Talk:Origin of life

Template:WP1.0 Archives: Talk:Origin of life/Archive1 ['04-(May)'06]

Some cleanup

On the short intro to the RNA world theory, I've performed some cleanup and added some information to support the RNA world hypothesis. Firstly, because *all* claims in this arena are somewhat speculative and tentative, and that problems occur with all of them, it seems unnecessary to overemphasize the problems without additionally giving the reasons why the RNA world hypothesis was considered in the first place. I've hence added a list of compelling reasons to believe that RNA held an important role in the origin of life, such as its universal ubiquity in the expression of the genetic information - while keeping the valid criticisms. --163.1.176.68 19:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Under the Wächtershäuser's hypothesis section I have added an internal link to the article on redox reactions. Hope this is alright.BFKate (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

==

What of the chrystal theory?

what of the theory that early life evolved from chrystals? i have no knowlege of it what so ever but i was wondering if someone else does ... XD I'm with you on this one. It's the first I've heard of it :)

NPOV/"Atheistic views"

This page only presents atheistic geological/evolutionist views on the origins of life, ignoring completely the intelligent design/creation theroys. Whil;e these are a minority view and are in all likelihood false, they still msut be presented for a neutral point of view.

This page intentionally deals with scientific opinions (nothing atheistic, evolutionist or "geological" about it...) and research. It says so right on top: This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For alternate uses, see origin of life (disambiguation). It also says where to find other views. --Stephan Schulz 09:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

While true that the article certainly leans clearly in one direction, I don't see how its necessarily atheistic, see Theistic Evolution. But it seems that its been decided (See last archive) that this article should specifically reflect just reaserch by scientists and the like. Homestarmy 17:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is not even a mention givent o any other theroies. That si why it violates the NPOV policy. I'm nto saying it has to bend over backward, but it should At least emtnion the other possibilities. This is even mroe important as it is the only page that comes up when origin of lfie is typed into the search box.

Name a noteworthy theory that is not listed on the page. Name a single one. -Silence 03:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I added one, autocatalysis :) Joegoodbud 10:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ther is no mention to the Indian sound theory, which states that sound waves were responisble for the ordering of life, or to any degree of an intelligent design theroy. And before you say it, you cannot discredit those beliefs without making an opinion, that they are not valid. They must be stated for a non opionated article.

The first one is a) not notable and b) not a theory. The second is also not a theory, and is handled via the first sentence and Origin of life (disambiguation). --Stephan Schulz 06:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of "notable", is the "Bubble Theory" really all that notable? I see only one book is referenced. PiCo 07:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The onyl reaqson you say they are not theroies are because you do not believe in them. I dare you to point out why evolution is a theory and intelligent design is not. And try to be intellignet abotu it, and not a typical bible-bashign jag-off.

Intelligent design fails criteria for a scientific theory on a number of counts:

• It is not falsifiable (as "the ways of the designer are mysterious")
• It makes no testable predictions
• It fails the principle of parsimony (who designed the designer?)
• In as far as its proponents try to misappropriate math and information theory, they fail in a way that makes the whole even inconsistent

Any one of those points would be enough to disqualify ID as a scientific theory.--Stephan Schulz 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please use the talk page to discuss changes before making them. And, please see theory, which states that "in science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."

As ID makes no predictions (and arguably suggests that no accurate predictions are possible, as the designer is unknown or even unknowable), ID is not a theory. -- Ec5618 07:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And jsut how exa clty do you "experiment" the random theroy of evolution. That is nto possible. You know why? Because any experiment you set up has a variable not present during alleged evolution: the scientist. Any experiment done to "test" evolution would be worthless, as the mere fact that a scientist orchestarted it means that there was an intelligent force at work. As a side effect of this paradox, intelligent design can indirectly be suggested to be valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.140.25 (talk)

Since the theory of evolution describes the fundamental "change over time" process, it is possible to establish a given state (pre-test) and examine after time for those changes that define the process. For a specific example, a recent study showed that by observing a certain species of butterfly mating, the resulting progeny began to exhibit traits characteristic of a different species. Beyond that, these progeny would selectively procreate with only those other progeny that exhibit the same trait. This observation is the fundamental idea behind speciation as part of the theory of evolution. It does not involve any influence by the scientist to observe this phenomenon and therefore there is no "intelligence" exerting any "force" on the system. Hope that helps clear up your question. ju66l3r 08:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. That proves an entirely different principle, adapation. Yes, this is a part fo evolution, but form the context of an origin of life, it doesnt have a thing to do with it.

