: Thank you for your comments - and concern - the post comments, including the quote itself afaik, coming from a well known biologist, are intended to be consistent with a "natural" presentation of the issue, as well as with the "natural" presentation of the "abiogenesis" article - and to present only "natural" interpretations - and not at all any "divine intervention", and/or "supernatural", related ones - hope this helps - iac - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lambiam and Drbogdan:I've seen the discussion now. Just some replies to the points. Yeah, the Spiegel and Turner paper does refer to abiogenesis; I must have forgotten about that part. I don't have access to the book mentioned, so I personally wouldn't be able to cite it. I am wondering whether we should use the Hedges quote at all: as this discussion has showed, it isn't clear exactly how that professor came to that conclusion. I believe that the Chen and Kipping paper mentions papers by previous scientists who have advocated a somewhat similar point of view (that life emerging early on Earth means abiogenesis is likely), such as one by Lineweaver and Davis: https://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavis.pdf

Note that while this doesn't mention Bayesian analysis, it does at least discuss potential selection effects (such as the idea that abiogenesis must happen quickly or not at all because favorable conditions are fleeting). They admit that not much is known about this, but, to obtain results, decide to go with a middle ground that abiogenesis could have taken at most twice as long to occur as it did on Earth for their calculations. It also deals with any life instead of only intelligent life. I think that the next step might be to see whether there are any sources about potential time constraints on abiogenesis, especially something that takes some kind of evidence into account (such as the nature and location of the earliest life found on Earth). Diamond Blizzard talk 04:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

FWIW - for my part at the moment, the well cited Stephen Blair Hedges quote seems appropriate to the article - and the context in which it's presented (including the involvement of the "earliest known life forms") - and should stay - however - comments considering this particular point of view in more detail - and with relevant "WP:RS" - may also be presented in the article where appropriate imo atm - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: I was facetious in referring to divine intervention to make a point, but obviously the fact that a comment provided in some specific context does not explicitly exclude some hypothesis does not mean we should interpret it as (possibly) including that hypothesis in the analysis on which the comment is based. We should consider if that is reasonable in the context, precisely like you did for divine intervention. It would have been strange for Hedges to include the panspermia hypothesis in the analysis underlying his email reply, given the nature of the study commented on, ref [68] in our article. We do not have the complete email exchange with Borenstein, but if Hedges took panspermia into account he should have stated so, and then Borenstein should have reported that as well. In any case, the fact remains that the study by Spiegel and Turner does take panspermia into account, so it is not any less valid for attesting a contrary position.  --Lambiam 09:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lambiam: Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - your earlier comment could be understood as facetious - my reply was to be clearer nonetheless - re your more recent comment (ie, "if Hedges took panspermia into account he should have stated so") - could be just as well imo atm => "if Hedges did not take panspermia into account he should have stated so" - or even - "if Hedges only intended abiogenesis exclusively to be taken into account he should have stated so" - seems to me atm that Hedges, a well known biologist, well knowledgeble about abiogenesis and panspermia, would very well know that the involvement of panspermia could be a reasonable interpretation of his quote - hth - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Diamond Blizzard: Here is a direct Google Books link to the relevant passage on page 288 in the book by Webb, summarizing, in his words, the conclusion of Spiegel and Turner: "The fact that life arose early here gives us little confidence in the belief that life must be common elsewhere." The last part of the following sentence is not visible to me in Preview, but here is the complete sentence: "It's important to emphasize the following point: the analysis doesn't show that life is rare." It only serves to show that the observation of early Terran life has little effect on the posterior probability of life existing elsewhere.  --Lambiam 09:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lambiam: I'm wondering what to do now. Would it be a good idea to take the Hedges quote out of the lead and instead make a section about Bayesian analysis? Should we try to reach consensus with a discussion among more editors? Just some notes about the Spiegel and Turner paper: it does mention the selection effect of there needing to have been time until "cosmologically curious" creatures such as humans evolved. However, it does not seem to mention the possibility that such creatures could simply find themselves on an older planet with later abiogenesis (admittedly, the Sun will likely make Earth uninhabitable in about a billion years,but that's still a billion years of flexibility), or that the amount of time necessary for cosmologically curious creatures to evolve might vary between planets. Of course, this is just my own thoughts and definitely shouldn't be in the article itself, but perhaps it might help us editors think about what sources should be found for this article and what topics need to be covered.

Speaking of original research, User:Drbogdan, the discussion about whether Hedges did or did not take panspermia into account may not help for this article. Wikipedia:No original research specifically states that editors should not include their own analyses of sources in articles. People have different ideas about whether an interpretation is "reasonable" or not. Even if we still use the quote, we shouldn't speculate about what it did and did not take into account (not in the article itself at least). Diamond Blizzard talk 04:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Diamond Blizzard: Yes - *entirely* agree - no "WP:OR" in the main article - not at all concerned with adding my own interpretation to the main article - simply adding my comment, here on the talk-page, to the present discussion as a possible understanding of the quote - and perhaps how the author, Hedges, may have intended his quote to be understood by others - hth - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Diamond Blizzard: Attempts to take the Hedges quote out of the lead would very likely lead to an edit war. If more editors are interested in this particular discussion, where are they? Reaching a true consensus does not appear possible; a truce-like compromise seems the best we can hope for at the moment. So the best course of action for now may be leaving the lead alone and adding a modest section at the end with a title like "Implications of early life on Earth for life elsewhere". The content should be along the lines of "Some scientists believe that an early emergence of life on Earth makes it more likely that life is common elsewhere in the universe. For example, (Lineweaver & Davis); (Hedges). However, other scientists contest this conclusion. (Spiegel & Turner – Webb; Chen & Kipping)". The article by Chen and Kipping has been accepted by Astrobiology,[4] so it is peer reviewed and I see no objection to using it as a source.  --Lambiam 07:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lambian: Thank you for your latest comments - and (imo atm) worthy suggestions => leaving the lead alone - and - adding a modest section at the end [of the main article] as you have *very well* (imo atm) described in your comments above - hth - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Section “Strict thermodynamic approach”

