Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 7

Self-reference in the lead.

Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Self-references_to_avoid, we cannot have an article refer to itself using terms such as "this article" - articles are not supposed to break the "fourth wall" and discuss the fact that they are an article, or use instructional MOS:NOTEs that specifically say things like "this article will do X, Y, and Z." --Aquillion (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I am not sure what you mean. The only use for the phrase "this article" is in a tempolate at the bottom: "Listen to this article (4 parts)". Now, if you meant to avoid the use of the word "abiogenesis" in this article, that would not be reasonable. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I see you already fixed that previous to my review. Thanks. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit war around "overlinking".

So, what we have here are the following added wiki-links: matter, Earth, chemical elements, hydrogen, helium, lithium, atoms and stars, as well as the billion years ago moved from the middle of the section to the beginning. I would gladly hear your explicit opinions on why those links should be removed, besides the plain "overlinking" arguments, which are purely subjective and do not correspond with any guidelines whatsoever. What do the guidelines tell us? A couple of things:
1) "An overlinked article contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly".
2) "A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from."
3) "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked: ... "
4) "The function of links is to clarify, not emphasize"
Needless to say that addition of the previously mentioned links does aid the reader's understanding, does help understand the article, does provide a pathway to the articles on the relevant topics and, as a consequence of the latter, does clarify the concept of abiogenesis. Moreover, absolutely nothing mentioned in the examples of the "things not to link" resembles the scientific terms such as the ones we're talking about. And, yes, you may argue people talk about "Earth", "matter", "hydrogen", "stars" and "chemical elements" every day, however, even if that is the case, use of these words in the scientific context demands the whole new level of definition clarity, as well as the clarity of understanding, which are provided by reading the corresponding articles.
I would also like to mention, none of those wiki-links are duplicated, so the formal reason for reverting these edits does not exist - these reversions are based solely on your value judgments about "overlinking". -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Emergence of life in an inflationary universe

There is a recent article in Nature that estimates the probabilities of self-replicating RNA spontaneously assembling somewhere in the universe for differently sized universes. ([1]) It claims to give an explanation to the Fermi paradox. Should we refer to this? It got a fair amount of coverage on science news websites (like here), but none that I saw in regular media.  --Lambiam 05:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Uncontested

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

AFAIK there are three versions of abiogenesis: abiogenesis on planet Earth, abiogenesis elsewhere (panspermia) or abiogenesis by miracle (creationism). Panspermia simply refers to abiogenesis at another place, and creationism isn't a scientific hypothesis. Drawing the line, abiogenesis is uncontested. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

You left out a fourth possibility: the first living organism on Earth was assembled – not miraculously, but using sophisticated technical means – by an intelligent entity.

Even the simplest living organism embodies incredible complexity: the instructions for its own assembly, which are executed each time the organism reproduces, are cleverly encoded in its DNA. The encoded information is software. The physical structure of the organism is hardware.

So it's far more likely that the first living organism on earth was assembled by an intelligent entity, than that it somehow assembled itself – its hardware, as well as its cleverly-encoded software – from molecules randomly floating by in the primordial soup.

The concept of a protobiont has been introduced as an intermediate step between non-living matter and a living organism. Given the sheer improbability of an organism assembling itself, it was necessary to introduce this concept, in order to make it more believable that a complex organism could form out of non-living matter. But protobionts are not found in the environment today, and there's no evidence that protobionts ever actually existed. And even if they did exist, it is still a huge, unexplained, and improbable leap to go from a protobiont to a DNA-based organism. 2601:281:CC80:5AE0:3511:23AA:5C26:F44B (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Assembled by an intelligent entity is called panspermia. So that isn't a fourth possibility, but one of the three possibilities listed above. It becomes obvious when you ask: where that intelligent entity came from? Was it a god or a biological being? If it were a biological being, it or its initial creators had to arise through abiogenesis. If it were a robot, it was initially created by biological beings, so, again, abiogenesis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your "abiogenesis on planet Earth" possibility is distinct from your "abiogenesis elsewhere" possibility, and both are distinct from my "assembled non-miraculously by an intelligent entity on Earth" possibility. Sure, the possibility I raised begs lots of questions about the origin of the intelligent entity, but that's a separate issue. To insist that one must ultimately return to improbable theory of abiogenesis is really not that different from asserting that it's "Turtles all the way down."

Note: we are discussing how life began. The panspermia article says "Panspermia studies concentrate not on how life began, but on methods that may distribute it in the Universe." 2601:281:CC80:5AE0:19E0:7555:4019:6366 (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Science does not have any other option for the apparition of life somewhere. See WP:OR and WP:NOTFORUM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The very existence of this talk page on consensus simply demonstrates that this is NOT a topic without controversy. There are perfectly reasonable inferences to intelligent design, and to argue that the scope of your claim that science has no other conclusion therefore there is no other conclusion, precludes the possibility that there are scientists who also subscribe to intelligent design. I am one of them, so now that I have posted on this page, I will once more post my edits to the effect that this is a popular, but not uncontested theory. Glennfunk (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Just as soon as Cdesign Proponentsists can be bothered to get off of their tuchases to cobble together, in a deliberately honest fashion, what scientific evidence there is for Intelligent Design, what scientific research can be and has been done for and with Intelligent Design, and most importantly, how Intelligent Design is science and not a deceptive example of the fallacy of appealing to ignorance via God in order to shoehorn anti-science propaganda into science classroom curricula in place of science, we will make mention of Intelligent Design as a competing theory to Abiogenesis, but not before. Having said that, there is no other theory or hypothesis about the mechanics of the origin of life on Earth that is as robustly studied or thoroughly supported than Abiogenesis.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I will just quote you and thank you for proving my point: "there is no other THEORY or hypothesis about the mechanics of the origin of life on Earth that is as robustly studied or thoroughly supported than Abiogenesis" Glennfunk (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It appears I have ruffled feathers around here as I am now being accused of warring with concensus. Is it wrong to call something a theory if it is acknowledged as such here? I just don't get why the word "theoretical" is being flagged as a weasel word when saying "the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontested among scientists" is allowed to remain. Again, if there are ANY scientists that disagree with this statement, then it is baldly false. Does anyone have a better way to reconcile this disagreement? I will try to play nicely. I would like to hope that there are fair editors out there. Glennfunk (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Technically there could be scientists who agree with the flat Earth, you never know unless you surveyed all scientists and all of them told you they don't. For how we know the scientific consensus see Scientific consensus and arguments from authority on YouTube. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like everything that have mentioned so far is covered by the FAQ at the top of the page. We should probably not waste too much time here when the questions are already answered. --McSly (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes - *entirely* agree with those above supporting the "current original text" in the main "Abiogenesis" article - also - please see the "FAQ" ("direct link") at the top of the talk-page for any other related questions and issues raised (all are very well answered there) - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lack of clarity in this article

Suggest that abiogenesis applies to all life, on earth or (possibly) elsewhere. Thus suggest first para goes;

"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter.

For life on earth, it is speculated that life arose from simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] 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 an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.[12]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCJC777 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Creation of life from clay

For the interested, this section Creation_of_life_from_clay#In_science could use improvement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Section: Early universe and Earth: astronomy and geology

It seems that the section "Early universe and Earth: astronomy and geology" mostly contains information which is related to, but not necessary for the description of abiogenesis. Should this section be removed or rewritten in terms of abiogensis? Pretentieux (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Chaos

This article is impossible to navigate. Main points and side issues are not separated at all (which is most likely a by-product of WP:OR), making the overall structure very unclear and messy. I would say this article needs some real streamlining. Does anyone have some overview literature for this? TheBartgry (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

There is Talk:Abiogenesis/Sources which may work as an overview, particularly the "Background" section, although I never actually updated it so it's a few years out of date. I agree that the article has become quite unwieldy and would support attempts to address the issue. Some parts could probably be summarized here and their full text used to create separate articles. I would also note that the prose size of the article is currently ~108k, which is in the "Almost certainly should be divided" category of WP:SIZERULE. Sunrise (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Article is fine but hard to read

It needs to be broken up or better organized. Too long to read.2601:241:8D82:5750:D5C5:9D60:5609:B0B3 (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)BeaMyra

Edition of Abiogenesis

8. Pertinent geological environments

The proposal is to preserve the texts in point 8. Whole authors have reliable publications in index Copernicus, Web of Science and Scopus. There are proofs with stromatolites and hot mineral water in open lakes and hydrothermal vents, which are connected with point. • 4 Earliest evidence of life: palaeontology.

I think the text for Mulkidjanian and co-authors is enough. Point 9.3 Zinc-world hypothesis with text for hypothesis of Mulkidjanian needs of edition.

8 Pertinent geological environments 8.1 Darwin's little pond 8.2 Volcanic hot springs and hydrothermal vents, shallow or deep 8.3 Deep sea hydrothermal vents 8.4 Fluctuating hydrothermal pools on volcanic islands or proto-continents 8.5 Volcanic ash in the ocean 8.6 Gold's deep-hot biosphere 8.7 Radioactive beach hypothesis

The proposal is to preserve the texts hear in point 8. Whole authors have reliable publications in index Copernicus, Web of Science and Scopus. There are proofs with stromatolites and hot mineral water in open lakes and hydrothermal vents. I think the text for Mulkidjanian and co-authors is enough. Point 9.3 Zinc-world hypothesis needs of edition. Petrov Russia (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

3. Early universe and Earth: astronomy and geology

In point 3 there are a lot of texts without connection with origin of life.