You asked about the "random theroy of evolution" (sic). If you want to keep moving the "finish line" then we won't get anywhere. Also, I spoke (and linked to) speciation, not adaptation. These are two different concepts and one does not require the needs of the other to occur. Finally, I discussed an experiment which does not fit your premise that testing evolution is "worthless". As per my example, scientists can be simple observers without any influence on a system as well as examining the evidence left behind by evolution events of the past without having been there to influence the events. You wouldn't claim that a forensic investigator is partly responsible for a murder simply because they were examining the evidence of said murder in order to define a theory on the modus operandi of the attacker, right? Therefore, since your premise is flawed, there is no definite paradox and no supposition of validity for "intelligent design" as a result. Beyond that, the disproval of one of two theories does not strengthen the alternative theory. It must stand on its own and meet the criteria for a scientific theory, which intelligent design does not. ju66l3r 08:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It would help greatly if you would read evolution, as evolution is anything but random. It is selective. Adaptation is a major part of evolution, as you would be aware had you read the article.

I have little to add to ju66l3r's post, except to ask you to please check your posts for typos before submitting. Thank you. -- Ec5618 08:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The scientific community as a whle, not to mention the US judiciary, also seem to have doubts about ID's claim to be regarded as science: "The debate over whether intelligent design produces new research, as any scientific field must, and has legitimately attempted to publish this research, is extremely heated. Both critics and advocates point to numerous examples to make their case. For instance, the Templeton Foundation, a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that they asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted. Charles L. Harper Jr., foundation vice president, said that "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review."[71] At the Kitzmiller trial the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing." (Found this on the talk page of the Intelligent Design article). PiCo 10:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering how much heated debate surrounds the topic of Intelligent Design being taught alongside Evolution there was not so long ago and that hundreds of scientists do believe it is a valid theory to consider, I think ID is worthy of being mentioned, briefly, in the article. To disregard the opinions of scientists because they are in the minority is just as bad as what was done to Galileo when his opinion was in the minority. (Concerning the 400 scientists who showed up to defend ID check [1]) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petercksun (talk • contribs).

First of all, that Discovery Institute statement that you referenced was not a statement in support of Intelligent Design Creationism. Here is what the statement says: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." As has been pointed out,[2] that is a very weak statement in favor of philosophical skepticism, the very basis of the scientific method, which any scientist would affirm if the signatures weren't being used as a propaganda device. Second, only about one quarter of the signers are biologists.[3] Third, many signers admitted that they did not sign based on scientific grounds, but purely on religious (supernatural) grounds.[4]

Because this article is a scientific article (see the first line of the article, "This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For alternate uses..."), it does not deal with supernatural claims.

By the way, Peter, I recommend you read Finding Darwin's God by the Christian biologist Kenneth Miller. (Available here.)

Finally, Galileo's situation is not comparable. Galileo was placed under imprisonment and then house arrest for the entire remainder of his life, his book was banned, and the Inquisition forced him to recant his heliocentrism. Nothing of the sort is being done to Creationists. They are allowed to believe as they please and roam free amongst civilization. To claim moral equivalence with Galileo amounts to a rather disgusting exaggeration, and is an insult to the memory of a man who was truly wronged. Please keep your hyperbole in check. — coelacan talk — 03:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

To insert my two cent into this debate, my beliefs in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are not represented either. It should be mentioned in this article as much as ID, evolution, and any other theory.Hihellowhatsup 22:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that a comprehensive, encyclopedic article on the origin of life should mention the political controversy over ID. This article reports the science very effectively, but it doesn't approach completeness where our cultural and political climates are concerned. I have no desire to engage in a debate about the merits of any of the theories discussed here or, for that matter, the flaws of ID (as science, as politics, as common sense), but there is something to be said for addressing the politically and culturally polarizing realities of this subject. A huge majority in the english speaking world (particularly in America) believes that there's a God who directly created life on earth and to address this subject purely as science is blindness to the facts of opinion. You could add a section that mentions the fact that there is political controversy, or alternately provide a disambiguation link dealing with the controversy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.124.38.29 (talk • contribs).

