Talk:Abiogenesis

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)

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)

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)