This point 3 needs edition with direction origin of life.

3. Early universe and Earth: astronomy and geology

   3.1 Early universe with first stars
   3.2 Emergence of the Solar System
   3.3 Emergence of Earth
   3.4 Emergence of the ocean
   3.5 Late heavy bombardment

Petrov Russia (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Other hypothesis

As noted in the template at the top, the article is very long right now. Some content that we may move away is the "Conceptual history until the 1960s: biology" section, as it deals with other hypothesis that have little or nothing to do with abiogenesis, such as spontaneous generation. We can move that content to an article with the history of the studies of the origin of life. Cambalachero (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we could split off "Conceptual history..." into its own article, like "History of Abiogenesis"?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Not with that name. Those other theories are about the same topic (the origin of life) but not about abiogenesis. Cambalachero (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Definition of life

According to the section "Definition of life", the question about the origin of life requires a common definition of what can be considered "life", and that there might be disputes about that. There are three quotes in that section. However, only the third one provides an actual and workable definition (metabolism, self-repair, and replication). The first one protests about the circular definition from dictionaries (that we should ignore anyway, as trivial for the context of this article), and the second does not define anything. However, if we simply remove both we would stay with just one definition, and that would contradict the premise of conflicting definitions of the concept of life. Are there other scientists that propose alternative definitions of life than the one of metabolism, self-repair, and replication? Cambalachero (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: and others - FWIW - a definition of life may be challenging - perhaps "Life#Definitions" may help to some extent - also => my thinking at the moment is similar to the comments I made some years ago - as follows:

Source: "Talk:Life/Archive 4#Definition of Life 2"

FWIW - Of Possible Interest - Seems Others Have Defined "Life" Similar To The One I Posted Earlier [ie, "'Life' (and/or 'Life-Forms'), At The Most Basic Level, Simply Seems To Be *A Chemical That Can Reproduce Itself*"] - There Are Several Examples: One Astronomer Phrases It As "matter that can reproduce itself and evolve as survival dictates" (also, PDF-1 and PDF-2); Another Scientist As "a molecule that can reproduce itself" - I Have No Particular Investment In Such Definitions For Purposes Of The Main "Life" Article But Perhaps Such Thinking Might Be Considered To Some Extent? - In Any Regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC) - UPDATE -> Added A Brief Line Of Related Text (And Several References) To The Main Article. Drbogdan (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ADD => as many as 123 definitions of life have been compiled - one definition seems to be favored by NASA: “a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.” - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

References

The concept of abiogenesis is clearly only at the rank of scientific hypothesis. It has never been empirically observed: no experiment or natural observation has demonstrated it. Because it has not been proven to be an existing or producible phenomenon, other, non/supernatural origins of life are logical candidates; the scientific process has been incapable of a demonstrable natural explanation. To exclude such non/supernatural origins of life is therefore scientifically illogical, and evidences not logic but emotional (pre-rational) judgment that another explanation is erroneous; this illogical judgment is contrary to scientific practice and an affront to science itself. It is belief/conjecture, or what is commonly called 'closemindedness'. Therefore, scientific inquiry necessarily mandates that abiogenesis be qualified as a hypothesis, which it clearly is. Being a hypothesis does not diminish its significance, but rather acknowledges the degree of scientific significance appropriate to it.Prestinius (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Alternative scientific hypothesis are listed at "Conceptual history until the 1960s: biology" Cambalachero (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

FWIW - for even more details re "abiogenesis" and "hypothesis" see the FAQ above and/or at => " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abiogenesis#FAQ " - as well as the related discussions in the ARCHIVES above and/or at => " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abiogenesis#ARCHIVES " - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Ool

From a purely grammatical perspective, what is this jargon abbreviation doing in the lede? It's not used anywhere else in the article, except in one citation where it's also in parenthesis after the full term. It adds nothing to the understanding of abiogenesis, which is the purpose of an encyclopedia; it's superfluous jargon that should be avoided. I would have removed it, if not for the message to discuss changes the first sentence.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Citation format

Wikipedia policy is not to change citation format without broad consensus, which there isn't. The article was written with "Smith, John" format for its entire history until this week, though some chemists had (probably accidentally) smuggled in six Vancouver citations. We should immediately revert to a last, first author format and convert the few v-refs to comply with that, not the other way around. I've noticed that same thing in other biology articles: it is an unacceptable breach of policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Article's length, style, and complexity

This article is now well over 300,000 bytes, far longer even than behemoth articles like Napoleon; it is certainly one of the longest biology articles. The topic may be complex but we are not obliged to try to cover the whole thing in one article; complex subjects like Evolution are at the head of substantial trees of subsidiary articles.

The normal thing to do in such a situation is to provide {{main|...}} links to a set of subsidiary articles, covering the key subtopics, and then to summarize each of those "main" articles with a concise paragraph (or maybe two) and the key citations from those articles, so that the reader of the top-level article – this one – gets an acceptably short, clear overview of the whole topic, with equally clear guidance as to where to read more.

Instead, this article actually already contains 14 "main" links (a good start), but each of them is then accompanied by a long, rambling, and often highly technical discussion, complete with multiple competing theories cited (ahem) to primary sources, i.e. a wholly un-summarized, undigested Wiki-ramble accreted, if I may use the metaphor, by an evolutionary process which randomly proceeds at each step by modifying whatever was already there, opportunistically ... in other words, there is no discernible plan, and the top-level text randomly repeats and overlaps with a large number of other articles.

I suggest that we cut each section that has a "main" link down to a summary, in accordance with policy on "summary style", to create a shorter, more readable article that acknowledges it is part of a family of articles, rather than a stand-alone monster.

I'd also suggest that we make some effort to make the article easier to read. For example:

Despite the likely increased volcanism and existence of many smaller tectonic "platelets," it has been suggested that between 4.4 and 4.3 Gya, the Earth was a water world, with little if any continental crust, an extremely turbulent atmosphere and a hydrosphere subject to intense ultraviolet (UV) light, from a T Tauri stage Sun, cosmic radiation and continued bolide impacts.

runs to about 51 words (are numbers and acronyms words I wonder) with an elaborate clause structure, asides, and lists. It is only one of hundreds, picked at random. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, the best way to tackle this monstrosity is rewriting the whole article using overview literature as a guide for structure and prioritization. Likely that is an insurmountable task for most of us. I have tried to bring this problem to our attention before, see here. As long as such an intervention isn't made, cutting down each section would only help the problem temporarily, given that the growth rate of this article is approximately 50.000 bytes per year. TheBartgry (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, probably all true, but not a reason for not trying. I've had plenty of experience of rewriting, and dealing with accretion. Having a tidy article (like a clean street or park) greatly reduces untidy behaviour; so do comments explaining the situation, rapid removal of barnacles, and diversion to the subsidiary articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Those are some good points. Don't get me wrong, I support your approach to tidy the article 100%, but I wanted to point out it would require some considerable restructuring. TheBartgry (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's a mammoth job. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The easiest way I see to actually get this article in shape is to just discard the entirety of the current contents and work on a brand new version in a sandbox. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris, Apokryltaros, Boghog, Chiswick Chap, Habil zare, Headbomb, Hemiauchenia, Jonesey95, McSly, Sunrise, Tgeorgescu, and Viriditas: - As before, please understand that I have no problem whatsoever improving the "Abiogenesis" article - including trimming the length - but perhaps the better way of improving the article may be by appropriate agreements with other editors rather than otherwise - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs extensive work, perhaps by shunting off larger sections off into their own articles?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I had a good look at trying to shunt off subsidiary articles last month, and there's no easy way. Per Hemiauchenia, I trimmed the length substantially, reaching a wall of near-incompressibility of the remaining substances. As for WP:TNT, the danger there would be of making the article much sketchier, omitting many of the approaches currently covered. On length, the filesize conceals the fact that the text is not terribly long (main text is about 50kbytes, 12k words): most of the kilobytes come from citations. It would also be quite the project to do a total rewrite, but who knows, maybe Prince Charming will rock up on his charger waving a shining sword and do the mighty deed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Panspermia in the lead

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard § Panspermia/Abiogenesis

Cutting this in a subsection since the above seems more general. My impression is that pansperma could have a mention but if so, should remain contextualized as a minor speculative hypothesis in a single sentence at the end of the lead (that is already quite long, admitedly). —PaleoNeonate – 05:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to mention it but it's important: if it's mentioned, it should also be specified that diversification still happened on earth from unicellular life. —PaleoNeonate – 12:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Panspermia is fringe idiocy. Notable idiocy, but it should not be given any substantial importance beyond it being an, at best, obsolete idea. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, it may seem stupid, but a variety of researchers think it not impossible and have published peer-reviewed papers on elements of it; so we must mention it. The mention seems suitably brief; its positioning in the lead does seem a minor issue but it's hard to see a justification for not treating it just like all the other abiogenesis theories: all but one of them must be wrong, so the best we can do is to describe them all briefly and neutrally. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