I rather doubt your "huge majority" for direct divine intervention by a god, even in the US. However, there already is a disambiguation link, at the very top of the page: This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life, including the heterotroph hypothesis. For alternate uses, including intelligent design, see origin of life (disambiguation).. --Stephan Schulz 09:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Schulz--Religion is given a link before the article even begins. To those that would disagree, notice that this article is very developed and very long. Remember that scientists decided that Pluto is not a planet in our solar system, because if it were included the guidelines of size and distance from the sun would make thousands of other planetoids also considered planets in our solar system. In the same way, the size and distance of Intelligent Design from an article on the scientific origin of life would entail that, in fairness, the article would include thousands of slightly bigger, slightly closer notions that are still very small and not very relevant. Wikipedia has a suggested page size, and that kind of inclusion on this page would be a blatant disregard of that.160.94.28.165 16:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ultraviolet Light Paper Worth Consideration

Please see "Ultraviolet Light And Its Role In the Origin Of Life" http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/U/UV_origin_of_life.html --Musea 02:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Invisible friends

I think a specific paragraph in the article pointing out that ID is rubbish would be useful. It'd stop the deluded clowns from trying to repeatedly insert lies while claiming to address the point. 83.70.29.62 15:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The goal is to describe ID fairly. If ID truly is rubbish, it should already be obvious to readers, so there's no reason to do as you suggest. -- Ec5618 15:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Revised Dating of the Origin of Life

4 billion years ago the Archaea branch of life began with cyanobacteria as is evident in the banded iron formations. Also, coacervates formed from lipid aggregations and hydrophobic interactions and were probably the first step toward cellular organization that prokaryotes formed from. Shouldn't this be ample evidence to push the date of the origin of life back to ~ca. 4.0 Ga? Valich 09:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is a community project: if you have a good source that says life originated then, make an edit and add your reference. PiCo 05:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

what about Haldane's hypothesis?

J. B. S. Haldane's name is not even mentioned, here not in the primeval soup article. Other interesting thing to be mentioned is that the autocatalytic idea comes from as back as 1914, by Leonard Troland. --Extremophile 23:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

bringing up the existance of the article abiogenesis again

It looks like discussion at Talk:Abiogenesis has died out regarding that article's reason for existing, but I am trying to bring it up again. Please see that article's talk page if you're interested. --Allen 02:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

History section

Shouldn't the History section come before the contemporary theories section rather than after? PiCo 04:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

RNA world paragraph and the cell membrane

The paragraph on the RNA world mentions a theory where "early cell membranes could have formed spontaneously from proteinoids" - but if so, and if that is a prerequisite for this model to work, wouldn't that actually mean that the cell membrane actually came first, even if it was not a cell membrane of today's construction? This version is not mentioned in RNA world hypothesis either. // habj 13:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Lipid World

The section headed LipiD World is a bit embarrassing - it consists of just this sentence: "A theory that ascribes the first self-replicating object to be lipid-like. See [3] for more." It really should be either expanded or deleted. Anyone want to take a decision?PiCo 05:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's better to have a stub than nothing. I'll add the section stub tag so it's clear that this isn't "finished work." — coelacan talk — 06:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

redirect?

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the page default to the disambiguation than to the science page? It might come off as a little pov, but maybe that's just me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheSonofSerenity (talk • contribs) .

The disambiguation page does not resolve a naming conflict in this case, but points to alternative. I think the vast majority of users looking for "Origin of life" are looking for a scientific page, so I think the current setup serves its intended purpose well.--Stephan Schulz 08:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't new life being created by nature now?

Given that the Earth now has very favourable conditions for sustaining life - does that mean that life is being created afresh somewhere on a regular basis (e.g. deep in the earth, at an ocean vent, in a damp puddle)? If not, why not? The chemical composition of the Earth in many places (deep underground) has not changed that much, so why can't new life emerge now?

Please direct such questions to the Reference desk. The simple answer is that we do not know. Perhaps the curent living organisms have changed the world so greatly that the formation of life is almost impossible. And perhaps life continually forms. What we do know is that all currently known life uses DNA (or RNA if you consider viruses to be alive), and genetic testing stongly suggests that all known life has a single ancestor. -- Ec5618 12:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not true to say that the Earth has 'very favourable conditions for sustaining life': not only is there massive competition for niches, but every currently existing form of life on Earth has evolved to defend itself against the countless other forms of life that want to break down its organisation and steal its molecules for their own use. A newly emerging replicator would quickly become food for something more complex, without ever reaching an evolutionary stage where it looked like 'new life'. HTH. M.D.

some signs of new life appearing are evident, the organism responsible for BSE for instance.

Is there any evidence to suggest that BSE is a new life form having been created from matter, as opposed to from some previous, unknown, possibly even more primitive ancestor?

