Talk:Abiogenesis: Difference between revisions
→Separating facts from faith.: new section |
|||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
== Origin of Darwinian evolution rather than origin of life == |
== Origin of Darwinian evolution rather than origin of life == |
||
Should there be some discussion before such a section is added to Abiogenesis? A separate article and a link may be a better way to handle this. [[User:Wdanwatts|Dan Watts]] ([[User talk:Wdanwatts|talk]]) 17:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
Should there be some discussion before such a section is added to Abiogenesis? A separate article and a link may be a better way to handle this. [[User:Wdanwatts|Dan Watts]] ([[User talk:Wdanwatts|talk]]) 17:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Separating facts from faith. == |
|||
I found it a little odd to read the following statement, "For views on the origins of life outside the natural sciences, see Creation myth" Yet it seems much of what I read in this article is also akin to a naturalistic creation myth, in that much is believed yet not demonstrated and taken on faith. I also think that there is some clever writing, yet the article should be a little more clear for the uninitiated, such the following statement which seems a little ambiguous "Abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth is thought to have arisen" |
|||
I agree with the second sentence but the first is unnecessary and shows a certain bias. I would also like to see at least a significant part of the article speak of the pre biochemical logistical nightmares involved in the process of creating a living cell through human intel much less through random or unguided forces. |
Revision as of 23:12, 6 February 2012
![]() | Evolutionary biology B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Abiogenesis received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Much of the content of Abiogenesis was merged from Origin of life. For discussion of that page preceding that merge, see here. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Abiogenesis video based on Dr.Jack Szostak's ideas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Quickly put, this video appears to be interesting in this connection, as it presents life's development before the development of lipid membranes. proteins, DNA/RNA, but is a process developing the functionality of life ie growth, competition, replication, evolution, etc. at a complexity stage involving only existing thermal energy sources (no chlorophyll), and only normal chemistry. It is not produced by his lab, but checked and confirmed by them to be in accordance with his thinking, ie that of Dr Szostak, who got the Nobel Prize for his work with teleomers.
As this would, in terms of life's beginnings, push it back to an earlier stage of with less complexity; perhaps it should be incorporated in this article. To its merits are that it provides a path for evolution where the currently discussed processes could be attained.
I do not have the expertise in the subject nor have I ever written or revised an article. So my apologies for bringing up something which would require work by others. I love this subject, both on a biological scale and the cosmological one, thus this comment. Thankful for constructive comment.Idealist707 (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Youtube videos are not WP:RS, so are not a suitable basis for inclusion. Has this material been published (e.g. in a peer-reviewed journal)? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have asked his lab to confirm it reflects their research.
Generally I would suspect that only key parts of the research have been published; but will see if there is a review article which has passed peer review. Haven't even googled it yet. Much left to do. Have you looked at the video, regardless of its WPvalue? Perhaps the producers of the video could provide this info and become engaged in this project. His Nobel Prize speech 2 years ago had only 10 minutes devoted to the last 20 years of his research, ie since he left the teleomer field behind him. If I understood him, his goal is to produce life from such basic processes. Not just to play at God, but to find how basic genetic processes can be controlled to improve medical diagnostics and remedies. Idealist707 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, videos generally make for a poor foundation for writing an encyclopaedia article, so I did not bother. I think you'd be better off looking through Szostak's published writings than speeches and videos -- but that's up to you. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at the reference list, I now understand the work done here.
- Beyond my skills and level of engagement. My role is enthusiastic layman and fan. Thanks. Happy to have be guided by a civil person, not defending his ivory tower with five dragons and a very cutting tongue. My signature was/is "Retired, but not tired".Idealist707 (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
repeated content in the article.
I read the whole article and I felt that in many parts same things are being repeated again and again, making it a little bit... frustrating to read... are wikipedia articles meant to be read fully?--Irrational number (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
"outside the natural sciences" => myth
(i) The title of another article is not a valid topic for discussion here & (ii) this issue has been thoroughly WP:DEADHORSEd on the relevant articles |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm concerned about the implication inherent in the statement at the top: "For views on the origins of life outside the natural sciences, see Creation myth." I'm aware that the word "myth" can mean "a traditional or legendary story", (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth), but it also means (and this is the meaning that seems to be implied) "an imaginary or fictitious thing or person". I'm also aware that many creation myths exist from all over the world, and that Wikipedia as a whole tends toward scientific naturalism in its content on metaphysical ideas, but the redirection to that particular page for "origins of life outside the natural sciences" seems intended to be pejorative towards alternate views. Perhaps it would be less offensive to redirect the reader to "Creationism". Pianoroy (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC) |
Origin of Darwinian evolution rather than origin of life
Should there be some discussion before such a section is added to Abiogenesis? A separate article and a link may be a better way to handle this. Dan Watts (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Separating facts from faith.
I found it a little odd to read the following statement, "For views on the origins of life outside the natural sciences, see Creation myth" Yet it seems much of what I read in this article is also akin to a naturalistic creation myth, in that much is believed yet not demonstrated and taken on faith. I also think that there is some clever writing, yet the article should be a little more clear for the uninitiated, such the following statement which seems a little ambiguous "Abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth is thought to have arisen" I agree with the second sentence but the first is unnecessary and shows a certain bias. I would also like to see at least a significant part of the article speak of the pre biochemical logistical nightmares involved in the process of creating a living cell through human intel much less through random or unguided forces.