"variety of researchers", yes, fringe ones that publish mostly in nonsense journals like Journal of Cosmology and occasionally in mainstream journals like Astrobiology (journal). It's kook stuff. That fringe is amplified by the pop sci press, because it's flashy and sexy. OOohooh SCIENTIST* SAY LIFE CAME FROM ALIENS!!1!!1!!. *utter idiot no one takes seriously. It's barely above "Scientist claims these homeopathic pills will make you magically lose weight." as far as the science goes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_81#The_article_Coleoidea_proposes_that_cephalopods_are_space_aliens. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK atm - seems there was no "life" in the "very early universe" - and then there was life - on "planet Earth" at least - life may (or may not) have begun uniquely on Earth ("Terrestrial abiogenesis") - or elsewhere ("Extraterrestrial abiogenesis") and related to "Panspermia" - the notion of panspermia has been discussed numerous times in the archives of this "Abiogenesis" article - even somewhat recently (2018), there's been many authors (over 30) in a peer-reviewed study published in a reputable science journal ("WP:RS") who have presented the notion that life forms in the "Cambrian explosion" may have come from outer space - and not otherwise - this particular study seems fringe ("WP:Fringe") imo atm - nonetheless, perhaps panspermia itself - with many other even better "WP:RS" mentions in the responsible scientific literature - is worth an appropriate mention (at least) in the abiogenesis article? - including in the lead? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW - related - but closer to home so-to-speak - humankind itself may already be in an age of panspermia, by actually participating (unintentionally) in the panspermia process - after all - astronauts (each astronaut carries over 100 trillion "hitchhiking" bacteria) and human equipments delivered to astronomical bodies beyond earth, may be a very real not-hypothetical aspect of panspermia - technically, in Wikipedia (at least), considered "Forward contamination" - this may include the Moon, Mars (one of my Wiki-articles describes "Tersicoccus phoenicis", a NASA-clean resistant bacteria, and likely already on Mars as a contaminant), comets and asteroids - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid we can't just dismiss the many modern researchers who look into what used to be called Panspermia as all cranks. There are far too many of them, publishing in far too many peer-reviewed journals for that. Drbogdan has named a few of the many reliable sources as examples. Once again, that we personally may feel the theory is unlikely to be correct is not the criterion of crankiness; it is that the great mass of scientific opinion has argued against it, and provided evidence that it is wrong. Like it or not, serious scientists are continuing to investigate the options for the arrival of life on earth from other planets, and serious journals are publishing them. That may change, but for now, it's science. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

References

I think CC's ideas about what is fringe show a fundamental misunderstanding of how scholarly consensus works. In the modern age, there are millions of research papers published on every topic imaginable. Due to the sheer volume of research output, you'll be able to find a relatively large number of papers supporting any number of fringe/minority positions in any given topic. That doesn't necessarily merit then being given undue prominence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a personal attack: don't do that again, ever. However, it's also wrong: scholarly consensus among researchers/peer-reviewers and editors is directly reflected in what gets published, and it's certainly the main way such things can be seen and measured. Very occasionally there is other evidence, such as when a hundred researchers all sign a letter to Nature objecting to a specially dire paper, but we can't rely on that alone as it's never happened on many fringe topics. And one sentence can't be called undue prominence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

To assess consensus we should also try to find reviews that mention it as possible per WP:RS/AC instead of counting ourselves... WP:FRINGE/ALT may also be relevant, but the demarcation is not the easiest considering that some make implausible propositions (like the recent COVID-19 related claims noted at FTN :) —PaleoNeonate – 16:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Reviews include Vukotic et al 2021, Kawaguchi 2019, Burchell 2004, Yang et al 2009. Other reviews evaluate specific areas, such as putative microbiological evidence for the theory. That doesn't mean we can't agree that theories of octopuses flying through space are totally bonkers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You fail to understand my central point. You are citing literature that is solely about Panspermia, not about abiogenesis. That doesn't substantiate why it should be prominently included in the lead of this article. Again, there are loads of positions in all sorts of fields that are only held by small scholarly minorities (Modified Newtonian dynamics, Altaic languages, the idea that Race and intelligence are genetically linked, etc.) but publications on these topics have received lots of citations because the community that supports them is relatively active, and the number of active scholars in that field is large. Counting the individual papers is effectively unintentional cherry picking. Being published in reputable journal isn't a guarantee of reliablility either unfortunately, as even reputable journals occasionally publisher utter nonsense (like the cephalopod alien paper above). Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

There's not much doubt that panspermia is not an equal footing with abiogenesis (main proponents of panspermia include people like this guy, who notably claimed that COVID came from a meteor impact - not really a respectable mainstream scientific guy who should be used for writing an encyclopedic summary of mainstream science, if you see what I say...). Britannica is rather clear that the only hypothesis which has currency with modern science is that of "Life arising by a series of progressive chemical reactions."; and this from American Scientist does not even mention panspermia; although the Britannica article on abiogenesis (note the lack of one on panspermia, which also gives a fair impression of what is the mainstream idea) notes that abiogenesis is not definitively proven, so there might be room for some moderation (without introducing panspermia as being an equally valid and accepted theory - which it isn't). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear - seems the Britannica presents "panspermia" in the "abiogenesis" article as follows: "In addition, some scientists contend that abiogenesis was unnecessary, suggesting instead that life was introduced on Earth via collision with an extraterrestrial object harbouring living organisms, such as a meteorite carrying single-celled organisms; the hypothetical migration of life to Earth is known as panspermia." - and links the related "panspermism", not only to the "abiogenesis" article, but also to the "Svante-Arrhenius" article - an 18th century Swedish chemist who, according to the Britannica, "launched the hypothesis of panspermism" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That's still a few sentences in one paragraph deep into the article, and given the rest of the Britannica abiogenesis article, it certainly doesn't appear to be described as something that is on equal footing - I don't see how that is a valid argument to have this in the lead. As for one 20th century chemist, I don't see how he's relevant here: this is not an article about him (Svante Arrhenius is a better try, but that, unsurprisingly, already mentions this), but about the current knowledge on the topic. And as you know, lots of things changed in the 20th century, in science and elsewhere... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

To have an idea about how other tertiary sources treat it I also checked the SAGE Encyclopedia of Time. It mentions the hypothesis in its "Life, origin of" article but has no equivalent of a lead. —PaleoNeonate – 11:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I concur with RandomCanadian here; this doesn't strike me as a valid argument to have this in the lead. If anything, the lack of emphasis given the topic rather argues the opposite. XOR'easter (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (1)

RECENTLY REVERTED TEXT IN LEAD

NOTE: "Panspermia" has been in the LEAD of the "Abiogenesis" article for at least the last eight years - from "at least 2014" to the most recent revert "29 January 2022" - and has most recently been presented in the following way (see copy below): [ which seems *entirely* ok to be in the lead to me - added by Drbogdan (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC) ]

Copied from "Abiogenesis version at 07:06, 29 January 2022"

"The alternative panspermia hypothesis speculates that microscopic life arose outside Earth and spread to the early Earth on space dust and meteoroids. It is known that complex organic molecules occur in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth."

References

Circular Reference

Andrew J.; Fletcher, Stephen P. (2 December 2013). "Mechanisms of Autocatalysis cites Wikipedia which cites Fletcher. This is circular reasoning. For more see Stephen Meyer The Return of the God Hypothesis page 307 second paragraph. ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed as unusable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Criticism on abiogenesis

In the talk page it is stated that: "The occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, and there is ongoing research and competing hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred." >>>That alone is a statement that is very diffuse. Which scientists agree? Are there surveys and data that support this hypothesis?

Then it is stated that: "Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis. It is against Wikipedia policy for views without scientific support, such as all known objections to abiogenesis, to be included in a science article like Abiogenesis."

>>>My question is: In view of this statement, why is it okay to delete a section on a critical reception of the chemical evolution theories, based mainly on the scientific contribution of a professor of polymer chemistry and published in a highly recognised scientific publisher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Sloppy (talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Sloppy: and others - Thank you for your comments - the edit in question is copied below:

Copied below from the following => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abiogenesis&diff=1020675249&oldid=1020656503
My edit summary comments => "Rv edits - added text does not seem to be clearly supported by cited ref - please discuss on the talk-page for WP:CONSENSUS - per WP:BRD, WP:CITE, WP:NOR & related - thanks"

-- Criticism --

The hypotheses on chemical evolution and especially their optimistic interpretation with regard to the clarification of the origin of life are partly viewed critically. For example, the german expert for polymer chemistry Prof. Hans R. Kricheldorf, after analyzing the current hypotheses on chemical evolution, comes to the following conclusion: "The numerous gaps in knowledge, negative results and counter-arguments, [...], make it difficult with the current state of knowledge to accept from a distanced, scientific point of view the former existence of a chemical evolution leading to life. Despite numerous advances, especially within the framework of the RNA-world hypothesis, the results available so far are by far not sufficient to sufficiently substantiate a chemical evolution up to living organisms."