In light of the Extra Terrestrial origin of life

theory yet to be disproved, why not BSE be yet another decendant of said unknown primitive visitor from outer space, having been inactive or even un-noticably evolving, to arrive to be BSE today? --Ohadaloni 23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Owing to the above question, i thing that life is being created everyday. the Galapagos offer a very vivid clue. it is just that the globe is big and man cannot cover its entirety. many of the new life created are mostly under water. marine research is not as prominent as the terrestrial research. even in some extreme places where man cannot go; problably owing to depth, or the presence of deadly gases, life stil trive.We should not over look the adaptability power of life to exist in any condition. Every thing created and that will evolve is built to survive in any environment it finds itself.life is the only thing that can take to the form of its environment. (ife. 4/12.07)

Oparin and Bernal dealt with this in their books on the Origin of Life. It would appear that life could only have evolved in an Anoxic environment, and as most environments have been thoroughly penetrated by oxygen, onoxic environments are very limited. Secondly, life evolved from the accumulation of large numbers of complex molecules. Any accumulation of such complex molecules today would be a freely available food source for life which currently exists and would thus be consumed. As a result, the Earth has now become an unfavourable environment for the continued repeated origin of life. John D. Croft 06:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure ? As i'm wondering new viruses do evolve and arise in the soup of our carbon life molecules. On the boundery of dead chemical those molecules replicate and some of them even replicate within the DNA of a host or evolved from them. To me this looks much the same as the early advanced type life. where molecules fed upon other molecules user:Peter-Art 23 oct 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 22:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Primitive" extraterrestrial life

I'm confused about this sentence: "Additional support comes from a recent discovery of a bacterial ecosytem whose energy source is radioactivity.[3]" Why is this support for exogenesis? Whatever the answer to my question, it needs to go into the article IMO as this is not clear now. — coelacan talk — 06:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Primitive" extraterrestrial life

Charles Darwin goes to great length explaining how a north pole plant can migrate south by means of ice ages, and claims if that were not the case, then the theory of evolution is false. From Evolution theory it is demanded that no two species can ever be formed separately on the planet. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter11.html) I see no reason this should not hold true with respect to the entire universe, as well as for life itself. Life, in my opinion, as I believe is derived logically from evolution theory, without any further research, was created once exactly in the universe. As the earth is only about the third the age of the universe, and much less in relative size, I see no reason to think it started on earth, unless research shows travel of primitive extraterrestrials is impossible. Otherwise, it is near fact for statistical reasons. This theory is not in contradiction with most theories regarding the origins of life, which have yet to compete for dominance, and hardly ever answer the question: why on earth? For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

ohad aloni talk Ohadaloni 18:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)ohadaloni

hmm the problem with panspermia ideas is that they dont focus on the start of life, they only say it started somewhere else; so it replacing to problem to a different corner but still there is this problem of how did it start.. user:peter-Art 23 oct 2007

RNA chirality

perhaps there should also be a mention of the chirality of the nucleotide in under the RNA world. A polymer needs to be of the same chirality, or else the information in the molecule will be lost.

Chemical precursors

Carbon monoxide, more reactive than carbon monoxide and thus more easily combined with other chemical precursors of life, might have been even more suitable a precusor of pre-biotic chemicals than carbon dioxide.

Molecular oxygen and especially ozone that mist have been extremely rare under the conditions in which precursor chemicals formed would have been, and remained rare until photosynthesis began. --Paul from Michigan 09:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

2007-02-10 This page has been vandalized. If you view the article while not being logged in the article ends with "I hate you" and the headings are wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joe hill (talk • contribs) 13:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Almost definitely not. However, I suspect that the monobook.css of your IP address has been vandalized. Check Special:Mypage/monobook.css under your usual IP adress (if you have a static or semi-static one). This allows per-account customization.--Stephan Schulz 13:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The user that edited to the Creationism belief in the origin of life was 09grahas. The user sadly appologies on the vandilism and says that he would not do it again. He means no harm. peaceUser:Creation Christian.

you people obviously have not been reading Genesis

God created the earth 6000 years ago. This is what the article should say.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Whyte88 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 February 2007

and you, my friend whyte88, obviously have not read your history textbook. How many times in the history of our religions on this earth have the many books of gods and godesses been modified and, for lack of a better word, evolved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elgatoloco (talk • contribs) 04:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I do think that this article should state the Creationism theory, I do not beleive that the article should state "The earth was made by god 6000 years ago". I think it should call both the big bang and creationism a theory. We cannot prove that creationist theory is true because we have no evidence. However, we can prove that the evolution theory is true. Yet both are still theories and so I think in respect to both ideologies, we should call them Theories.

From Theory, First off, ID and Evolution are not the same kind of Theories. ID is not scientific.

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

Secondly, we can prove things but that doesn't make them true (or it does depending on which version of the word "truth" you subscribe to). It seems with the mountains of evidence that Evolution is going in the right direction of what happened, but can we really say for 100% certain that is the way it happened. I am not trying to take anything away from Evolution, but who knows... Maybe those "crazy" Last Thursdayists are right. --Anphanax 00:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Why isn't this mentioned at all here?

