Talk:Abiogenesis

How to access reference for oceans taking 3,000 years to rain out of clouds

The paper is "Annihilation of ecosystems by large asteroid impacts on early Earth" by Sleep, Norman H.; Zahnle, Kevin J.; Kasting, James F. et al. It is in the reference list but I do not know how to access it to check if the reference supports exactly the text for which it is given as a reference. I thank you in advance for any help you can offer. - Fartherred (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I have not read this paper, but the full article is here: [1] (PDF). Thank you for verifying unclear entries in this article. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Lede

Disclaimer: In the past I have spent more hours than was good for me on various forums poking holes, and fun, in and at creationist arguments. So please assume “good faith”!

The phrase in the lede “The transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity and without external direction…” makes me a bit uncomfortable as a statement of fact.

I’ve never seen a satisfactorily agreed definition of either living or not-living. Both states tend to be characterised rather than defined. And yet the sentence seems to imply that such definitions do exist and somehow there were transitional states between the two.

It might be better to find another way to express the concept that "over a period of time increasingly complex entities could increasingly be characterised as living".

I’m not sure that wording is perfect either but perhaps it better reflects what the evidence suggests happened without giving credence to the “goddidit” argument. 185.47.106.84 (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we could formulate a perfect sentence: while we know abiogenesis occurred and that evidence of emerging life and following evolution show no signs of direction, a lot still remains unknown about the exact processes which lead to life (evolution being much better understood). Protocells for instance may not have been "alive" as a cell would be. It's even unknown if abiogenesis happened elsewhere and reached earth via panspermia or if it originated here. We however know that it was initially very simple and then evolved here. Similarly to for later evolution where multiple parallel processes occur, a number of physical and chemical processes and conditions were present. An archaea or eukariote is also more complex than its parts, which themselves appeared and evolved under the right conditions where the necessary processes occurred massively. Considering all this, my impression is that the sentence is a decent summary (with more details later). It's also important to consider that the lead should be a summary of the article's body (WP:LEAD). —PaleoNeonate – 16:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

[EC]We probably agree that there are clear examples of living and not-living entities. I do not see how the existing text necessarily entails a satisfactorily agreed definition of either state. Wikipedia's own article on life admits ambiguity e.g. in the case of viruses. IMO it's not broken, and doesn't need fixing. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate the suggestion to be specific and improve the introduction, it has to remain a brief summary and expressed in understandable terms. As other editors noted, any reader wanting to find the definition/description of life, they will find it in that article. Also, please note that it is not possible at this time to draw a line or point the precise moment an inanimate pre-biotic system becomes a living organism without a full description of the phenomena at work. That is simply not helpful when we want to summarize and explain the basic concept in the introduction. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I think you are slightly missing my point (my fault I'm sure). I agree entirely with PaleoNeonate's comments. Absolutely no argument there. The point I was trying to make is that I don't think that sentence in the lede reflects them. To me it implies that there are clear definitions of living and non-living and therefore there must be a point at which one becomes the other. We all know that's not the case, so to risk giving that impression is best avoided. Reading it cold for the first time my immediate reaction was that it jarred.

I am suggesting finding some form of words that explains that there was a gradual increase in complexity, but without what we'd claim as a mechanism of evolutionary inheritance. (At which point abiogenesis becomes evolution). I have heard the term "chemical evolution" used, which I also don't think captures it.

The sense of what I suggest is something like "a gradual, undirected, increase in the complexity of entities resulted in recognisably living organisms exhibiting a mechanism of inheritance [and subject to evolution?]." Ideally it would also capture the point that such entities were capable of replication and presumably some analogue of homeostasis, but perhaps that's pushing it.

I know that's not the right wording either but it avoids the non-living / living strawman I've seen more than once. (I was very active on the net defending science around the time of the Dover trial)

I dunno, maybe I'm just seeing something that's not really there. :)

185.47.106.84 (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

With your example it's much more specific and has merit I think (the mention of reproduction and/or inheritance). "Recognisably living" may also be an acceptable compromise to the equivocal definition of life... —PaleoNeonate – 10:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it might help if the lede made clear that we lack of any detailed knowledge of how abiogenesis occurred; exactly when life started being just one detail.--agr (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Issues with the lead