References

My main concern at the moment is that the added text does not seem to be clearly supported by the cited reference - there may be other concerns as well (wording, balance, more?) that may also need to be considered before adding the text to the article - in any case - Comments Welcome from other editors (esp those familiar with German) - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Some random book by some random person, pretty obviously picked for its conclusion. Not good enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, okay @Hob Gadling. I didn't know you had to have a certain status to contribute to Wikipedia. Can you perhaps give me a hint on how to achieve this? Is there anyone else who would like to discuss the content of the topic instead of discrediting the author or the scientific reference without knowing it? @Drbogdan: I appreciate your effort to prevent any unsubstantiated claims and unscientific assumptions about abiogenesis from appearing in this wiki article. However, you yourself write that you cannot judge the German source. This means to me that your main concern: "that the added text does not seem to be clearly supported by the cited reference", is merely that you cannot assess the source because of the language barrier. So I think your suggestion is great that other (German-speaking) editors take another look at the source. Until then, however, I would ask for impartiality, as this is a publication in a renowned scientific publishing house, which should contribute to critically questioning previous hypotheses and thus enable scientific progress in the field of abiogenesis (this goal is also formulated in the corresponding publication). From my point of view, this is exactly what science is all about: critically questioning and falsifying hypotheses. General rejections of such contributions and persons, such as in Hob Gadling's answer, I therefore find rather counterproductive at this point. Best regards, JoeJoe Sloppy (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

We know that it happened, we don't know how it happened. Why? Because a magic man done it isn't a scientific theory. And because panspermia simply means abiogenesis elsewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I do need to clarify that at this point. Especially for those who smell an agenda of religious people behind every criticism concerning the hypotheses of abiogenesis.

The source, which was quoted in the section, was published in a recognized science publishing house (as I already stated). The author is not religious in any way and even points out several times that his questions to the hypotheses on abiogenesis are not religiously motivated in any way. (Bad enough that a scientist must first explain themself before theories may be scientifically questioned.... But probably that is so in the case). As far as I know (and also other authors point out), there is up to now no theory which can explain the abiogenesis conclusively comprehensively. Therefore, in my opinion, it is logical or compelling to point out the ambiguities and open questions in the theories designed so far, precisely in order to enable progress in this regard. Everything else would be as if one had built an airplane that obviously cannot fly, but one does not look at the weak points out of fear that one could find out that the variant of the airplane will never be able to fly and one must perhaps start again.

Then, however, this is no more science which one pursues, but itself again a belief in the correctness of the own point of view.

That's why I think it's essential not to leave out critical, scientific voices, but to deal with the questions raised, because, well, because that's science.

In addition, I would be pleased if also (gladly critical) voices speak up, which first of all look at the source, before they put the author in any corner, because it is already clear to you before that it can be anyway only about any religious word messages. That is then nice, because you do not have to deal with the contents of the discussion and your own world view does not waver... But it is also anything but a scientific approach, which, at least as far as I understand it, should be the basis of the Wikipedia articles.

Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Sloppy (talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not "do" science, we only summarize mainstream science according to WP:DUE. We're not a scientific laboratory, not an university, not a publisher of original research, not a publisher of WP:FRINGE research, not a publisher of WP:UNDUE research, and so on. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point. But when new scientific evaluations of hypotheses appear, it is perhaps worthwhile to take a look at it as a Wikipedia community, since the scientific discourse continues, which is to be represented on Wikipedia. As I said, to evaluate such contributions from the outset as pseudoscience without knowing them (I assume that you have not read the contribution yet) shows in my opinion only of wanting to represent their own opinion on Wikipedia and not the scientific consensus.

If that were so, contents would be discussed at the place. So one can also come gladly to the conclusion that the source can be inserted in another place. E.g., here: "Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.[12]"

Although that is not as appropriate as a separate section in my opinion. Joe Joe Sloppy (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I *entirely* agree with all the editors above presenting concerns, as I have as well originally, about this material and reference(s) - seems the "WP:CONSENSUS" is clear => the proposed edit material (and related references) are not to be added to the main article - and for reasons that are very well described above by the editors challenging the proposed edit - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"[...]for reasons that are very well described above by the editors challenging the proposed edit"

The criticism from the editors has so far referred to me as the author or to general polemics regarding the discussion of the topic of abiogenesis. So far, not one contribution has dealt with the content of the cited source. But if these are the "very well described reasons" to which you refer, there is probably no need to put any more work into this and Wikipedia will have to live in its filter bubble for a little longer (at least as far as this article is concerned).

Nevertheless, I am of course still open to comments and hints on the content. Joe

@Joe Sloppy: We only render broadly accepted scientific ideas, so unless he posits something new (a novelty) and widely accepted I don't think we have to render each source which rehashes the idea that we don't know how it happened. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Since I have the feeling that some editors feel that this is about advertising ID, I would like to quote from the preface of the source that is being discussed all the time:

"If the criticism of the interpretation of results of the bottom-up approach expressed in many places should stimulate one or the other reader to new experiments, then this book has achieved its purpose. In any case, it was not the author's intention to please the reader with a new hypothesis or even pseudo-religion on the origin of life. Hans R. Kricheldorf"

It is commendable that the editors ensure that Intelligent Design theories do not find a place in the article on abiogenesis. However, this should not mean that scientific points of criticism are excluded in principle. Otherwise science degenerates into pseudoscience.Joe Sloppy (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@tgeorgescu: I dont agree. Hes saying something about the quality of the current hypothesis, which is to my opinion so far not really part of the article on abiogenesis.Joe Sloppy (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

So, how many times do you want to hear that we granted the point that we don't know how it happened? tgeorgescu (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

To me, it is not obvious in the article that "we dont know how it happend". It only says that "it is poorly understood", wich does not reflect the quality of the current hypothesis as I already said. But if I understand correct that you are the one(s) who decide so it does not make much sense to discuss any longer. Joe Sloppy (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The article says we don't know and we will probably never know. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You decide...Joe Sloppy (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Look, it's very simple. Lots of ink has been spilled about abiogenesis, and we cannot quote it all. We have to restrict ourselves to just a few sources, namely the most important or representative ones. We have seen no evidence that Kricheldorf's ideas are in any way relevant enough to quote. It is not enough that he fulfil minimum criteria - he has to be so relevant that, say, a lecturer at a university, giving a talk about abiogenesis about as long as this article, is likely to quote Kricheldorf's opinion. Is he? I don't think so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Dear Joe. In principle no one here should object to adding a 'criticism' section in this article. The question is, were you planning to write such a section on the basis of this source only? The best way to approach writing about 'criticism' regarding chemical evolution, would be to read up on recent overview literature, and assess if these skeptical counter-arguments receive significant attention by the authors. I'm not aware of any literature that does. TheBartgry (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• For what is worth, here is a recent review on the panspermia hypothesis: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-981-13-3639-3_27. It has also been disccused in a recent book: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119640912.ch4. Im surprised to see it listed as a fringe theory in here as I was presented that hypothesis during my university cursus. I understand that it does not resolve the origin of life in the universe, and that it relies on some abiogenesis elsewhere in the past, but for the matter of life origins here on earth it is worth a fair mention in my opinion. Cghislai (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  If that course was in biology and it was more than a mention and it was not presented as fringe, you should demand your money back. Panspermia is only held by people who do not understand evolution, such as Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It's nice to see that after so much back and forth, it's actually possible to discuss the content and the form on a factual level. Even if I'm a bit skeptical about statements like: "actually it's quite simple". I understand TheBartgry's argument. However, what has also happened in the discussion so far reflects a general problem of this branch of research. If criticism is formulated, one is put into a religious or pseudo-scientific corner and no discussion comes about at all. In my opinion, however, such mechanisms are a major problem because they prevent critical thinking. That's why I think it would be important, especially for a medium like Wikipedia with a large reach, to let critical voices have their say (as in most other Wikipedia articles, by the way). If the editors are of the opinion (and I can understand this to a certain extent) that this rediscovery of a critical way of thinking in the field of abiogenesis must first reach the broad scientific community, this is ultimately a pity, but it is to be accepted. However, I hope that at least those who have followed this discussion get a somewhat critical view and do not directly cover their eyes and ears with an automatism. Best regards and thank you for an in the end still somewhat constructive discussion Joe Sloppy (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Your arguments in favor of a criticism section are sound. If there is indeed, as you say, a bias towards positive arguments in abiogenesis literature (I could imagine so), then we are bound by WP:Verifiability to include that bias here. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth". Wikipedia is wrong. But it's the best we got. TheBartgry (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:CRITS: Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged.

I don't think you will find any sources with high enough quality, i.e. scientific sources. Abiogenesis is the only non-fringe alternative here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear Hob Gadling and to whom it concerns: I have presented, for everyone to see, a scientific source, a review article, which deals with the current hypotheses on abiogenesis. Apparently, the scientific quality was sufficient for the world's second largest scientific publisher. If your standard for scientific quality is different, then perhaps that speaks more to the fact that it is about beliefs and premises rather than a neutral, evidence-based argument on the subject. By the way, the article does not offer an alternative to abiogenesis, but recommends a more critical examination of the hypotheses.