--HideandLeek 08:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion above. "This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life." ID is not science. --Stephan Schulz 09:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. For that, start in fairy tales. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Svetovid (talk • contribs) 10:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Hypothesis for protocell formation

This isn't ready to be put on the main page (it appears to be original research), so I am posting it here as a heads-up. According to this page , protocells can be formed reliably by mixing thermal protein and a warm sodium chloride solution (see figure 2 on the page). This is impressive, but it has not, as far as I know, been duplicated by other scientists. As such, I am putting this here so that more people will know about it and so that, if and when this evidence is confirmed, the main page can be changed accordingly.

Player 03 01:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1. These are not cells as they are not living. 2. Large proteins are extremely complex molecules which have no chance of forming by chance, so they can't be the starting point of life. Dan Gluck 19:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Inline citations?

There are very few inline citations in this article, and inline citations are mandatory for GA, A-class, and FA articles. For such a fundamental topic, this article should add more inline citations so that it lives up to (at least) GA standards. Jolb 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

the theory of creationism

Your article states that the galaxy created by the big bang. With respect to the writer of this article, Although I do not beleive in God, I do think that the creationism theory should be added and that the big bang statement should be called a "theory" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.177.11.143 (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

The statement at the beginning of the article states that it focuses on scientific perspectives. Creationism does not fit the criteria for a scientific theory and to use that noun would be misleading. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Creationism theory does not pass Occam's Razor and should not be added, as it cannot be proved by science.Meson man 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither belief can be proven empirically and Occam's Razor is irrelevant. --RucasHost 09:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The big bang theory has in fact been proven empirically, in the following sense: many unexpected implications of it were first predicted and later measured accurately. Among these are the growth of distance between galaxies, remnant radiation and abundance of light elements in the universe. See Big Bang#Observational evidence for details. Dan Gluck 20:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ref

Just dropping this here for future use. Looks like a promising source of references.

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/21438

SheffieldSteel 01:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

Reading this talk page, I see that a lot of people have shown up demanding that ID be mentioned in this article as a theory. It seems to me that the easiest way to solve this problem is to make it much more obvious that this article focuses on scientific theories and not others; perhaps a mention in the introduction instead of an italicized note would be in order. The Last Melon 16:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've clarified the italicised text, but to be honest it's made very clear. The first sentence, "In the physical sciences, abiogenesis, the question of the origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth might have evolved from non-life sometime between 3.9 and 4.1 billion years ago.", seems to make it clear that only science is considered... Verisimilus T 16:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but it seems to me that a lot of people have simply skipped over this bit, passing it off as just another disambiguation notice. I'll confess that I almost did as much. The Last Melon 23:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Phospholipids?

I am positive that phospholipids are not suggested to be a prebiotic molecule by any means. also the fact that they form membranes is nice, but i think mentioning that they form vesicles or liposomes (cell like compartments) would be more exciting. currently amphiphilic molecules are the membrane-forming precursor to phospholipids. Fatty acids, long chain alcohols, acyl sulfates, acyl phosphates, and acyl amines are considered prebiotic and spontaneously form vesicles (10 carbons or more). If anyone agrees, i will work on changing it. Semaurer 18:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Do you have a link to a good source? SheffieldSteel 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

this is a free article that talks of how fatty acids are simpler molecules: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/21/7965 it also lists prebiotic synthesis and that they have been found in meteors.Semaurer 03:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, amphiphilic molecules are found in carbonaceous chondrites, David Deamer did work on it. They may have preceded phospholipids in the first cells. Also, it is interesting to note that Monnard et al. (2002) found that salt water inhibits lipid bilayer formation, indicating that life started in fresh water e.g. ice vesicles.

As for the initiation of natural selection in lipid vesicles; Chen et al. (2004) found that the simple presence of polymerizing RNA in lipid vesicles causes increased osmotic stress and growth, and the lipid vesicles with the most efficiently polymerizing RNA grow the fastest, potentially the first rung on the ladder of evolution.

Lastly, it is also important to mention lipid chain length and membrane permeability. Modern phospholipds vesicles are completely impenetrable, that why todays cells have ion channels. But if you shorten the length of the carbon chain to the average length seen in carbonaceous chondrites, vesicles are vastly more porous; long chain molecules are bad for cell metabolism.

Monnard P.A., Apel C.L., Kanavarioti A., Deamer D.W., 2002. Influence of ionic inorganic solutes on self-assembly and polymerization processes related to early forms of life: implications for a prebiotic aqueous medium. Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2, 139-52.

