Talk:Abiogenesis

Polyphopshate model edit

I would like to discuss the removal of an edit of mine to the Polyphosphate section of this website. First, who removed it and why? It is consistent with a number of articles in the scientific literature as well as several popular books that discuss the origin of life. Also, the model is consistent with some views expressed by Arthur Kornberg in his papers on Polyphospahte (and inconsistent with none of his views). The current Polyphospahte discussion is minimal and would greatly benefit from a second paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyp2 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Click here to learn who and why. Art LaPella (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a lot to read on your personal site, so I may have missed your point. Is it that you do not want me to link to the book's website? Would you prefer a standard reference with no link (ie-title, year of publication, etc.)? Others seem to link to the primary source.

Is that the problem, or is it something else? And what is your area of expertise that relates to polyphosphate and abiogenesis?

Polyp2 (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you didn't click the words "Art LaPella"! I meant for you to click the words "Click here". There you will learn that you were reverted by Tmol42, who gave a short explanation. I (Art LaPella) am not a professional scientist, and I have not researched this issue, except to look up the editing history of the page to answer your question. Also, new discussion normally goes at the bottom of the talk page, not the top. Art LaPella (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Art, and sorry for the confusion. I am new to this Wiki posting business.

Tmol42, I am waiting for a response from you. My questions still stand.

Polyp2 (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If Tmol42 isn't watching this page, you can get his attention by asking him at the bottom of User talk:Tmol42. There he will be notified as soon as he logs on. Art LaPella (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Polyp2, I see you are new to WP so will explain in a bit more detail. In short your edit was reverted as it was not substantiated by the reference you provided. The reference you provided to back up the edit was to a flyer for a book Here which turns out to be no more than an advert for the book with no explanation of the theory or a citation of research to substantiate the edit. In fact it appears the book is more to do with 'a call to arms' to start /continue research in this area talking about ID and Darwin. I see the author is postulating a Darwinian-linked theory which is in itself enough to ring alarm bells for some and claims of popularism from others. WP is an encyclopedia and not a place for promoting books per se which would be also be sufficient reason to remove the citation. In short its much better to stick to more traditional sources here.

Visitors to WP should expect the content of articles to be reliable, have their rigor tested, and to be backed up by robust references. This is more often also achieved for such subjects through discussion and consensus reached on the Talk Pages, and is commonplace regardless of the notoriety of a fact or theory. Pop over to the related page Here to see what I mean. Other editors interested in developing and improving this article therefore need to be confident about support for an edit however sound and given the controversy of the subject to reiterate your edit was just not supported by the reference. You have alluded above to other research which supports the theory. if it is compelling then cite it and allow it to be reviewed and tested by others. BTW my expertise is irrelevant but I happen to have a background in Biochemistry and Genetics. Also you need to be a bit more patient and wait for a reply. Some other editors I have seen might have given you a bit of a roasting for that but for the rest of us we have a life and do also need to sleep now and then! Hope this helpsTmol42 (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

.

It does help, but I have a few questions and comments (and pardon me for being a Wiki newbie and not following convention perfectly):

First, many of the Wiki links are to abstracts of papers in the literature. These links do not provide you with the paper itself, but instead ask you to buy the paper in order to read it (unless you are at a university or company that has already bought the journal). So what is the difference? I imagine you will say (but I could be wrong) that these papers are peer reviewed. But much of the most interesting discussion on the origin of life (and certainly most of the more generally accessible discussion) has appeared in books rather than papers. The discussions are too long to appear in papers (papers are better for smaller and more specific contributions). I would argue that the problem with the origin of life field (and the abiogenesis Wiki page) is that scientists feel free to write papers on virtually anything they want, whether or not it could reasonably fit into a complete origin of life pathway. What is needed is a reasonable pathway, parts of which could then be studied in detail. And that is what the book provides.

Second, all work in abiogenesis is a "call to arms" at this point simply because no theory has reached consensus. This is because no theory seems particularly compelling relative to the others. The Polyphosphate section on the Wiki page is lacking support, and could be made more compelling with my addition (in my opinion). What is so harmful that you feel the need to limit discussion on Wiki of a more elaborated Polyphosphate abiogenesis model?

Third, why would a "Darwinian-linked theory" ring alarm bells or raise cries of populism? What do you mean by this? Certainly most scientists believe the origin of life was based on evolution and natural selection. If not at first, then shortly thereafter. Also, you seem to imply the model has something to do with ID. In fact, it provides a compelling argument against ID and relies on nothing more than logic, chemistry and evolution. You have probably not read the book, but saw some snippets of it that have nothing to do with the model itself. The model is only the middle third of the book, and I would be willing to send you a copy of it free of charge.

Fourth, I am not some random crank. I have a degree in ChemE from MIT and a PhD in Biochemistry from Stanford. I knew Arthur Kornberg (the Polyphosphate and DNA replication guru) quite well. I have published work in the scientific literature that relates to the Darwinian Polymer Model. But these papers do not outline the model as the book does, and so I referenced the book. And although the book was not peer reviewed like a journal article, it has been read by several tenured Harvard and Stanford professors and has received positive comments.

I think Arthur Kornberg would have encouraged me to fight to get the model a brief mention in the Polyphosphate section of Wiki. I think he would have been very disappointed with the current section, which says little about how Polyphosphate might have played a role in abiogenesis. I feel my contribution is sufficiently short, does not otherwise detract from the abiogenesis page, and points to a piece of work that enhances the Polyphosphate discussion.