I would recommend that all those who are interested in a critical debate take a look at the book. DOI (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57978-7)

Best, Joe 141.30.151.163 (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I will use "we" as a convention to mean the scientific community: If I correctly interpret the above, the argument is that we don't completely understand how it happened. We indeed know much more about how evolution happens than how abiogenesis succeeded. There of course was progress and various plausible hypotheses in the way, like protocells, etc. It's fine for the article to mention that abiogenesis is much less understood than evolution, but I don't think that it would be fair to just accumulate criticism, considering that it's the only plausible scientific explanation for the emergence of life... —PaleoNeonate – 12:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear PaleoNeonate,

thank you for your comment. Nevertheless, I think that exactly the opposite is the case. I don't think the issue here is whether a hypothesis is treated fairly or unfairly, those are moral conceptualizations. Rather, it is about whether there are intrinsic inconsistencies or contradictions that can be revealed (in the sense of falsification). In this sense, ANY scientific hypothesis, including abiogenesis, should be able to be criticized without anticipatory obedience or ideological bias.

A remark by Georg Christoph Lichtenberg may be helpful at this point: "Nothing puts more obstacle in the way of the progress of science than if one believes to know what one does not yet know."Joe Sloppy (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Wikipedia is not a journal and does not do the science, however, it should report about common knowledge or the most accepted hypotheses. For instance, in the conversation below, editors attempt to assess how to cover panspermia taking WP:RS/AC in consideration. Per WP:MNA, since it's an article about scientific biology, the article should also avoid promoting alternatives that have no scientific acceptance (like pseudoscientific creationism, of course). But if there are notable problems debated by mainstream biologists, it may well be WP:DUE and are likely also found in textbooks, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 16:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response PaleoNeonate and your thoughts. I find it very exciting to read this, because what you raise in your statement is exactly what I think should be reflected in the article. You write, "But if there are notable problems debated by mainstream biologists, it may well be WP:DUE and are likely also found in textbooks, etc."

That is exactly the point. I have introduced a source from a textbook from one of the largest science publishers in the world, which debates problems regarding abiogenesis. So if you follow your own standard, you should actually be in favor of including this section in the Wiki article, right?

Whereby I have one more objection to your statement: I think that not only biologists have something to say about abiogenesis, but also many other scientific fields (geologists, physicists, chemists and especially polymer chemists). Joe Sloppy (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding: I agreed above that evolution is much better understood. Our lead currently includes: "Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood." This seems to be what the above also argues with "the results available so far are by far not sufficient to sufficiently substantiate a chemical evolution up to living organisms". —PaleoNeonate – 18:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in a way, one can draw this conclusion from the sub-sentence that its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. However, from my point of view, the first part of the sentence should then be deleted. Because: If the possible mechanisms are poorly understood, many boundary conditions are unclear and on the basis of the facts a chemical evolution seems to be difficult to argue, then the statement: "Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists" is in the best case a statistical statement (although no references are listed for such a statement and thus it remains unclear what is meant by it), but probably rather a statement of faith or a premise which clarifies a certain bias. And as I have understood the discussion so far, such statements rather belong in other Wiki articles and not in this one, which wants to be purely scientific, right? Joe Sloppy (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

If I understand the very lengthy debate, it's that we should avoid vague generalisations about what most scientists believe, especially when there are philosophical overtones. I've removed the statement as not specially helpful and very difficult to substantiate. The article seems fine without it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Archives

Why does the section at the to with links to the archives only list Archives 1-3? (Which only contain discussions from 10 years ago and earlier)? It seems there are at least 7 pages of archives. I have no idea how to fix this..and sorry if this isn't the right place for posting this. Thanks 20:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirTramtryst (talk • contribs)

Hey there. I removed the archive box with the incorrect pagination. The second box from the top has a spot that says "Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7". I'm thinking we can just use that since that is auto-generating correctly. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Life before Earth - or not?

Regression of genome complexity increase.

The notion of life arising before the formation of Earh may be worh considering for several reasons: a possible fully-biofunctional complex LUCA to have arisen de novo on the very early Earth may simply be too complicated to have quickly occurred spontaneously, especially given the presumed timing (so quick after ocean formation - according to biologist Stephen Blair Hedges, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth ... then it could be common in the universe".), chemistry and terrestrial conditions/circumstances of the very early Earth - and may have arisen instead via of pseudo-panspermia, seemingly plausible on the basis of current findings and evidences, and/or via of the panspermia process (albeit currently considered a fringe notion, since there is lacking sufficient evidences at the moment) but, nonetheless, possibly originating on Mars, for example, and involving a much more complex (and fully functional) bioentity (or even an actual microorganism) to start the evolutionary process later on Earth - in any case - Comments Welcome - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Three things. Fringe, as you rightly observe. Tone, far too chatty, newsy, and speculative. And doesn't belong here, there are already articles on panspermia and pseudo-panspermia, but far from convinced either of them need a constant tide of gossipy accretions either. If we ask what is the scientific substance here, the reply is not much, the timing is a bit tight, that's all. Please, let's drop it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: - Thank you *very much* for your reply - and comments - yes - agreed - no problem whatsoever - thought the notion was worth considering - at least to some degree - but yes - in the end and, for the present "Abiogenesis" article, perhaps not yet sufficiently worth developing further afaik atm - iac - Thanks again for your own efforts with this - and for all your editing efforts developing the article to the higher quality level of "WP:GA" - it's all *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

"Ring of Life" phylogeny?

@Chiswick Chap: (and others): Of possible interest - Laurence A. Moran (Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto) commented recently (5/9/2022) on my Facebook Page regarding the new Wikipedia "Good Article" version of "Abiogenesis" (afaik) as follows:

"That's a pretty good article but I'd quibble with the simplistic view of eukaryotes as a sister group of archaea. The current consensus is that eukaryotes arose from a fusion of an alphaproteobacterium and a relative of the Asgard group of archaea. Both of these ancestors arose WITHIN their respective domains. Modern eukaryotes contain genes derived from both Eubacteria and Archaea with a slight majority tracing descent from the Eubacteria ancestor. This give rise to a "Ring of Life" phylogeny and represents the end of the Three Domain Hypothesis. ( https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-three-domain-hypothesis-rip.html )"

Perhaps worth noting for those more knowledgeable about this than I am at the moment - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, we're only reporting, not inventing. We can certainly use the "Ring of Life" source: Williams, T.A., Cox, C.J., Foster, P.G., Szöllősi, G.J., and Embley, T.M. (2020) Phylogenomics provides robust support for a two-domains tree of life. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 4:138-147. [doi: 10.1038/s41559-019-1040-x] Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Events in biological evolution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

We both started threads at the same time. No need for two. If Maxaxax or someone else wants to discuss the category, please do so at the thread above this one. Cambalachero (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

---

There is some edit-warring about to happen over the inclusion of this article in Category:Events in biological evolution. Maxaxax and Chiswick Chap, please discuss this here, nobody would like things to go wrong so soon after this level-3 vital article became a GA. Please explain in a bit of detail your reasons for and against the inclusion in the category, and let's hope we can reach an agreement. Cambalachero (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I was already doing so, see above. The article has just been formally reviewed; and the process is by definition pre-biological, so, basta. It is utterly unacceptable for editors to attempt to force through a change of that kind without consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Before evolution, not part of it

Since by definition abiogenesis is the pre-biological process that led to life, it is rather clear that it cannot properly be categorised as "biological evolution". Its name, indeed, means from not-life, not-bio. I do hope there will be no more attempts to miscategorise this article in this way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Maxaxax has indicated on his talk page that he agrees with the pre-biological nature of abiogenesis, which I hope will be an end to this matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I Have added the Category:Archean life category, but I'm a bit unsure if it should be that category or just the Category:Archean one. In either case, this is one of the most important things to happen in the Archean period, if not the most, and should be there somewhere. Cambalachero (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another editor, another category, exactly the same problem. Once life had formed, Archean or any other kind, abiogenesis had finished. So, abiogenesis is not part of the "Archean life" category, or any other "... life" category. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

What about the category Category:Archean, then? Cambalachero (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure you're right about the time period, either. Abiogenesis seems to have taken place in the Hadean; even the LUCA may well have appeared then, though its age is uncertain. It'd really be best just to leave it out in the circumstances. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Round of applause for Chiswick Chap

Let's give a big hand to Chiswick Chap's dedicated efforts to tame this monstrosity. The current version has neat coherence and solid prioritization. A tremendous improvement on the previous situation. Full marks! TheBartgry (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Small restoring

While improving, two refs were deleted in the summary. The missing point tells me that the modifier did not see that these are TWO refs, and deleted the words between them. I restored these words, apparently omitted unintentionally: "and implosion of bubbles in sea and ocean waves." Netsivi (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Diverse life forms may have evolved earlier than previously thought (at least 3.75 Gya)

May I suggest to reflect changes described in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrRxI_9cRM0&ab_channel=AntonPetrov and found in associated links to papers from its description, including https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/apr/diverse-life-forms-may-have-evolved-earlier-previously-thought ? Sleeditor (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The article already discusses life at this and greater ages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Loads of prebiotic molecules found in Milky Way?