Chen, I.A., Roberts, R.W. & Szostak, J.W. 2004. The Emergence of Competition Between Model Protocells. Science, 305, 1474-1476.

--Diamonddavej 05:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Late Heavy Bombardment

The opening statement, that the origin of life is limited to a 4.1 - 3.8 Ga window sounds odd. The Late Heavy Bombardment (4.1 - 3.8 Ga; caused by a change in planetary orbits messing up the Asteroid Belt [5]) may have completely sterilized the Earth, large impacts could have boiled the oceans or even melted most/all of the crust. Thus, it is incorrect to state that the origin of life is limited to the LHB, life may have emerged shortly after the LHB when conditions allowed. Life could have begun several times, and before the LHB, only to be repetitiously snuffed out by the impact of ~300 Km wide asteroids during the LHB. Hyper-thermophiles my have survived the hell of the LHB (from which all life descended).

So the period of emergence is between the first liquid oceans c. 4.4 Ga[6] and shortly after the end of the LHB c. 3.8 Ga. --Diamonddavej 06:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced 3.5 Ga with 2.7 Ga for the emergence of life. Chemical biommarkers and isotopic fractionation of organic carbon at 2.7 Ga is accepted by consensus as the earliest evidence for life (and photosynthesis). [7][8] Earlier dates ~3.5 Ga are based on doubtful fossils, conical stromatolites (that have not been explained by an abiogenic mechanism(?)) and isotopic fractionation, which could be caused by inorganic Fischer-Tropsch Type (FTT) synthesis. -Diamonddavej 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think an explicit discussion of the time window is needed somewhere in the article. The 3.5 Ga evidence, while not conclusive, needs to be mentioned and explained, as does the implications of the late heavy bombardment. There is a big difference between a 2 Ga time window and a 300 Ma window.--agr 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll add a section titled something like "When and where did life begin" near the start of the article. Its an important question, avenues of research are chosen based on the deduced conditions and location of life's birth. Best guess at the moment, hypertherophiles emerged in a deep-sea hydrothermal spring (oasis) and the tough little heat resistant bugs survived the LHB. -Diamonddavej 14:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds sensible but perhaps make the point that modern hydrothermophiles do not fit in near the "base" of the tree of life but are in fact very derived. Verisimilus T 16:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've haven't been able to contribute as I'm busy with thesis corrections, I'll be free at the end of July. As for highly derived hyperthermophiles (Archaea), that is a minority view advocated in particular by Tomas Cavalier-Smith who places Archaea at the top of the of The Tree of Life in a group with Eukaryota that he has named Neomura, rather then at the bottom. One of his latest papers - Rooting the tree of life by transition analyses - includes 25 pages of critical discussion with journal reviewers; never seen that before. Diamonddavej 02:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Where'd that Darwin quote come from?

Do we have a source for the Darwin quote under "History of the concept in science"? The Last Melon 03:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I found the quote in Paul Davies' "The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin of Life". PiCo 08:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Update request

This article ought to be updated to include Banerjee et al.'s findings reported in Geology 35 (6): 487.

I am not yet thoroughly convinced by them but they merit a mention at least.

Thanks, Verisimilus T 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Here is a link to the abstract http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/6/487 --agr 02:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

excellent book to add to refs?

It focusses on thermodynamics and the properties of chemistry involved.

Morowitz, Harold J. (1992) "Beginnings of Cellular Life: Metabolism Recapitulates Biogenesis". Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-05483-1

Wikiskimmer 14:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oparin

until 1924 when Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin demonstrated that it was the presence of atmospheric oxygen and other more sophisticated life-forms that prevented the chain of events that would lead to the evolution of life.

What exactly did Oparin demonstrate?

• That oxygen prevents the creation of organic molecules that are needed to start the 'chain of events'?
• That oxygen prevented the evolution of life?

If the latter, did he do an experiment that showed that life emerged without oxygen? He did not, I think.

Furthermore,

• Could he show that the presence of life prevented the formation of organic molecules needed to start 'the chain of events'?
• Could he show that the absence of 'more sophisticated life-forms' lead to the evolution of life? He did not.

This sentence in the article needs a source that shows what he exactly did (what kind of experiment), and what his conclusions were. Northfox 03:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The first part of the sentence is also a bit ambiguous: 'An experimental approach to the question was beyond the scope of laboratory science in Darwin's day'. There are several reasons why no research has been done in the field. Insufficient lab equipment could have been one, but lack of interest could have played a role, too. This part of the sentence needs a source. In case there are no reliable sources for the statements, I suggest shortening the sentence to

No real progress was made until 1924 when Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin experimentally showed that atmospheric oxygen prevented the synthesis of the organic molecules that are the necessary building blocks for the evolution of life. Northfox 06:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

other ambguities

It was once thought that appreciable amounts of molecular oxygen were present in the prebiotic atmosphere, which would have essentially prevented the formation of organic molecules; however, the current scientific consensus is that such was not the case.