Dear Colleagues, I would like to ask you to discuss the possibility of introducing the section “Strict thermodynamic approach”. For example -

Strict thermodynamic approach

The strict thermodynamic approach is based on the classical concepts of thermodynamics, which uses the apparatus of full differentials and the general laws of nature as applied to real thermodynamic systems. Thermodynamics of systems close to equilibrium, including hierarchical thermodynamics, uses state functions that have real physical meaning. In other words, in this case, it is assumed that state functions with an acceptable approximation have full differentials. Thus, hierarchical thermodynamics is the dynamic equilibrium thermodynamics, created on the foundation of the most accurate physical theory - the theory of J. W. Gibbs. Hierarchical thermodynamics determines the direction of chemical and biological evolution, including the "transitional evolution" of the origin of life. From the position of a strict approach, all studies related to the change in entropy in natural systems are hardly promising, since in this case entropy is not a function of a state that reaches an extreme value. Classical thermodynamic entropy tends to a maximum only in simple isolated systems, the internal energy and volume of which are constant and in which only the expansion work takes place. An example of such a system is an ideal gas. In systems far from equilibrium, it makes no sense at all to talk about thermodynamic entropy, since in this case this parameter is a kinetic function that does not have a full differential. Evolutionary changes in natural systems close to equilibrium should be investigated from the standpoint of hierarchical thermodynamics and the change in Gibbs free energy can be used to establish the direction of the processes and determine their completion. The thermodynamics of the origin of life reveals the driving force and direction of evolution in the transition from chemical evolution to biological evolution. Thermodynamic theory answers the question: why does life arise? The definition of life as a phenomenon depends on the point of view, from the standpoint of which this complex process is considered. There are several hypotheses of the origin of life, which are based on the alleged chemical mechanisms for the smooth transition of chemical evolution into biological evolution. These theories and hypotheses concern the question: how does life arise? However, according to Henri Poincare, “… the true and only goal of science is to reveal unity rather than mechanism.”. From this point of view, thermodynamics, as the driving force of the evolutionary development of the Universe, is able to reveal the indicated unity, in relation to the origin of life, one of the stages of the development of the world. The key to understanding the origin of life and its evolution is hierarchical thermodynamics. From the standpoint of hierarchical thermodynamics, the origin of life and its evolution are thermodynamic self-organization (self-assembly) of self-replicating polyhierarchical systems. Hierarchical thermodynamics during the formation of life is manifested through the principle of substance stability, as the driving force of evolutionary development. Primary abiogenic energy-intensive molecules under the conditions of existence of life arise as a result of chemical evolution in space or on celestial bodies, in conditions when they are thermodynamically stable. There are a lot of such molecules. They are found both in space and in zones of seismic, electrical, and radiation activity on the earth. Further, entering into zones acceptable for life, these energy-intensive molecules, in accordance with the principle of substance stability, accumulate in supramolecular structures, which then participate in the formation of cells and organisms. The considered thermodynamic approach practically abstracts from the mechanisms of chemical processes and studies the phenomenon of the origin of life from the position of the thermodynamic mechanism describing the processes of change in the Gibbs specific free energy and the formation of hierarchical structures of living matter. The reason for the origin of life can be found from the point of view of well-known general laws of nature. It is argued that hierarchical thermodynamics is the physical foundation of extended Darwinism, which describes the birth of life and biological evolution. Gladderstock (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

References

The first few paragraphs are mainly focused on thermodynamics. It is only in the last paragraph that we see attempts to describe abiogenesis from a thermodynamic perspective. The prose needs to be improved. Reads like a conversation instead of an encyclopedia article. Most, if not all the citations in the last paragraph are from the same author (Gladyshev). Is he in any way related to you, Gladserstock? Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I have known G. Gladyshev and his work for many years and I find this interesting. Gladderstock (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

There needs to be citations of various secondary sources by different authors to reflect the broad consensus and perspectives of the wider scientific community and not just that of one individual scientist, however interesting his work may be. danielkueh (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Not every section has to describe abiogenesis all over again. I think you could produce one or two sentence summarizing the thermodynamic concept you bring here and add it to the exiting section called Thermosynthesis. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Gladderstock: Have you seen this article: "A New Physics Theory of Life"? There is also the small book Irreversible Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life, comprising the proceedings of the Third International Biophysics Congress, edited by G. F. Oster, I. L. Silver and C. A. Tobias? (WorldCat page).  --Lambiam 10:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not see the book of George Oster and colleagues. I know that Dr. Oster was the wonderful scientist. I believe that in this book there cannot be anything related to the theory of G. Gladyshev, after all, at that time the law of temporal hierarchies and the principle of substance were not known.

I am not familiar with the work of Dr. England. However, I know the opinion of his teacher E. Shakhnovich about these studies. Gladderstock (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

On a biased & too faithful approach, masked as consensus: Without a true explanation, no consensus

On 2019, I could still read this on this article: "Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred"... Of course, with a desire to make the public take the ideas as current scientific belief, as if the belief of scientists engrossed rational validation, the writer of that part can deceive the reader that science is very close to know how life came to be. The truth is that science is now leading away from a RNA-world hypothesis, and Abiogenesis need new ideas or will stuck. That why the word "uncontroversial" reflects a biased point of view and that sentence must be modify to gain a more realistic and objective view. Scientist must assume that abiogenesis is possible to make experiments about it, but such assumption is not the outcome f research, but a need to start such research. Without empirical evidence pinpointing the way with very high & rational likelyhood, Science shouldn't be based on "what the experts assume without evidence"... Let us stand clear & away of trying to cheer for a belief team... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLearry (talk • contribs) 10:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

See talk page FAQ, Q3. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The Frequently Asked Questions sections is clearly framed to allow biased notions, in detriment of sincerity