FWIW - (For being aware only of newly published relevant studies - not necessarily to incorporate into the main article) - On 8 July 2022, astronomers reported the discovery of massive amounts of prebiotic molecules, including for RNA, in the galactic center of the Milky Way Galaxy.

References

Drbogdan (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Abiogenesis is about the origin of life here on Earth. This info would be more relevant in articles such as Astrobiology and Extraterrestrial life. Cambalachero (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 1 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Supporters cite common name and primary topic, but the data proportions have come under fire for being likely to include irrelevant results. The opposers make strong points on WP:PRECISE, namely that the current title fits the article's scope (a specific theory of the origin of life) far better than the proposed title (a general concept with multiple pondered explanations). (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Abiogenesis → Origin of life – The term "Origin of life" is close to 100 times more commonly used than "Abiogenesis". "Origin of life" gets 176 million ghits, against 1.78 million for "Abiogenesis". Similarly, the Google books Ngram shows that "Origin of life" has always been far more widely used in printed sources; it is considerably older, starting in 1800 rather than around 1870, and its usage has resurged since 1995. In contrast, "Abiogenesis" was most popular around 1891, though still only at about 23% of "Origin of life", and most the time much less than that, for instance in 1980 it was at about 5% of "Origin of life". Google Scholar gives "Origin of life" some 116,000 hits, and "Abiogenesis" some 6,400. Thus both scientists and other authors concur in using "Origin of life" as their preferred term.

I therefore propose, per WP:COMMONNAME, that we move the article to "Origin of life". Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 11:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap oppose on the basis that Origin of Life is ambiguous between the scientific origin of life and creation myths Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 12:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Immanuelle, as you say yourself, that would lead to Creation myths, with tales of mythical beasts and deities, not to anything named "Origin of life" as such; but even if it did, that would only mandate a disambiguation page like Creation (which lists dozens of pages)- that is no obstacle to the renaming. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps this could even be avoided by making origin of life a disambig, with the article about Abiogenesis being titled something like: Origin of Life (science) TimTheDragonRider (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it's even necessary; at the most a hatnote would be sufficient, and this would clearly be the primary topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support - for the reasons *very well* described above in the original requested move proposal - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support for reasons listed in the original suggestion. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per original argument (WP:COMMONNAME). Wikipedia should put the targets where the readers are aiming. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per pitch and for clarity's sake; "abiogenesis" is often taught in schools as a synonym of spontaneous generation, not as a term for the modern theories on the origin of life. The proposed title is both more widely used and more unambiguous. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Immanuelle. For a religous person, "origin of life" would almost certainly refer to a supernatural being creating life. There are also theories involving aliens and the like regarding the origins of life on Earth. BD2412 T 18:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

With respect, none of that forms any reason not to rename from the obsolete Abiogenesis. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per all of the above. Additionally, we are not here to satisfy the creationist beliefs of any religions, unless they can be proven by science ; it's a purely scientific article, and metaphysics are not in scope for it for now, this renaming discussion should be grounded on usage alone. This is also ignoring the increasing amount of believers thinking that the Genesis story is not necessarily entirely true when talking about prehistoric life. Moreover, in this consideration, any article talking about the origin of life in a given religion would be unjust. And, additionally, in most religions, the most favored term is "creation of life" or "creation myth", which implies a will behind its apparition, generally represented by a god figure, which doesn't appear in the term "origin", making it more secular. And, very honestly, we are absolutely not here to satisfy the beliefs of some kranks in an alien-induced origin of life, which is a creation myth too anyway. And, as a more personal note, the few times in my entire life I've seen the term "abiogenesis" being used were all related to this very article existence and controversies. One can't ignore the potential perceived bias behind maintaining such an important article under such a disused and technical name. Larrayal (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Origin of life" is the general idea, life appearing where there was none. "Abiogenesis" is one theory that explains it, but there were others, panspermia, spontaneous generation, and yes, creation myths (don't forget that ancient people took those things as truth when science was not developed yet and they needed to explain the things around them somehow). Science take priority over religion, spontaneous generation has been disproven and abiogenesis is more accepted than panspermia, but all that belongs to the articles content. Article names are based on usage, not acceptance. The "origin of life" article name should be used for History of research into the origin of life, a recap of the ideas proposed over time, and the acceptance of each one. And there's also a practical detail: the article can basically ignore all that because it is about the abiogenesis theory. Move it to "origin of life", and then the nonsenses about God, Odin and Zeus would have to be mentioned as well. Cambalachero (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

We can "mention the nonsenses" if necessary, but such myths are about the origin of the world and of humans, life being incidental; and I never heard of Norse mythology described as an "origin of life" story. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

That was just rhetoric. The point is, abiogenesis has almost complete support within science. Or perhaps even complete, because if there was panspermia and the origin of life was not here, the question of the ultimate origin of life would still remain, and abiogenesis would still be the main answer to it. However, it is disputed by some religious and political groups. When it comes to article content, the first context is the one that matters. When it comes to the article name, it is the second. Cambalachero (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support. "Origin of life" has redirected here since content at that title was merged here in 2008. Extensive discussion at that time supported the redirect from Origin of life to this page. Meanwhile, Creation of life is a disambiguation page. "Origin" is used consistently to refer to theories about the biological/chemical process, while when "creation" is used there is the possibility of an agent of creation involved. Likewise we do not have disambiguation pages involving religious ideas about creation at the titles Prehistory, Human evolution, History of Earth, History of agriculture, etc. Note also Origin of language vs. Mythical origins of language. Further, the proposed title appears to better match the WP:CRITERIA of recognizability and naturalness. Dekimasuよ! 05:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cambalachero, who covered the entire argument against moving this title. Yes, it can be confusing, and some effort should be made to appeal to a more general audience to mitigate this confusion, perhaps by improving the dab header and related dab pages. Viriditas (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Um, Viriditas, you may be right that the dab header and pages need improvement, but that is precisely nothing to do with this move; the entire point of disambiguation is to deal with topics that share or have similar names; it's not a reason for pretending that a major topic does not have a common name. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there’s no way around the wide ambiguity of using "origin of life", so we default to narrow precision ("abiogenesis") instead. I don’t think there’s ever an ideal solution, because every culture and discipline tends to favor their own terms. IMO, there’s a lot of considerations to take when pointing the reader to the correct article. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve come here searching for one thing, only to be taken to quite another. It happens to me at least once a week. It’s not a perfect system, that’s for sure. Right now, redirecting origin of life to this article partly suffices, but the resulting dab leaves a lot to be desired. There’s no perfect solution, but it’s good enough. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cambalachero essentially. Origin of life is the general idea, abiogenesis is the mainstream scientific theory. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Users Cambalachero, Chiswick Chap, and others. Paul H. (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, since the original reasoning is based on the number of Google hits, which is not a good reason. Google shows me these pages first (of course this is pretty individual):
  1. This Wikipedia page.
  2. [2] The origin of life - Encyclopedia Britannica, which lists four options, the first of which is "The origin of life is a result of a supernatural event—that is, one irretrievably beyond the descriptive powers of physics, chemistry, and other science."
  3. An online shop selling "energetic products".
  4. [3] "7 Theories on the Origin of Life" - that one does sound scientific.

So, not counting the page itself, one hit in three is about the subject of the page. After that, it gets better, but still... the renaming would change the subject of the page from a scientific subject into a philosophical question which has the scientific subject as the best answer, as well as several fantasy answers. The article will have to list the best-known bad answers in addition to the good one, and that will result in a loss of focus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, Google more or less pulls that number out of thin air based on the frequency of individual words. See here for a partial list of problems with using Google hit counts. One example: The number may shift as much as fivefold from day to day. Kotlopou (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Per Dekimasu, other articles like History of Earth are covered in a purely scientific way, with the religious aspects covered elsewhere. Vpab15 (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as it would be a step towards obscurantism (meaning writing style). tgeorgescu (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  What's that supposed to mean? Vpab15 (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Vpab15: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscurantism tgeorgescu (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

With respect, this assumes that all people who searched for "The Origins of Life" were really looking for "Abiogenesis". I don't see evidence for why all these searches were looking for scientific information as opposed to philosophical, literary, social, artistic, or other.