What is not the case?

• That appreciable amounts of oxygen was present?
• That the oxygen would have prevented formation of molecules?

Northfox 06:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

From protocells to living cells

I cut the following section as problematic and unsourced:

Another issue linked with abiogenesis is to determine the minimum number of parts that allows something to live. Biologists define life as the ability to metabolize and assimilate food, to respirate, to grow, to reproduce and to respond to stimuli. These criteria were developed by biologists to understand the process called life. Viruses, for example, are generally not considered 'living' since they need a host organism to reproduce.

The organism with the smallest known genome of any free living organism is Mycoplasma genitalium . It is 200 nanometers long and its DNA has 500,000 base pairs that contain 482 genes. In comparison, E. coli has 4,720,000 base pairs containing 4,253 genes. The first living organism is therefore believed to have been at least as complex as M. genitalium.

I know of no biologist who thinks that "the first living organism is therefore believed to have been at least as complex as M. genitalium" - in fact, I would consider that to be rather unlikely. To include this would need a reliable source. Without this part, however, the section becomes rather pointless. A definition of life might be useful, however, for that we should possibly just link to Life. --Stephan Schulz 13:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

agreed that we would need a source for the "the first living organism is therefore believed to have been at least as complex as M. genitalium".

But I think that the 'origin of life' article would stop short before it's goal by ending at 'protocells'. Why not take the next step and include models of cellular evolution? The article's title is 'Origin of Life ' after all. Mentioning the most simple life form we know would be beneficial for the article. Northfox 13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge

see below

there is also an abiogenesis wiki

this origin of life wiki looks nice. the abiogenesis wiki seems to be mostly historical but does not make itself clear about that. should it be rewritten to direct readers to this wiki for current theories and the abiogenesis wiki made to be clear that it is only about historical concepts? i.e. spontaneous generation? I'll leave a note there too.Wikiskimmer 23:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

oops, i totally missed the bit in italics at the top. The intro was not at all clear. and the article still discusses more than it should. should it be renamed.. i don't know, it's got a few odds and ends in it. but i think the term abiogenesis is still used for the modern thought on the topic.

something should be tightened up.Wikiskimmer 23:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Abiogenesis should be merged into this article. This article is clearly about abiogenesis, so there is no need to have both. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Origin of life is more general than abiogenesis. Though this article seems to focus only on abiogenesis. If there is a merge, the Origin of life article should be merged into abiogenesis. GromXXVII 17:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge. The article titles are synonyms. Verisimilus T 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge, but keep the paragraph of the historical notion of spontaneous generation in a separate article abiogenesis. Northfox 13:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we can just copy the 'criticism' section from abiogenesis and add it after the 'other models' section of origin of life. Then delete the rest, except the historic spontaneos generation. Northfox 09:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don’t see the desire to merge the two articles. They’re similar topics, but not at all the same thing. In particular someone trying to find information on abiogenesis may not be as inclined to consider reading an “origin of life” entry so much as an “abiogenesis” entry. The two articles shouldn’t try to fill the same niche, but the abiogenesis article should certainly exist. Perhaps as an introduction to the theory and history with links to the main articles. GromXXVII 12:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

why

why did you redirect my page to this page that was the first one i made and i researched out OF A UNIVERSITY BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Breaking news: inorganic dust with lifelike qualities

I think that this should be added to the article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070814150630.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.27.168 (talk)

Excellent find! It's good to have a secondary source to interpret the research. Here is the primary source - the Institute of Physics. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 13:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fox's experiments "Need for cite"

Richard E. Dickerson, "Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life"

"Under the proper conditions the microspheres will grow at the expense of the dissolved proteinoids and will bud and fission in a most bacteriumlike manner" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.244.161 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A helicopter view of the creation of life

The problem with life is that dead chemicals don't change easily to a cell. Yet a cell is a hardware design we consider to be a life.

There must have been something before, I’m not thinking entirely in chemicals. But I’m rather thinking in math models. Not sure if people know the game of "GO" (wiki:Game_of_go) where two conflicting parties try to flip over coins of two different colors on a board under some rules. The game itself doesn’t show life but is a bit like a background for the story below.