For most processes by which something originates (such as chondrogenesis, embryogenesis, epigenesis, gametogenesis, lipogenesis, neurogenesis and spermatogenesis), there is a rather detailed scientific understanding of what is concretely involved in the main aspects of the process, based on studying these processes and their details in vitro and – where possible – in vivo, obtained in a long process of scientific discovery in which – as usual – most results build upon the work of predecessors. As a subject of study, abiogenesis is very different. What we know about it is not so much the result of discovery; rather, it is the result of informed speculation: speculation that is informed by a broad and deep knowledge of many scientific fields mixed with a good dose of common sense. Nevertheless, it is speculation. There is not even consensus on the fundamental question of whether life originated on Earth or elsewhere. The Simple English Wikipedia opens its article on the subject with this sentence: "The origin of life on Earth is a scientific problem which is not yet solved." In contrast, our article starts in a similar way to other -genesis articles, providing some insight as if it is a firmly established scientific fact: "The transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis and cell membranes." Never mind that the three cited sources only weakly support the statement (the first one does not directly address abiogenesis, the second is merely yet another among countless largely unsubstantiated proposals of how the process may have unfolded, and the third talks about the meaning of the term evolutive abiogenesis, which is a way of begging the question). It is only by wading in through five long sentences (comprising 150 words!), weaving a thicket of polysyllabic scientific jargon, that the unsuspecting reader discovers the fact of the matter: "Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain ..." That is, assuming that the reader realizes the import of these words, which do not explicitly state, but merely imply, that we do not have a "successful theory" yet. In my eyes, the lead (which, by the way, is excessively long), fails in its most essential task, to quickly come to the point and provide an accessible overview of the subject to as broad an audience as possible. It should be clear from the start that abiogenesis is "a scientific problem which is not yet solved" – in fact, if the panspermia hypothesis happens to be true, may never be solved. It should be clear that the concept of a multi-staged gradual process is not an established fact but a commonly accepted working hypothesis. The fact that this is mentioned in a quotation in the References section does not cut it for me; references are meant for verifiability and further exploration; the main text should be able to stand on its own without the support of references.  --Lambiam 19:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Quote: "It should be clear that the concept of a multi-staged gradual process is not an established fact but a commonly accepted working hypothesis."

Hello. It is known that the oldest lifeforms on Earth were microscopic, and as the fossil record advances with time, life evolved into larger lifeforms. That is a fact. Whether abiogenesis started on Earth or the microbes were transported here through panspermia, it was certainly a gradual process of increasing complexity, and there is no disagreement in the scientific community about that. The sudden appearance of life forms (complex or simple) is a non-scientific speculation by creationists. I'd say, feel free to move a couple of sentences around, but any more than that would require discussion and consensus. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

We are talking here about the transition non-living matter → lifeforms. The "oldest lifeforms on Earth" are (by definition) on the "life" side of that transition. How more complex lifeforms arise from simple lifeforms is an interesting scientific problem, but it is not the issue to which abiogenesis research is aiming to find an answer. The fact that life, once it had originated, evolved into larger lifeforms does not imply, logically or otherwise, that the process by which life arose from non-life was a multi-staged gradual process. As far as I have seen, the only argument for the hypothesis that the process has been multi-staged is that no one has come up with a plausible pathway that is not multi-staged. I am not sure that there is also agreement in the scientific community that the steps leading from one stage to the next were gradual. I made an (in my eyes) modest change that I felt would make the situation clearer early on in the lead, but it was reverted. I posted the above to elicit discussion in the hope that consensus might arise that the current lead has an unnecessary, entirely avoidable risk of putting the reader on the wrong track.  --Lambiam 22:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"[…] evolved into larger lifeforms does not imply, logically or otherwise, that the process by which life arose from non-life was a multi-staged gradual process." The scientific consensus disagrees with you. The Earliest known life forms confirms that abiogenesis first produced unicellular life. There are a multitude of self-replicating molecules discovered, including RNA, so encapsulation (protocell) is not an unbelievable or impossible step. The multi-staged gradual process of abiogenesis evidently happened sometime between the Big Bang and now, because physical life exists. That is a fact. The sudden and supernatural appearance of life is a religious belief (creation myth), while there is no natural law that denies a multi-staged gradual process to form a protocell. The challenge is to figure the multi-step process that brought about the first unicellular life - that is where you see several hypotheses. While your change ([2] seems objective and neutral, it is not so: The hypotheses are not on whether abiogenesis happened, but on how it happened; the hypotheses are on elucidating the different steps, because it was more than one single miraculous "goddidit" event.