Additionally, Abiogenesis is its own field of active research that merits its own wikipedia page. Origins of Life already has a separate page saturated with different content. Conflating the two would lead to information loss. MeteorGlow8x (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. I do to some extent agree with the argument for the broadest accessible term, but at the end of the day, these two syntactical targets are going to point to the same namespace/article, so no significant functionality is going to be lost based on our choice here. That being the case, as to the actual name of the article, I prefer the more technical and precise foregrounding of the scientific term which describes the body of work of biochemical theory and modeled biophysics that defines a field of discrete empirical interest--it is in my opinion therefore a much better match for the article, particularly having re-familiarized myself with the content therein. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support clear WP:COMMONNAME, no need for relatively obscure scientific name to be at base.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a particular type of origin of life, and is not all origins of life. It is the chemical genesis for chemical life. It is not the genesis of software-AI-life, nor hardware-robotic life, nor it is the religious or mythological origins of life. Nor is it the origins of Boltzmann brains, or other forms of quantum life. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as Abiogenesis only describes how chemical life comes to be, while 'origin of life' seems like a broader topic, one which would encompasses not only scientific info but also religious, social, etc. 'Abiogenesis' is strictly scientific, while 'origin of life' is broader, much like how the human Wiki page is different from the Homo sapiens page. 2ple (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I was always convinced that Abiogenesis is the 'first part' where from simple elements and molecules the first macromolecules are formed up till the first cell, our last universal common ancestor. From that point on we are talking about the Origin of life. These two concepts are different. Often chemists study abiogenesis and biologists study the origin of life. I agree therefore also with Cambalachero--Phacelias (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Abiogenesis is the scientific term and the one that should be described here. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose As long as Origin Of Life redirects to Abiogenesis and is clearly an alternate title in the lede, I don't see why this would be necessary. It would cause confusion and open up the article to fringe theories and religion. The void century (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prebiotic synthesis study

I came across this today & thought it might be useful for someone to weave into the article.

• "Primordial Soup: Scientists Discover New "Origins of Life" Chemical Reactions". SciTechDaily. 2022-07-29.
• Pulletikurti, Sunil; Yadav, Mahipal; Springsteen, Greg; Krishnamurthy, Ramanarayanan (2022-07-28). "Prebiotic synthesis of α-amino acids and orotate from α-ketoacids potentiates transition to extant metabolic pathways". Nature Chemistry. 14 (10). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 1142–1150. Bibcode:2022NatCh..14.1142P. doi:10.1038/s41557-022-00999-w. ISSN 1755-4330. PMID 35902742.

Peaceray (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Origin of word

It would be helpful to include the origin of the word 'abiogenesis', namely "from a-‘not’ + Greek bios ‘life’ + genesis 'origin'" (see here). This would be naturally placed in the first sentence, but there is a warning not to change that without consulting on the talk page, so I am. Chris55 (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a dictionary can be used as a source. Cambalachero (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The only question is which dictionary. Some such as the Skeptic's and Urban are suspect, but there is no question for most recognised dictionaries (see here). This is easily found but one could use the OED, which is not nearly as accessible or meaningful to the average reader:

Origin: Formed within English, by derivation. Etymons: a- prefix, bio- comb. form, -genesis comb. form.

Chris55 (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Some problems with the use of dictionaries in this kind of situations are listed at Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources Cambalachero (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not even sure a source is needed. Is there any doubt in this derivation? Not being a biologist, I was puzzled by the word when I saw it but the explanation seems unequivocal. Chris55 (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Please update

[... with: "Prebiotic synthesis of α-amino acids and orotate from α-ketoacids potentiates transition to extant metabolic pathways" & a section/article structured sequentially for integration of notable study results]

I think it may be good to add at least very brief info from/about this study and/or similar articles to the article. It's currently featured in 2022 in science like so:

Scientists report the discovery of chemical reactions by potential primordial soup components that produced amino acids and may be part of the origin of life on Earth.

Moreover, info about abiogenesis is missing over at amino acid.

---

Maybe it would be good to add such studies (and you can search the year in science articles for abiogenesis-related items; examples below) to a timeline at History of research into the origin of life which is missing newer info (but also didn't get many reads so far).

Alternatively, maybe it would be possible to structure an article or section so that such studies can be integrated in a sequential/chronological order that shows which potential steps of abiogenesis have e.g. been demonstrated in the lab, basically like emergence of first suitable conditions->amino acids->RNA world->proteins->simple life->complex life (when things may have occurred in parallel or other theories suggest another step, there can be subsections).

Two more examples of relevant studies that could be included there from "2022 in science":

Scientists report evolution experiments of self-replicating RNA showing a segment of how life may have emerged on Earth (abiogenesis) e.g. from RNA world conditions – from the long self-replicating RNA chemicals to diverse complex molecules.

Scientists close a missing link in the potential origin of life from a RNA world – synergistic formation of peptides and ever-longer RNAs or peptide-decorated RNA, leading to a protein world.

References

Prototyperspective (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. This article is already very long, and constantly wrestling with collapse into the endless-list style of "And another study says...". Therefore, in my view continually adding unsubstantiated primary sources is *exactly* what we should not be doing. Instead, Wikipedia rightly notes such things in "20xx in science"; when scientists have caught up with the research, and we can write that a systematic review in 2095 found that ABCDE, then we can properly describe and cite the matter, and if need be restructure the article to downgrade discarded theories, move them to Alternative abiogenesis scenarios (another good home for new but unsubstantiated stuff, too), and emphasise the scientific consensus position. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

BTW if you want changes at Amino acid, best discuss that over there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hemolithin relevant?

Hemolithin (newly named Hemoglycin) - first polymer of amino acids found in meteorites - somewhat newly studied, and presented as a well-sourced Wikipedia article - and - which may (or may not) be relevant to the abiogenesis article - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Drbogdan, I think the answer should always be the same, which is that this article is the top of a tree of articles, and as such it must contain a summary of the principal sub-articles – Spontaneous generation, Panspermia, Primordial soup, Earliest known life forms, Pseudo-panspermia and the rest. A summary is just that: a top-level overview, richly linked, of the key points. It can't and mustn't attempt to cover every newly-discovered detail in every sub-sub-area: that isn't possible or even desirable. Hope this is clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - but sometimes a second opinion so-to-speak as to what may or may not be relevant to a particular article from those who may be more knowledgeable re the article may be worthwhile I would think - no problem whatsover re your thinking about the hemolithin article - thought it worth a mention - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I think that for the Greek a a better translation would be "without" as opposed to "not" the reason being is that we are looking at the origin of life without life, i.e. from the physical, chemical world. Halfcreek (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Natural process, theory or hypothesys

Under Q2 section, of this talk page, in actual question, change the word "theory" to "hypothesys by itself" then answer it. 89.249.108.117 (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Incomprehensible, I'm afraid. If your concern is with the text of the article Abiogenesis, then please state what your issue is. If not, then be aware that this page is not a forum, and you should take your concerns elsewhere. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead Change

I think the article makes it clear that abiogenesis is the general description of how life arises in any circumstance. Not just the single event that created our particular strain of life on our planet. I.e. if life starts on the moon, or in a petri-dish, or on a planet far far away, it will still be 'abiogenesis' so past tense in the lead is not appropriate. Past tense to refer to life arising on earth makes sense, but not in the definition in the lead sentence.

Propose change:

In biology, abiogenesis (from a- 'not' + Greek bios 'life' + genesis 'origin') or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisenarises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event

User:Chiswick_Chap you reverted this but it was intentional!

JeffUK (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you are trying to do some "lead engineering" which goes beyond what the article and its cited sources actually say. The article is entirely about what has happened here on Earth, barring the arrival of molecules from elsewhere. The lead is only a summary of the rest of the article, so it is nearly always wrong to try to adjust the lead to make it say something new. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Changing the tense does not 'go beyond' what the cited sources say. Huxley and Sheldon (the works that lay the foundation of the definition) clearly talk about abiogenesis as a generic phenomenon, not 'the singular creation of life on Earth'. All the 'Astrobiology' sources talk about how life may be created on other planets, not just how life was created in the past.

The article includes (a short) section on Abiogenesis on other planets (which may be past,present or future), so I think abiogenesis is clearly wider than 'the origin of life on earth in the past' regardless of whether the article fully explores other angles.

If the article is really only talking about past Abiogenesis on earth, the lead should say "the natural process by which life has arisen on Earth from non-living matter", but abiogenesis is clearly wider in meaning than that. JeffUK (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, then you'd best remove the "on Earth" that you just added to the lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a different sentence, which IS talking about the origin of life on Earth specifically, rather than abiogenesis in general. JeffUK (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, if this is to happen then the edit must FIRST be to the article text, as the lead must only summarize what is actually written in the article. We can't expect editors, let alone general readers, to scan all the sources to see if a lead summary is reflected somewhere-or-other. Each lead statement must correspond to a definite cited statement or group of such statements in the text, so that anyone wondering where a claim in the lead came from can actually see that by looking down the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

FWIW - seems this discussion may be similar in some ways to an earlier one (ie,"Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 7#Panspermia in the lead" re "Panspermia" - incidentally - and possibly relevant to this current discussion - the notion of ["Terrestrial abiogenesis"] - or - origin of life elsewhere ["Extraterrestrial abiogenesis"] has been noted in the "earlier discussion") - nonetheless - the concern seems to be => is the "Abiogenesis" article about abiogenesis in general (perhaps to include panspermia?) or specific only to the "origin of life" on planet Earth - I would think in general, but understand that panspermia (and other possible forms of abiogenesis not related to life on Earth) may be considered "WP:FRINGE" (see earlier discussions in the abiogenesis archives) and perhaps may limit the scope of the Abiogenesis article for that reason - perhaps worth a further consideration? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hemoglycin

For FYI only - not for serious consideration to be included in the main "Abiogenesis" article - an updated article, "Hemoglycin" (formerly, "Hemolithin"), a space polymer that is the first polymer of amino acids found in meteorites, has been created - the newly created article contains recent references from "WP:RS" - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !!