Frequently asked questions (FAQ) section states positions based on some fallacies... They state some "support of abigenesis" in scientific literature, but the whole reason there is still no single model of Abiogenesis is because those same cited experiments that are mentioned as bringing "support" to Abiogenesis are put into objections and invalidated (and if not invalidated, objections on the limitations of those experiments in achieving radical conclusions arise) by other mainstream scientists, to the point that we have no Theory of Abiogenesis yet. In spite of this truth, the Q & A wants to convince the reader that Abiogenesis is the "only radical solution", because if not, we would have to "resort to God" (as an explanation)... Apparently, the fear to resort to God is too big, so no, that is unacceptable... Little have they pondered on a simple and sincere , totally objective solution: Nobody Knows. The need to make things so anti-supernatural is greater that sincerity, so they made a framed Q & A section, a mistaken one. The most "de-facto" rational, at-first-glance data we have had is that Spontaneous generation is wrong. If anybody wants to tell us that living cells as we know them can come from non-living, an extraordinary claim, it will need extraordinary evidence (and don't ask me "how it happened, then?", cause my answer will be a sincere, unbiased one: I don't know (so anything on that is controversial)... (Even with that answer, I would be more objective and rational than this Wikipedia Q & A is right now). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLearry (talk • contribs) 14:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This guy or woman cited on my talk page Pasteur as an authority upon this subject; he/she clearly has no idea what he/she talks about. Just a creationist POV pusher. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User MLearry sees no difference between evidence and beliefs, and the fact is that magic is no longer an alternative to the laws of physics. Isn't it amazing that all the classical gods lost their appeal when humanity began to understand nature? No more god of thunder, god of earthquakes, Sun god, god of rain, god of disease, etc. Every time knowledge sheds light on an unknown, superstitions retreat back into the darkness of magic. This user is not offering improvements to the article, he is complaining about the scientific method getting more clues than folk tales do, and at Tgeorgescu's talk page, MLearry demands this article to Teach the Controversy. So yes, the user is referred to the Q & A section at the top of this page. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If Tgeorgescu likes mto state his/her misinterpretations as the argument of another, Tgeorgescu must ve supervised as the editor of a page of an encyclopedia. And if Tgeorgescu ignores that Pasteur had a key eperiment that rejected Spontaneous generation, and that experiment had implications on current and still valid Cell Theory, the Theory that states that current living cells can come only from previous living cells, nt from non-living matter, then Tgeorgescu must revise his memory to see if may be forgetting basic Biology,. That connects withn Abiogenesis, of coursem, because, as tenable and allow as it is, the burden f proof is on those claiming abiogenesis IS the answer of the mystery of the emergence of life. And that is my point: NOBODY knows how life came to be, and Abiogenesis experiments are not so successful that they allow the production of a Theory as real as Evolutioon r as "Big Bang"... Now, @ Rowan Forest: If Rowan forrest would like to talk about the difference between evidence and belief, let me remind Roman forrest that, what he(or she) has about Abigenesis is still a belief, and that the evidence only tell us that WE DON'T KNOW HOW LIFE CAME TO BE, plain and simple... That we don';t knows how life came to be is still the most rising truth about all these subjects, and both Tgeorgescu & Rowan Forest hate it when an outside tell them to stop the bias, in the Wikipedia article, and tell it how it is: Abiogenesis is only an educated guess, it has not been validated, is not a Theory, we must allow it tin order to never be afraid of the truth, but abiogenesis not so confirmed that anyone who objects to it automatically wrong so any play on words that frame the reality ( they should stop the framing like "is real because there are real scientist studying it" or "is real, because if not, then only God option remains, and we are scare of that"). & Yes, the Q & A is framed to achieved a biased position, because it ignores that the same evidence cite has had objections from "mainstream scientist to the point it makes such evidence as unconvincing... A neutral position is not "abiogenesis happened for sure, we just can't know how" (no, the idea of research is to say "abiogeneis happened because this is how life came", but that hasn't happened yet. Neutral point of view is this : Nobody knows how life came to be, scientist are studying it this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLearry (talk • contribs) 17:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

MLearry is WP:SOAPBOXing, has been warned about it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Lede

Disclaimer: In the past I have spent more hours than was good for me on various forums poking holes, and fun, in and at creationist arguments. So please assume “good faith”!

The phrase in the lede “The transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity and without external direction…” makes me a bit uncomfortable as a statement of fact.

I’ve never seen a satisfactorily agreed definition of either living or not-living. Both states tend to be characterised rather than defined. And yet the sentence seems to imply that such definitions do exist and somehow there were transitional states between the two.

It might be better to find another way to express the concept that "over a period of time increasingly complex entities could increasingly be characterised as living".

I’m not sure that wording is perfect either but perhaps it better reflects what the evidence suggests happened without giving credence to the “goddidit” argument. 185.47.106.84 (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we could formulate a perfect sentence: while we know abiogenesis occurred and that evidence of emerging life and following evolution show no signs of direction, a lot still remains unknown about the exact processes which lead to life (evolution being much better understood). Protocells for instance may not have been "alive" as a cell would be. It's even unknown if abiogenesis happened elsewhere and reached earth via panspermia or if it originated here. We however know that it was initially very simple and then evolved here. Similarly to for later evolution where multiple parallel processes occur, a number of physical and chemical processes and conditions were present. An archaea or eukariote is also more complex than its parts, which themselves appeared and evolved under the right conditions where the necessary processes occurred massively. Considering all this, my impression is that the sentence is a decent summary (with more details later). It's also important to consider that the lead should be a summary of the article's body (WP:LEAD). —PaleoNeonate – 16:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

[EC]We probably agree that there are clear examples of living and not-living entities. I do not see how the existing text necessarily entails a satisfactorily agreed definition of either state. Wikipedia's own article on life admits ambiguity e.g. in the case of viruses. IMO it's not broken, and doesn't need fixing. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate the suggestion to be specific and improve the introduction, it has to remain a brief summary and expressed in understandable terms. As other editors noted, any reader wanting to find the definition/description of life, they will find it in that article. Also, please note that it is not possible at this time to draw a line or point the precise moment an inanimate pre-biotic system becomes a living organism without a full description of the phenomena at work. That is simply not helpful when we want to summarize and explain the basic concept in the introduction. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I think you are slightly missing my point (my fault I'm sure). I agree entirely with PaleoNeonate's comments. Absolutely no argument there. The point I was trying to make is that I don't think that sentence in the lede reflects them. To me it implies that there are clear definitions of living and non-living and therefore there must be a point at which one becomes the other. We all know that's not the case, so to risk giving that impression is best avoided. Reading it cold for the first time my immediate reaction was that it jarred.