"I am not sure that there is also agreement in the scientific community that the steps leading from one stage to the next were gradual." That is the central argument from the creationist Teach the Controversy campaign in support of Intelligent design. Remember this is not a forum, so I am not eager to prolong this discussion simply because you deny the scientific consensus, and the references cited, without offering a reliable reference to your argument. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why you bring up the strawman of supernatural creationist beliefs. If you look at my edit whose reversion brought me here, you will not discern the faintest hint of anything supernatural or creationist. Let me copy the proposed sentence here.

"While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes."

In this sentence, the term "hypothesis" clearly refers to the how of abiogenesis, and not to the whether. If someone reads it any other way, it can only be because they are so defensive that they are primed to see something that isn't there.

Dozens of detailed abiogenesis scenarios have been proposed, none of which has been confirmed to any degree of certainty, so all origin of life theories can be considered inconclusive; we just don't know. My whole point is that if you carefully read the whole article, that conclusion is unescapable. But the way it starts sounds very different, as if the article is going to lay out the process. All I want is that it is made clear to the reader early on, before we go into incredible detail, that we don't know. In the words of Peter Jack Fisher, in The Universe, Life and Man, "Most authorities agree today that life on earth began on earth, but its origin remains one of the oldest and most elusive problems of biology and chemistry and has engaged the attention of some of the keenest minds in philosophy and science for more than 2,000 years."  --Lambiam 21:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Would the following sentence be acceptable?

"Although there is not yet a generally accepted theory explaining in detail how the process unfolded, scientific research on abiogenesis proceeds from the fundamental working hypothesis that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis and the emergence of cell membranes."

If not, please explain the issue without assuming ulterior motives beyond improving the article.  --Lambiam 09:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

For the last time: creationism is not an option because life forms did not appear upon a single step/event. There is no argument in the scientific literature that abiogenesis was/is a step-wise process of increasing chemical complexity. So the multi-step concept is not hypothetical. What is hypothetical are the nature, sequence, chemistry, etc. of those multiple steps. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed you introduced that abiogenesis assumes it all was a "natural process". It makes no sense. Of course science relies on observations learned from the natural world, and it automatically discards the supernatural. Your text is a textbook example of the creationist "Teach the controversy campaign trying to give the impression that scientists are not even sure whether to discard supernatural powers of creation vs. natural processes. Please stop. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: – Can you please stop assuming that I support creationism? Both of the cited sources containing a statement about the working hypothesis of a "natural process" were written by opponents of creationism and/or inteligent design. You also seem to assume that the readers of this article already have a somewhat developed idea of abiogenesis research. Stating the fundamental assumptions made by abiogenesis researchers may not make sense to you, but clearly there are scientists who believe that it does make sense to point them out to their audience. I reiterate my main point, which has not been addressed in any reply: We should not assume that the reader of the article already knows (a) that there is not yet a generally accepted theory of abiogenesis; (b) that researchers are trying to piece together a scenario that is not only theoretically possible, but also somewhat plausible. Imagine a reader who does not have any prior knowledge of lipogenesis, and who reads the opening statement "Lipogenesis is the process by which acetyl-CoA is converted to triglycerides". That reader will then naturally assume that the remainder of the article will explain that process in some detail. And indeed, it does. Now imagine yourself in the position of a reader who does not have any prior knowledge of abiogenesis. They too will kind of naturally assume, after seeing the opening statement "Abiogenesis ... is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter", that the remainder of the article will explain that process in some detail. Then, if they continue reading, they will eventually discover something is amiss with the conceptual frame in which they are interpreting the text. If they are lucky, they will be put in the right frame by the sentence that starts with "Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain ...". But you shouldn't bet on that. There is a fair chance that they will only understand the situation deep into the article, in the section Current models, on reading the sentence "There is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life." I repeat that understanding this point is essential for understanding the article. The lead of the article should contain the main points, and especially points that are essential for understanding the rest of the article. They should not be buried deep into the article.  --Lambiam 12:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW - Thanks for the comments - the lede seems excellent, clear and factual at the moment - as well as sufficiently encyclopedic, academic and well-sourced - especially for the casual reader - additionally, the issues raised above seem very well managed in the article lede for the more interested reader - in any regard - Thanks again for the comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Lambian, you do not seem to understand the flaw in your reverted edit so I will not indulge in an endless discussion. You seem to demand a better summary in the introduction, so instead of your wording that implies that abiogenesis is a natural hypothesis against others equally valid (magic?), I inserted "Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred." -Rowan Forest (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Is panspermia being presented as a "metaphysical theology?"