Chemistry, especially corrosion type of chemistry tends to break down materials. To form lower energy states, of the involved materials. It might have have been that in such an erosion type or chemical "wounds" a dead chemistry contest evolved in which 'dead' molecules performed in a run of the fittest molecules to erode. In this contest some molecules where better in eroding then others. In modern chemistry we would call them good chemic catalysators.

Now considering earth’s early environment there must have been lots of those chemical wounds. So this world came overloaded with them some where better then others. And some would prove to be even better when working together. This corrosion process would act much like a game of GO. Think of the playing board as their meal. Each coin as catalysators (but those are in different favors black or white) and by working together they might have got advantages to win the board.

So the game of GO started. Still it’s dead chemicals but the playing-board is large; and there are in chemistry more combinations then the simple black and white of the GO game. So eventually the successful combination of coins benefit from working together. It is still dead chemistry but it follows rules of evolution. And important building blocks do arrive. Not all catalysators do self reproduce however given time some will and they would still be dead chemicals but they can do polymerization under some conditions. While other catalysators, might replicate only their selves without polymerization.

Those basic building blocks still don’t have cellular walls; so they are in the game all together. And in this game some catalysators might even begin to work on other catalysators as their “food” source. An important moment because here a molecular language might arrive, as it is still a contest of the fittest. Even those catalysators would evolve "eating" others.

Some of them might harness external energy like sunlight and become self sufficient for replication with only a protected environment for their food. Some kind of boundaries would protect them against the earlier catalysators who eat others. Perhaps they used foam / soapbubles of the sea or they evolve and created a polymer film around them.

This goes on this process, and at some point their molecular language starts using RNA as a bleu print for catalysators building. There might have been other types but those were less sucesfully RNA types became ahead of other types and simply multiply like crazy, so a world arises of single cell organisms.

Some of those catalysators never invented cellular walls those we might call today virusses they often still use only RNA and no DNA to replicate. They work into our chemical language pool we call life, but they never evolved fully on their own to become less independent of others.

This text was created by Peter-Art a wiki user with some toughts about life, my own idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter-art (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like the idea behind RNA world hypothesis to me: in that both work with similar evolutionistic principals to nonliving matter. I’m not too familiar with the RNA world hypothesis as to whether one of it’s premises is the existence of RNA, or if it also attempts to explain how it could originate.

Of course wikipedia articles are not for original research, but if you look in the right place I bet you can find something similar to what you’re saying that cleans up the details a bit. GromXXVII 21:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

well it was a thought expiriment; i've read those pages but i still miss the early stages; once RNA can replicate itself; as a self replicating virus. That's where the path of life became more easy say stable. RNA/DNA was a winning team in this chemical race. This page might go about ideas i tought of before those advanced molecules, i described a race.

Is it realy wrong to write something of your own? can one only be quoted at wiki,i'm new to wiki as a writer and i gues will likely never be quoted. user:peter-Art 23 oct 2007 0:27 gmt+1

I think I see what you mean: describing how RNA might have come to be having possibly competed with other chemicals/molecules to become dominant.

On another note, you state the seeming assumption ”there must have been lots of those chemical wounds” which surely would need explanation.

It’s not wrong to write something of your own. But as for what goes in the articles: keep in mind wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That means if you develop a theory or discovery, it’s not wikipedia material until it has been reviewed by peers in the field and probably published.

Most of the text of wikipedia is/are not quotations: but more of a synthesized understanding of knowledge, discoveries, inventions, theories, events, whatever the article is on.

Also, if you insert four “~”s at the end of your comments it will automatically insert your name/date. GromXXVII 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You understand what i've tried to write down, with "the chemical wounds" i mean a location where two chemicals can react using (a group of) catalysators; i used the term errode for this also. I tried to use easy words for this idea. I go on to describe it till the formation of cells, rather more in a GO game theory then a chemical theory (we ended up with dna rna/ but other solutions for this game might have existed once but well they lost the game. It might also be intresting for life outside earth, as it's not realy teared down to carbon chemics or DNA RNA.

Peter-art (is there a shortcode for date/time also?) (24 oct 2007 17:50) —Preceding comment was added at 15:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It IS wrong to write something of your own, please read carefully the following Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability. Have a nice day. Dan Gluck 20:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

O yes Indeed i read it, hm altough i wonder as it's hardly research rather logic thinking. I didnt want to publish but rather explain; and thats done at a lot of wiki pages; where people are explaining. Well hmm okay i forwarded it to a friend at Seti so probaply within some time the text can be linked in, and have an external source. hmm probaply thats the difference between a painting artist like me and a scientist i'm allowed to publish paintings but no writings :)) Peter-art 10:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)