I am suggesting finding some form of words that explains that there was a gradual increase in complexity, but without what we'd claim as a mechanism of evolutionary inheritance. (At which point abiogenesis becomes evolution). I have heard the term "chemical evolution" used, which I also don't think captures it.

The sense of what I suggest is something like "a gradual, undirected, increase in the complexity of entities resulted in recognisably living organisms exhibiting a mechanism of inheritance [and subject to evolution?]." Ideally it would also capture the point that such entities were capable of replication and presumably some analogue of homeostasis, but perhaps that's pushing it.

I know that's not the right wording either but it avoids the non-living / living strawman I've seen more than once. (I was very active on the net defending science around the time of the Dover trial)

I dunno, maybe I'm just seeing something that's not really there. :)

185.47.106.84 (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

With your example it's much more specific and has merit I think (the mention of reproduction and/or inheritance). "Recognisably living" may also be an acceptable compromise to the equivocal definition of life... —PaleoNeonate – 10:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it might help if the lede made clear that we lack of any detailed knowledge of how abiogenesis occurred; exactly when life started being just one detail.--agr (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Issues with the lead

For most processes by which something originates (such as chondrogenesis, embryogenesis, epigenesis, gametogenesis, lipogenesis, neurogenesis and spermatogenesis), there is a rather detailed scientific understanding of what is concretely involved in the main aspects of the process, based on studying these processes and their details in vitro and – where possible – in vivo, obtained in a long process of scientific discovery in which – as usual – most results build upon the work of predecessors. As a subject of study, abiogenesis is very different. What we know about it is not so much the result of discovery; rather, it is the result of informed speculation: speculation that is informed by a broad and deep knowledge of many scientific fields mixed with a good dose of common sense. Nevertheless, it is speculation. There is not even consensus on the fundamental question of whether life originated on Earth or elsewhere. The Simple English Wikipedia opens its article on the subject with this sentence: "The origin of life on Earth is a scientific problem which is not yet solved." In contrast, our article starts in a similar way to other -genesis articles, providing some insight as if it is a firmly established scientific fact: "The transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis and cell membranes." Never mind that the three cited sources only weakly support the statement (the first one does not directly address abiogenesis, the second is merely yet another among countless largely unsubstantiated proposals of how the process may have unfolded, and the third talks about the meaning of the term evolutive abiogenesis, which is a way of begging the question). It is only by wading in through five long sentences (comprising 150 words!), weaving a thicket of polysyllabic scientific jargon, that the unsuspecting reader discovers the fact of the matter: "Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain ..." That is, assuming that the reader realizes the import of these words, which do not explicitly state, but merely imply, that we do not have a "successful theory" yet. In my eyes, the lead (which, by the way, is excessively long), fails in its most essential task, to quickly come to the point and provide an accessible overview of the subject to as broad an audience as possible. It should be clear from the start that abiogenesis is "a scientific problem which is not yet solved" – in fact, if the panspermia hypothesis happens to be true, may never be solved. It should be clear that the concept of a multi-staged gradual process is not an established fact but a commonly accepted working hypothesis. The fact that this is mentioned in a quotation in the References section does not cut it for me; references are meant for verifiability and further exploration; the main text should be able to stand on its own without the support of references.  --Lambiam 19:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Quote: "It should be clear that the concept of a multi-staged gradual process is not an established fact but a commonly accepted working hypothesis."

Hello. It is known that the oldest lifeforms on Earth were microscopic, and as the fossil record advances with time, life evolved into larger lifeforms. That is a fact. Whether abiogenesis started on Earth or the microbes were transported here through panspermia, it was certainly a gradual process of increasing complexity, and there is no disagreement in the scientific community about that. The sudden appearance of life forms (complex or simple) is a non-scientific speculation by creationists. I'd say, feel free to move a couple of sentences around, but any more than that would require discussion and consensus. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

We are talking here about the transition non-living matter → lifeforms. The "oldest lifeforms on Earth" are (by definition) on the "life" side of that transition. How more complex lifeforms arise from simple lifeforms is an interesting scientific problem, but it is not the issue to which abiogenesis research is aiming to find an answer. The fact that life, once it had originated, evolved into larger lifeforms does not imply, logically or otherwise, that the process by which life arose from non-life was a multi-staged gradual process. As far as I have seen, the only argument for the hypothesis that the process has been multi-staged is that no one has come up with a plausible pathway that is not multi-staged. I am not sure that there is also agreement in the scientific community that the steps leading from one stage to the next were gradual. I made an (in my eyes) modest change that I felt would make the situation clearer early on in the lead, but it was reverted. I posted the above to elicit discussion in the hope that consensus might arise that the current lead has an unnecessary, entirely avoidable risk of putting the reader on the wrong track.  --Lambiam 22:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"[…] evolved into larger lifeforms does not imply, logically or otherwise, that the process by which life arose from non-life was a multi-staged gradual process." The scientific consensus disagrees with you. The Earliest known life forms confirms that abiogenesis first produced unicellular life. There are a multitude of self-replicating molecules discovered, including RNA, so encapsulation (protocell) is not an unbelievable or impossible step. The multi-staged gradual process of abiogenesis evidently happened sometime between the Big Bang and now, because physical life exists. That is a fact. The sudden and supernatural appearance of life is a religious belief (creation myth), while there is no natural law that denies a multi-staged gradual process to form a protocell. The challenge is to figure the multi-step process that brought about the first unicellular life - that is where you see several hypotheses. While your change ([5] seems objective and neutral, it is not so: The hypotheses are not on whether abiogenesis happened, but on how it happened; the hypotheses are on elucidating the different steps, because it was more than one single miraculous "goddidit" event.