Can a compromise be reached, or am I (in your opinion) breaking an unbreakable rule of Wiki? And does anyone else have a comment? I am content with majority rule with respect to this issue, and have far more patience than you imagine. Polyp2 (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It would certainly help to cite the book directly, rather than post a link to a promotional website. Read WP:CITE for how best to do this. Other suggestions... find reviews of this book, or discussions of the theory behind it, by third parties (any source independent of the author would do) and cite those. You don't need to post a link to a website - as long as a wikipedia user could in theory verify your citation, our verifiability policy is satisfied. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I will do as you suggest, SheffieldSteel, and also wait (very patiently) for a response from Tmol42 to see if he/she has other useful suggestions and comments before trying to repost on the abiogenesis page. Thanks for your help. Polyp2 (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Polyp2 I am not going to reply to all your points as frankly I do not have the passion you obviously have for this subject these days having played around with phosphates and electricity and all that at School and Uni. Nor by the way do I have any axe to grind on the content of your edit one way or the other just the lack of sound citation. My reference to ID BTW was no more than a neutral comment referring to the mention of ID in the exert. My comment on use of 'Darwin' in the title of the model is that Darwin's research and developed his theory on natural selection as an explanation ( in part at least) for the evolutionary process and not evolution per se which had already been well developed by the time he first published. As the book itself appears to say this is a controversial stuff which scientists may not readily agree with and those same scientists who would support Darwin's theories are understandably protective of the use of the 'Darwin' brand to support other concepts hence popularism. Just have a look at the Talk Pages on Darwin / Darwinism and other related articles. Hence the ringing alarm bells. Finally, I never inferred you were some crank (random or otherwise) I note your qualifications, which coincidentally are the same as Brian Pontius. If by any chance you are the author of the book cited or even associated with the research then this is perhaps another good reason for not including it as a citation to your own edits. That would be 'breaking an unbreakable rule of wiki' See Conflict of Interest | here. As is using Original Research see here. So hope you can find some good references to support your ideas Tmol42 (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Tmol42, for the quick response. I do understand your issue with my edit. I suppose, being new, I would have expected you to send me a note saying what was wrong with it, rather than deleting it out of hand (unless you were the accepted abiogenesis page guru, which you may well be). In any case, I agree that I did not meet the accepted criteria and high standards of Wiki and you did nothing wrong. I will try to gather more appropriate references from others, remove the link to my page (and instead just reference the book), and write a somewhat different and more inclusive edit w/r to the literature. When I'm done, I will post it here to get some feedback from you and others. Hopefully, the consensus will be that it is acceptable and helpful, and only then will I post it on the abiogenesis page. No hard feelings. But as you noted, I have a passion to say something and would like the opportunity to say it. And yes, I am who you think I am. There is no hiding in science.

I also agree that one might not expect a serious model for abiogenesis hiding within the book. But it is there, I assure you.

One more thing. The Abiogenesis page seems to be in a bit of disarray (as is the field). I would like to help with the page irrespective of my own interests, but am hesitant to play with other people's edits. Is this the appropriate forum to bring up potential changes, so that the page can be made clearer? Not now, perhaps, but sometime in the future? Polyp2 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Consesus

The article where is says:"Scientific consensus is that abiogenesis occurred sometime between 4.4 billion years ago, when water vapor first liquefied,[2] and 2.7 billion years ago, when the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon (12C and 13C), iron (56Fe, 57Fe, and 58Fe) and sulfur (32S, 33S, 34S, and 36S) points to a biogenic origin of minerals and sediments[3][4] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis.[5][6] This topic also includes panspermia and other exogenic theories regarding possible extra-planetary or extraterrestrial origins of life, thought to have possibly occurred sometime over the last 13.7 billion years in the evolution of the Universe since the Big Bang.[7]"

It says there is a "scientific consensus" that the "event" occured between 4.4 and 2.7 billion years ago and also possibly 13.7 billion years ago. What is the "consensus"?Tstrobaugh (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We're pretty much bound by what the sources say, barring the sources being mis-represented or a lack of new sources, the page should stick to what it says now. WLU (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is contradictory?Tstrobaugh (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How is that contradictory? Life appeared on earth between 4.4 and 2.7 billion years ago. Maybe it came from somewhere else first, but it was first on earth somewhere in that range. This article includes information about theories of abiogenesis on earth + theories that life on earth came from somewhere else (wasn't genesis of life from no life (abiogenesis), but life on earth from life somewhere else). - Enuja (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So you believe that there is a "Scientific Consensus" that life began on earth between "4.4 and 2.7 billion years ago" and also may have come from somewhere else possibly 13.7 billion years ago? You ask where is the contradiction, I ask again, where is the consensus?Tstrobaugh (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes.

Scientific consensus: There is life on earth now. There absolutely was life on earth 2.7 billion years ago. There could have been life on earth as early as 4.4 billion years ago. We do not know how/where it came from.

Does that make more sense? One can have a consensus "We have no data. We do not know." In this case, there is some data that everyone agrees on, and there are hypotheses that people do not agree on. Questions we do not have answers for include: Did life come from elsewhere? Did it come from non-life on earth? When (in the 1.7 billion year possible period) did life start existing on earth?

The current text does not say that life could have appeared on earth 13.7 billion years ago, but that it could have occurred elsewhere sometime in the last 13.7 billion years and came from elsewhere to earth between 4.4 and 2.7 billion years ago. The current text also doesn't say that the scientific consensus is that life arose elsewhere a long time ago; the consensus bit refers only to the first sentence. If either of these things are what is bothering you, then, by all means, clarify the text of the article.

I honestly don't understand what is confusing about the section you've quoted, and I honestly haven't even read the whole article carefully; it's a mess. But the part you are quoting makes sense to me. - Enuja (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)