References

Drbogdan (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Protoribosome

FWIW - recent worthy article about "protoribosomes" from the Journal "Nature" of possible consideration? - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Drbogdan (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Primary research; possibly a brief note at Protoribosome. A mature top-level article collating many other articles' assured findings ought to be moving steadily towards using reliable secondary or tertiary sources, not constant drip-dripping of primary work in each tiny area. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"Life Before Earth" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Life Before Earth has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26 § Life Before Earth until a consensus is reached. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Criticism or equivalent section

Abiogenesis has never been observed and while competing theories are highly questionable, this entry would benefit from a section clearly discussing the current shortfalls in abiogenetic theories of life's origin (of which there are many). 128.40.96.125 (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

There are many things in science that have "never been observed", and are accepted anyway because there is enough evidence in other ways. We have never seen Theia (planet), either. Cambalachero (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Further, many elements of the steps in abiogenesis have indeed been observed, as the article illustrates and cites. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

And for the conflict itself, we have the article History of the creation–evolution controversy. Cambalachero (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Finally, at the head of this talk page is the rubric "Complaints about the lack of young Earth creationism, intelligent design, or similar points of view are inappropriate content for this talk page." One might easily suppose that distrust of "abiogenetic theories of life's origin" fell foul of that ruling. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Electron Transport Chain studies worthy - or not?

Is the following edit (or related) worth adding to the main Abiogenesis article?

Another strategy to understand abiogenesis may involve electron transport chains in "bottom-up" (based on chemistries related to the prebiotic Earth) and "top-down" (based on chemistries related to current lifeforms) studies, according to biologists.

In any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

References

The article length, after much work to control it, is starting to creep up again. I'm very reluctant about piecemeal additions, especially from primary research papers, of which there are many. We'd do much better, now that we have the main points covered, to follow best practice and wait until the best of the many new ideas and suggestions turn into accepted science via review articles and textbooks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: (and others) - Thank You for your *Excellent* comments - yes - completely agree - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your comments - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

"Minimal requirements for life" unconnected to this article

An editor has inserted a chapter on this aspect of life, but Abiogenesis is a process, and the question of what life is defined as is no part of this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I searched for origin of life and this article popped up. The properties that would need to emerge of what would lead to life (e.g. capacity to metabolize energy or reproduction) is relevant no? Ramos1990 (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

We do not construct articles based on editors' presumptions about what might be relevant to a subject (WP:OR), but on what authorities on that subject - scholars, scientists - have actually stated when describing the subject of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, origin of life textbooks like the Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology (Cambrdge Univerity Press) do talk about these things. For example, Oparin's model of molecules to macromolecules to metabolism, genetic code, and compartments to get to a cell. Also Origin of Life by David Deamer. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the definition of life does play a role in this. At the start of this whole process we have only unliving thing, and by the end of it we would have a living thing. The definition of life is important, because it would define the moment when we would cross that line. And that living thing that would emerge from this process would no doubt be different to the current living beings, so the definition should be a bit more flexible, to fit into that context. I have read this issue in books about abiogenesis, so yes, it's there.

However, the proposed text does not do the job of explaining how the definition of life fits into all this, it merely lists some generic characteristics of life, so it does not add to the article as it was written. Cambalachero (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I suppose I could have reworded it to properties needed for transitioning from non-life to life or, put another way, possible criteria for prebiotic to biotic transitioning. Would that work? This is more specific to the article topic. Deamer says

"There is little agreement about a dictionary-style definition of life that can be stated in one sentence. The reason is that cells, the units of life, are not things, but instead are systems of molecular structures and processes, each of which is necessary for the function of the whole. However, it is possible to list the most general properties and then describe the individual structures and processes in such a way that when taken together they can only fit something that is alive. Maybe that's the best we can do, so here are some general properties followed by a list of twelve specific properties that define cellular life on Earth.

General properties

Living cells are encapsulated systems of polymers that use nutrients and energy from the environment to carry out the following functions:

Enzyme-catalyzed metabolism

Growth by catalyzed polymerization

Guidance of growth by genetic information

Reproduction of genetic information

Division into daughter cells

Mutation

Evolution"

What do you think? Ramos1990 (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's off the topic of the process of abiogenesis. This article, too, is not even limited to Earth, though it's obviously the example to hand. It doesn't matter for the process where along the line from nothing to obviously rampant evolving and flourishing where exactly is the "minimum" - whether 57.25%" or 61.39%, it's simply irrelevant here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Worth adding edit to Abiogenesis article? - or elsewhere? - Comments Welcome !

Currently, the total number of living cells on the Earth is estimated to be 10³⁰; the total number since the beginning of Earth, as 10⁴⁰, and the total number for the entire time of a habitable planet Earth as 10⁴¹. This is much larger than the total number of estimated stars (and Earth-like planets) in the observable universe as 10²⁴, a number which is more than all the grains of beach sand on planet Earth; but less than the total number of atoms estimated in the observable universe as 10⁸²; and the estimated total number of stars in an inflationary universe (observed and unobserved), as 10¹⁰⁰.

References

Drbogdan (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I can see the relevance for this article, really; still less the necessity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ASTBIO 502 Astrobiology Special Topics -Origin Of Life

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 September 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brinaluvsrocks (article contribs). Peer reviewers: HaskelleTW.

— Assignment last updated by HaskelleTW (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Need to filter over 20,000 bytes of student additions (and a pile of deletions)

A student has today inserted a large amount of material and cut a substantial amount of existing stuff, for a total change of +20,000 bytes or around 10%. Students are likely to be correct about recent facts and scientific papers; they are less likely to be right about balance, formatting, repetition, and the appropriate home for different sorts of information. This article is at the top of a tree of articles on origin of life topics, so it should only contain a brief summary of each subtopic; any sizeable additions should be scanned to identify what should remain up here and what should be hived off to new or existing "main" or "further" articles, many of which are already linked in the article. Any suitably informed and skilled help filtering the "new" material, and indeed checking that the deleted materials were appropriately removed, would be much appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading new additions and then evaluating rather than making claims based solely on the quantitative amounts of added/deleted content. I can appreciate the need for an open encyclopedia to be succinct, but when this content contains points that are irrelevant to the main topics surrounding Abiogenesis, and bias the narrative, this is where contributions seem needed (regardless of the status of a "good article" being made). To address the material that needs to be 'filtered', this includes the main theories of a "Suitable Geological Environment", which now have the two main hypotheses in science today, (1) hydrothermal vents, and (2) surface bodies of water. Perhaps theories within these subcategories, including iron-sulfur world, zinc world, and clay could find a home in another more appropriate article. I encourage all who are interested to look through recent additions. Brinaluvsrocks (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

No claims have been made, other than the undeniable fact that there is a large amount of student editing all at once, and editors will need to check it through. The suggestion to move those three old hypotheses to Alternative abiogenesis scenarios is a good one, done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Enceladus - more possible life chemicals found?

NOTE: May not be worth addng to the main abiogensis article, but perhaps worth being aware of the latest related news about life chemicals found in other parts of the solar system?

On 14 December 2023, astronomers reported the first time discovery, in the plumes of Enceladus, moon of the planet Saturn, of hydrogen cyanide, a possible chemical essential for life as we know it, as well as other organic molecules, some of which are yet to be better identified and understood. According to the researchers, "these [newly discovered] compounds could potentially support extant microbial communities or drive complex organic synthesis leading to the origin of life."

References

Drbogdan (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Well of all the possible life-enhancing chemicals... HCN isn't the one I'd immediately have thought of.. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Why does life care about survival?

If organic compounds thrown together and organizing themselves into living systems is the hypothesis, then where does the instinct of Self-preservation come from? The first living thing cannot have been indifferent toward returning to a non-living state, otherwise none of the marvelous later developments in the complexity and diversity of life could ever have been made. There is a preference for being alive which seems key to abiogenesis just as it pervades all of biology. How would organic compounds awaken to the fact that they are now alive and form an opinion that death is to be avoided? See the hard problem of consciousness I guess. 73.51.218.241 (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

A bacteria lives, but it does not know it lives. It does not have a mind, it does not have aware intentions, and so on. Humans have an aware choice to live as much as possible because those who didn't were erased from our heritage through natural selection. You're attributing anthropomorphic characteristics (mind, will, etc.) to millions of species which lack them. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Does a single cell organism seek sustenance and flee harm? While it does so now as a genetic inheritance, in the beginning why? Why recognize and choose continued existence as the preferred state? 73.51.218.241 (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. This is Not a Forum, but natural selection requires no agency; if some individuals leave more offspring than others, their genes tend to take over. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Protomembrane molecules produced in hydrothermal vents?

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

References

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

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

Theories stated as facts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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