"I am not sure that there is also agreement in the scientific community that the steps leading from one stage to the next were gradual." That is the central argument from the creationist Teach the Controversy campaign in support of Intelligent design. Remember this is not a forum, so I am not eager to prolong this discussion simply because you deny the scientific consensus, and the references cited, without offering a reliable reference to your argument. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why you bring up the strawman of supernatural creationist beliefs. If you look at my edit whose reversion brought me here, you will not discern the faintest hint of anything supernatural or creationist. Let me copy the proposed sentence here.

"While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes."

In this sentence, the term "hypothesis" clearly refers to the how of abiogenesis, and not to the whether. If someone reads it any other way, it can only be because they are so defensive that they are primed to see something that isn't there.

Dozens of detailed abiogenesis scenarios have been proposed, none of which has been confirmed to any degree of certainty, so all origin of life theories can be considered inconclusive; we just don't know. My whole point is that if you carefully read the whole article, that conclusion is unescapable. But the way it starts sounds very different, as if the article is going to lay out the process. All I want is that it is made clear to the reader early on, before we go into incredible detail, that we don't know. In the words of Peter Jack Fisher, in The Universe, Life and Man, "Most authorities agree today that life on earth began on earth, but its origin remains one of the oldest and most elusive problems of biology and chemistry and has engaged the attention of some of the keenest minds in philosophy and science for more than 2,000 years."  --Lambiam 21:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Would the following sentence be acceptable?

"Although there is not yet a generally accepted theory explaining in detail how the process unfolded, scientific research on abiogenesis proceeds from the fundamental working hypothesis that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis and the emergence of cell membranes."

If not, please explain the issue without assuming ulterior motives beyond improving the article.  --Lambiam 09:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

For the last time: creationism is not an option because life forms did not appear upon a single step/event. There is no argument in the scientific literature that abiogenesis was/is a step-wise process of increasing chemical complexity. So the multi-step concept is not hypothetical. What is hypothetical are the nature, sequence, chemistry, etc. of those multiple steps. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed you introduced that abiogenesis assumes it all was a "natural process". It makes no sense. Of course science relies on observations learned from the natural world, and it automatically discards the supernatural. Your text is a textbook example of the creationist "Teach the controversy campaign trying to give the impression that scientists are not even sure whether to discard supernatural powers of creation vs. natural processes. Please stop. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: – Can you please stop assuming that I support creationism? Both of the cited sources containing a statement about the working hypothesis of a "natural process" were written by opponents of creationism and/or inteligent design. You also seem to assume that the readers of this article already have a somewhat developed idea of abiogenesis research. Stating the fundamental assumptions made by abiogenesis researchers may not make sense to you, but clearly there are scientists who believe that it does make sense to point them out to their audience. I reiterate my main point, which has not been addressed in any reply: We should not assume that the reader of the article already knows (a) that there is not yet a generally accepted theory of abiogenesis; (b) that researchers are trying to piece together a scenario that is not only theoretically possible, but also somewhat plausible. Imagine a reader who does not have any prior knowledge of lipogenesis, and who reads the opening statement "Lipogenesis is the process by which acetyl-CoA is converted to triglycerides". That reader will then naturally assume that the remainder of the article will explain that process in some detail. And indeed, it does. Now imagine yourself in the position of a reader who does not have any prior knowledge of abiogenesis. They too will kind of naturally assume, after seeing the opening statement "Abiogenesis ... is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter", that the remainder of the article will explain that process in some detail. Then, if they continue reading, they will eventually discover something is amiss with the conceptual frame in which they are interpreting the text. If they are lucky, they will be put in the right frame by the sentence that starts with "Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain ...". But you shouldn't bet on that. There is a fair chance that they will only understand the situation deep into the article, in the section Current models, on reading the sentence "There is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life." I repeat that understanding this point is essential for understanding the article. The lead of the article should contain the main points, and especially points that are essential for understanding the rest of the article. They should not be buried deep into the article.  --Lambiam 12:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I run into these types of things as well. In an effort to be scientifically honest, sometimes we must be willing to say what is unknown or not fully agreed-upon. However, someone out there always seems to think that you're somehow supporting fringe theories, and would rather overstate the level of confidence by scientists. In my opinion, one does not have to go so far as to "teach the controversy" if they simply teach what science knows, and what it does not yet have answers for. MXVN (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This sentence ("While the details of this process [..]") seems better than the one currently on the page, and is scientifically honest. Does anyone still object to its use? Do the sentences after this one make it clear enough the way it is? MXVN (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)I moved this contribution out of the middle of another user's contribution to the appropriate place, added a quote in parentheses and added MXVN's signature. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I am OK with using that wording. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

FWIW - Thanks for the comments - the lede seems excellent, clear and factual at the moment - as well as sufficiently encyclopedic, academic and well-sourced - especially for the casual reader - additionally, the issues raised above seem very well managed in the article lede for the more interested reader - in any regard - Thanks again for the comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Lambian, you do not seem to understand the flaw in your reverted edit so I will not indulge in an endless discussion. You seem to demand a better summary in the introduction, so instead of your wording that implies that abiogenesis is a natural hypothesis against others equally valid (magic?), I inserted "Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred." -Rowan Forest (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This is mostly good, but implies a 100% agreement whereas it's just uncontroversial among the MAJORITY of scientists. Although there may be little disagreement, there are still some actual, real scientists who say that it would be impossible to happen on its own or with currently-understood mechanics, even if they, granted, do sometimes reach to the supernatural for other explanations. It could be changed to say "the majority of" or "among most" or maybe that it faces little controversy or is not very controversial (all of which are technically accurate but might sound a little too soft), or it could be changed to say that some individual components have been verified scientifically, but others such as an origin have not, as there are no known ways to test them. That just seems more long-winded than necessary, but you all might disagree. In any case, we want to be careful not to speak for all scientists when indeed there are enough unknowns that although the process is generally accepted, it might not be universally so. The challenge is in finding a wording that is intellectually honest without making it sound like there is some large debate happening over it. MXVN (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

No, there are only two options: abiogenesis on Planet Earth or abiogenesis on another planet. "By miracle" is not a scientific option. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Tgeorgescu and the others. If this was a philosophical article about the origin of life, then religious beliefs of magic may be a necessary topic to include. While such articles already exist elsewhere in Wikipedia, this particular article, abiogenesis, is focused in the scientific method of inquiries; that implies disregarding ficticious unproven forces like magic and miracles. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Abiogenesis on Earth and potentially elsewhere

Hello, User:Signedzzz. You wrote "I prefer the past tense, as there is no reason to assume that it happened more than once, which the present tense tends to imply at least in my opinion, please revert if necessary". I agree in that the tense has been contentious, but not because there are hypotheses of a second Terran abiogenesis, but because there are ongoing investigations regarding pre-biotic chemistry on other planets that may also have led to abiogenesis off the Earth. Mars, Europa, Ganymede and Enceladus may have unicellular life in its deep hydrosphere, and Titan seems to have many of the pre-biotic chemistry elements at the surface, so other occurrences of abiogenesis are contemplated in the field of astrobiology, although not so much on Earth. Can you think of a sentence —or other fixes— that could improve the article in that respect and defuse the use of the past tense vs. present? Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I take your point, that I may have gone too far the other way - implying that it only ever happened once anywhere. Note, however, that the next sentence following it also uses the past tense: "...the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process..." Cheers zzz (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Amyloid world

@BoreasJm6: Hello. Your large addition of a section entitled "Amyloid world" (aggregation of proteins) may be problematic because it is not suggestive of having reach some level of influence in the overall subject and literature. I did not read all the references but it seems that only one researcher worked on this hypothesis. Perhaps we can discuss a much shorter mention in an already existing section. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Aleksandr Oparin and Andrei Kursanov in enzymology laboratory 1938.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Quantum biology

Is quantum biology applicable in these part Lenin Khangjrakpam (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, see Quantum biology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Quantum biology is reductionist and helps study functions such as enzymes, metabolism and energy transformation and use. In contrast, abiogenesis attempts to expand the context and the multiple chains of events. Being a new field, it may or may not eventually shed light on pre-biotic chemistry. The largest challenge in prebiotic chemistry is not so much in the physics of thermodynamic bond formation and breaking (which are well established), but in characterizing the early environment on Earth -the physical medium and conditions in which prebiotic-chemistry started. I don't think we should include a section on quantum biology until it reaches a level of peer-reviewed articles specific to abiogenesis, if their research ever heads that way. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Canadian English

Regarding the current dispute, note there is this template at the top of the code: {{Use Canadian English|date= September 2016}}. Cheer, Row[an Forest (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

FWIW - seems that the word "harbor" (american) is spelled "harbor" or "harbour" (canadian) and "harbour" (british) based on the "Canadian, Brtish and American Spelling" WebSite at => http://www.lukemastin.com/testing/spelling/cgi-bin/database.cgi?action=home - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Information Theory

I am wondering why there is a section called "Information Theory" at the end of this article. The section does not contribute anything meaningful to the topic. It seems to me to be content that is simply distracting. I could imagine information theory having something to say about abiogenesis, but I don't see anything compelling in that paragraph that would justify its inclusion. One could as well have a section titled "Angular Momentum", and saying that the origin of life anywhere in the universe must conserve angular momentum. What is the point? MarkGoldfain (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. -Rowan Forest (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the subsection as I also agree that it wasn't particularly useful. —PaleoNeonate – 00:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes - I agree as well - Thank you for removing the section - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems that even the simplest life-form would require some well ordered, intentional information. Like our DNA today, some sort of "instruction book" would seem necessary to encode for the manufacture of various proteins, enzymes and other molecular machinery to carry out the processes of life. Also, some sort of error correction system would need to be implemented by molecular machinery encoded for in this "instruction book." In life today, the information encoded in various biomolecules plays an equal role to that of the molecules that accomplish the functionality of living things. Muscles would not work if actin and myosin were not properly encoded for in the information storage system of our DNA, as well as that information being correctly transcribed and translated, i.e. information processing. Is it thought that the first living organisms didn't need some form of information storage, retrieval, processing, error correction, and replication system? Could abiogenesis have occurred outside the context of information theory?

It seems to me that "Information Theory" has an equal role to play in abiogenesis along with chemistry. Aren't the scientists today who try to imitate abiogenesis more concerned with putting together the right "code?" The other molecules of life are simply borrowed from today's living things but developing a successful code (especially a minimal code) in DNA or RNA seems to be the real focus.

I think a well fleshed out "Information Theory" section would be a fine addition to this article. Rubiks6 (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It took me less than 2 minutes to find this article. Rubiks6 (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Inaccurate words

WP:NOTAFORUM or WP:SOAPBOX; Editor who made the original post is referred to the FAQ, and related discussions in the archives.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The words "the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists" are patently false. I am not injecting any of the controversies about abiogenesis into the article but merely asking that this false statement that no controversies exist among scientists be removed. After all, science wouldn't be science without controversy. The statement makes the article look foolish because it is so obviously incorrect. I understand the need to keep the controversies about abiogenesis out of the article but to state that there are no controversies is simply false. It's political and biased. I think the best thing to do is to leave the controversial or uncontroversial characterization of the topic completely unaddressed. Let's just stick to science. Rubiks6 (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC) Rubiks6, I moved this statement to the bottom of the page where new entries go. If you want to change this you need to bring reliable sources that show the controversy. Wikipedia will not just take your word for it, we need sources. Note that the American religious take on this is nonsense too. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC) Thank you for moving it. Good title, too. I am new at all of this and there is a learning curve for me. Have you considered my proposal? Are you the final word on this matter? What reliable sources are you looking for? The words, "the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists," form an all or nothing statement. Propositional logic tells me that one counterexample is sufficient to falsify the statement. If you would like, I could provide a long list of credentialed scientists that find the idea of abiogenesis having occurred to be controversial. Why is the statement there at all? It is not a scientific statement. It is a sociological statement about the feelings of a poorly defined class of people. You ask me for reliable sources. There are no citations to support the quoted statement being included in the introduction to the article. Can we just stick to science, and leave the subject of controversy out of the introductory paragraph to such a scientific Wikipedia article? Rubiks6 (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC) FWIW - *Entirely* agree with the comments made above by "User:Roxy the dog" - presenting supporting citations from "WP:Reliable Sources" may help you with your views - otherwise - your views, without such support, may be considered "WP:Original Research" which may not help - seems your views are not new to this talk-page - Please see the relevant "FAQ above" at => "Talk:Abiogenesis#FAQ" - esp Answers to Questions 1 and 4 - but other Answers to Questions, as needed, as well - exploring the Archive above of past discussions may be helpful also - hope this helps in some way - in an case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC) Reading the above FAQs was helpful. Perhaps the word "uncontroversial" could be replaced with "the consensus" to be more accurate. New wording suggestion: "Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is the consensus among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred." Not only is this formulation more accurate, but the entire sentence also makes more sense. It seems rather silly to say abiogenesis is "uncontroversial" and before you've even reached the period in the sentence to say, "there is no single, generally accepted model ...". This wording also presents a more NPOV. -Rubiks6 (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Thank you for your comments - for my part, the present text seems better - clearer - and sufficiently accurate - Comments Welcome from other editors - in any regards - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Science is biased against miracles. So the probability of having a scientific theory of "life appeared by miracle" is 0, according to science. If it was a miracle, it cannot be studied by science (God could do anything, so it's not falsifiable). So, science, by investigating the causes of the apparition of life basically says that it wasn't a miracle. Otherwise it would not investigate such causes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC) I never said anything about "miracle." Don't put words in my mouth. My discussion is about the word "uncontroversial." Science exists and thrives on controversy. Abiogenesis, like many other scientific topics, is, in fact, controversial among scientists. It is a consensus of scientists that accept the principles of abiogenesis as described in this article. A consensus. Einstein's Relativity is uncontroversial. Abiogenesis is not uncontroversial. If you wish the article to be more strictly scientific then remove any mention of "controversy," as I originally suggested. Instead, the notion of controversy is introduced almost immediately into the article. (Why is controversy mentioned at all?) btw - "Science" doesn't study things and "science" doesn't investigate things. Scientists study and investigate things and scientists often disagree with one another and this is called "controversy" and this controversy quite often leads to scientific progress. _Rubiks6 (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC) If science could never admit that it was a miracle, then you have granted the point that abiogenesis is a fact. Its theory in unknown, but the fact itself is accepted. When I speak of "science" I speak of science as a whole, i.e. the whole enterprise of modern science. When I speak of "scientists" it implies that there are things that are not cast in stone. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC) You will find the article "Abiogenesis" listed in the Wikipedia category "Controversial Topics." -Rubiks6 (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC) It's controversial in the culture war, not in science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC) For, if there’s one thing that indisputably unites the natural sciences, it’s the conviction that ‘there will be no miracles here’. Every natural science without exception follows this rule, whatever compartment of the natural world it’s concerned with, that it should continue to ask questions and to investigate, and never be satisfied with explanations that call upon mysterious personal forces and inexplicable happenings (miracles, in other words). — Mark Harris, Geology, naturalism, and the problem of miracles Scientifically, whether God exists or not makes no difference: "God" is not a scientific explanation for anything. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC) I have not brought any god into the discussion, only you have. Nor have I brought any notion of miracle into the discussion, only you have. I am not interested in bringing either one of these notions into our discussion or into the article. You are defending against boogie-men. And, in reference to your earlier quote ... ... and yet you have here an entire article is filled with descriptions of "inexplicable happenings" because, as the article states, "there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life." Those are fine and true words and I like them and wish to keep them but they conflict with the preceding words, "the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists." Change the word "uncontroversial" and no further discussion is needed. The introductory paragraph does not refer to "science" but refers to "scientists". These words are not synonymous, though you continue to use them as though they are. Abiogenesis is controversial among scientists. "Culture war" is a very poorly defined term but I think scientists are part of our modern culture and have important roles to play in the culture war. Scientists take different sides on various issues in the culture war, including issues relating to abiogenesis because abiogenesis is controversial among scientists. The choice of the word "uncontroversial" does not represent a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. A different word should be chosen which better reflects reality and neutrality or else the clause itself should be scrapped. -Rubiks6 (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC) You seek to manufacture a controversy where none exists: since the hypothesis God cannot explain anything in the natural world, abiogenesis is a scientific fact. It's either abiogenesis or miracle, there are no other options. It does not matter whether it was abiogenesis on planet Earth or upon some other planet. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC) At the beginning of this thread I said "If you want to change this you need to bring reliable sources that show the controversy." and yet you still keep stating it as if it were real. You provide no evidence, and I conclude that this discussion is over as pointless. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC) True, there are no scientific WP:RS that life was created by miracle and there cannot be such papers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC) @Rubiks6: What is wrong about "the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists"? Does a reliable source identify a significant number of scientists who think abiogenesis may not have occurred? It is certainly true that the mechanism by which abiogenesis occurred is controversial in the sense that some think one thing, while others think other things. Johnuniq (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Scientists may believe anything about abiogenesis in their private lives. The whole enterprise of science says that papers opposing abiogenesis are makulatur. So, it's catch-22: if they oppose abiogenesis, they are not WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Creationism

@Monster34563: please read the section entitled Frequently asked questions (FAQ) at the top of this Talk page. There is a multitude of issues with you replacing a complex article produced and verified by a multitude of editors, with your assay heavily dealing (and favoring) creationism. Thank you, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: Added content was copypaste from http://creationwiki.org/Origin_of_life. While it's under a compatible license, the attribution required by both the license and WP policy was not provided. The addition is also WP:POINTy, as admitted by the user. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Based Upon Supposition

The idea the it is "uncontroversial among scientists" is not based upon provable fact. How many scientists are there in the world? How many of them have proven that it exists? The answers are millions and none, in that order.

To compound your errors, the concept that there are reliable sources within conjecture really means nothing. _ --KitchM (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Within the realm of science, the only possible solution to explore is abiogenesis. I haven't seen any scientist explore the supernatural and that is outside the boundaries that science has set for itself. So, you are saying that no one has proven that abiogenesis has occurred? No one is claiming that it is a solved problem. In fact, it says so at line 1: "Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. This article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.". So, as you can see, abiogenesis is not a scientific theory. It is a scientific hypothesis. Vmelkon (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:RGW. Creationists subscribe to abiogenesis by miracle. So, abiogenesis is a fact, however and wherever it might have happened. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I suppose you could put it that way but I think the creationist's view is that abiogenesis means going from non-life to life without the assistance of the god. It also means a godless world to them. It's important to them that the task of creating cells be done by the god rather than nature. For example, on the page about the hydrological cycle, the process is described via natural forces. That is a task left to nature. The creationist is not against that. Vmelkon (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

make paragraph: Primitive cytoplasts that exist that way without being the result of cell ablation

Able to do chemotaxis without genes and nucleus.

Study the functional cytoplasts in nature; not man made ones.

watch: HHMI Wallace Marshall (UCSF): Ten Craziest Things Cells Do

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooA0J6DWWTM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:840E:4E00:916C:77A9:F6B9:2583 (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Add possibility of life being rare

Drbogdan, you removed the following text and references at 13:12 hours on the 7th of October, 2018: "Other scientists indicate that life may be so rare that mankind's nearest neighbors may be beyond the possibility of our ever contacting them. Jill Tarter said that the factors of the Drake equation (which estimates the possibility of communicating with other life) are a means of organizing our lack of knowledge." I put that text into the article following a statement that life could be common in the universe. If the possibility of life being common is relevant to the article, then the possibility of it being rare is also relevant. Having both statements makes the article more balanced. The statements are mere possibility and do not contradict each other but having only the statement that life could be common might lead some people to think that life being common is the more probable condition. No reference has been cited to support that. There is no well accepted scientific evidence to contradict either possibility. - Fartherred (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fartherred, Apokryltaros, Chiswick Chap, PaleoNeonate, Rowan Forest, and Tgeorgescu: and others - Thank you for your comments - and concerns re my rv - well stated imo - yes nevertheless, seemed worthwhile to first discuss the text/references with other editors before adding to the lede of the main article - if possible, Comments Welcome from other editors - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Yup, if there is a reasonable debate (since we don't know the facts), then Wikipedia should describe the debate. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Thanks for your comment - yes - perhaps a note could be added re the debate - but maybe more in the body than in the lede? - fwiw - for my part these days - my view may be simpler (and perhaps/hopefully less debatable) [ie, "The Universe contains Life – on planet Earth – at least – and - we are Not Alone – Life abounds – wherever we are – with microorganisms – at the very minimum."] - seems sufficient to me these days - and somewhat consistent with my 2012 NYT comments - iac - Thanks again for your comment - and - Enjoy :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Fartherred; I think both sides of the story should be stated with equal weight. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW - perhaps related to the present discussion, and worth a mention here, are comments by Didier Queloz, winner of the 2019 Nobel Prize in Physics, for his discoveries of the first extrasolar planet orbiting a sun-like star, 51 Pegasi: Queloz predicted humans will discover extraterrestrial life in the next 30 years stating, "I can't believe we are the only living entity in the universe. There are just way [too] many planets, way too many stars, and the chemistry is universal. The chemistry that led to life has to happen elsewhere. So I am a strong believer that there must be life elsewhere." - iac - Enjoy :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Restored suggested text and related references - seems there's sufficient support to restore the text/refs from editors at the moment - hope the edit is ok - entirely ok to rv/rm/ce/mv he edit if otherwise of course - iac - Thanks for the comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fartherred, Apokryltaros, Chiswick Chap, PaleoNeonate, Rowan Forest, and Tgeorgescu: and others - BRIEF Followup - adjusted text - to better blend with the original lede text - as follows => "Extraterrestrial technically intelligent life, in contrast to the simpler microbial life referred to by Hedges, may be so rare that mankind's nearest neighbors may be beyond the possibility of our ever contacting them. Astronomer Jill Tarter, of the SETI Institute, related to SETI (Search for extraterrestrial intelligence), said that the factors of the Drake equation (which estimates the possibility of communicating with other [technically intelligent] life) are a means of organizing our lack of knowledge." - seems to be better - and avoids conflating simpler life forms (as referred to by biologist Hedges in the original lede) with technically intelligent life forms (as referred to by the new edit suggested above by Fartherred) - hope this helps - again - entirely ok with me to rv/rm/ce/mv the edit of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree both with the mention and about making the distinction between life and intelligent life. Also relevant may be Fermi paradox which doesn't seem to currently be mentioned in the article. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 17:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the restoration of deleted text and the alteration of the text to refer to technically capable life. It does seem that the altered text more closely matches the meaning of the source material. As for the quote from Didier Queloz, it comes from a highly intelligent source but Queloz was speaking informally and outside the field of his expertise. So, it does not carry much weight for scientific technical content. I recall about fifty years ago somebody suggested that in another decade biochemists would have made living cells out of sterile raw materials. It did not happen. I know something about the complicated nature of ribosomes and have heard of a suggestion of two stage evolution of sterile materials into living cells. The metabolism of life supposedly came first with RNA constituting the first enzymes. This stuff evolved for some time before coded RNA molecules were being converted into protein enzymes for more efficient use of the environment to make daughter beads of soup. By what ever route living cells came into being, it seems a freakishly unlikely occurrence. It is like dropping a large handful of coins at a bank teller's window and having a nickel land on edge with a nickel on edge balanced upon the first and a third upon the second. I can imagine a photo shopped film with portions lifted out of many films of dropped coins showing the coins dancing on a polished marble surface with coins colliding in mid air with just the right velocity to stop one coin exactly vertical atop another, and so suggesting that the thing is not a total violation of physical law (if the flattened portions of rims just happen to match up right). It is only impossible because of the extreme unlikeliness. I do not know if there is some oddity of nature that tends to lead sterile chemicals and nascent fragile life forms through all of the various stages of evolution that would make the production of living cells much more likely than one would otherwise imagine. The difficult steps may involve life developing intelligence and technology. I will not live long enough to learn the answer before I get to the next life. - Fartherred (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

References