"Periodically resurrected (see Panspermia, above) Bernal said ......"

While the article doesn't really make this clear, I could only reasonably determine that the panspermia hypothesis is being periodically resurrected. Perhaps it is only Bernal's argument that is periodically resurrected.

The following paragraph seems to indicate that "[t]he idea of evolution by natural selection proposed by Charles Darwin put an end to these metaphysical theologies." Should a reader interpret this to mean that panspermia is a theological hypothesis and that this idea ended with Darwin? Is the idea "that life's origins on Earth had come from somewhere else in the universe" also an idea that that ended after acceptance of natural selection? The panspermia article seems to indicate that the idea has become a more detailed scientific hypothesis, and the history section doesn't mention theology at all. Has panspermia, at least the very general idea "that life's origins on Earth had come from somewhere else in the universe," ever been a theological idea? The panspermia article seems to indicate that it started as a vague idea, unrelated to theology, and progressed to a more scientific hypothesis, or multiple hypotheses that attempt to explain the general idea.

Should Bernal's argument that panspermia is both unscientific and tantamount to qualifying terrestrial life as divine interference be recognized as the "metaphysical theology" with respect to the general idea of panspermia that ended after Darwin's mechanism was widely accepted? 45.30.100.86 (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Darwin had no theory of abiogensis, so I don't see how his work would relate to panspermia. E.g., we're the offspring of bacteria brought from Mars by a meteorite, then natural selection rules, would do. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree in that that entry is poorly worded, and is unrelated to Darwin's theory of evolution, even if one considers hypothetical extraterrestrial microbes evolving on Earth. Cleanup is needed. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It is conceivable that in the future we will discover spores on an interstellar visitor that contain DNA with a genetic code related to that of Terran lifeforms. That would falsify the hypothesis that current Terran life originated on Earth and lend strong support to the panspermia hypothesis. So, clearly, the latter does not belong in the realm of metaphysics.  --Lambiam 22:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Conjectural slant

At present, the lead finishes off with the following nugget:

According to biologist Stephen Blair Hedges, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth ... then it could be common in the universe."

I take one look at that, shake my jowls, smoke pours out of my ears, and I still have no clue precisely what tenuous Bayesian prior that statement is smuggling into the conversation.

Suppose that life is common in the universe, in all cases with separate origin. Then would be a distribution of how "fast" life originated in each case, and in all the cases where life originated "fast" the sentient life forms (if life has gone that far) would conclude that life was common in the universe; and in all cases where life originated "slowly" the sentient life forms (less likely than before than life has gone that far) would conclude that life is uncommon in the universe. But since the fast process would dominate the demographics, we can be pretty much certain (in the case that life is common and independent) that most life believes that life is common.

Man it's amazing what a little elementary logic can deduce about statistical belief distributions concerning exogalatic civilizations you've yet to encounter.

One of the problems here is that the word "fast" is ludicrously subjective. The Bayesian prior embedded in "fast" could not be elucidated by a thousand autistic Rabbis in neuro-electrical mind meld.

This is pretty much a cosmological Laffer curve: it's zero at his end, it's zero at that end, it's positive somewhere in between, therefore it's necessarily smooth with a singular local maxima (independent of time dynamics or any others systems consideration) and we can thus derive macroscopic policy implications through this amazing crystal ball whose characterization most definitely does fit into the margin of the world's smallest book.

To my sensibility, that concluding line better belongs in Astounding than here on Wikipedia (at least not without a long paragraph delineating the many radically simplifying assumptions baked into the inherently Lafferesque reasoning process). — MaxEnt 14:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Glancing at the parts of Prof. Hedges's CV shown in his WP article, I suspect he has a better basis than most of us for estimating Bayesian priors regarding life's timelines. I don't really have a horse in this race, but would be interested to see more context in the form of relevant abstracts of his writing. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@MaxEnt and Just plain Bill: FWIW - yes - *entirely* agree with the comments posted above by User:Just plain Bill - in addition - seems the LUCA of all known life forms on the planet may be 355 genes - if the earliest known life forms contained these same 355 genes also (we don't know this of course afaik), then, to me at the moment, such a set of genes seems too complicated to be de novo on the early Earth - [actually, one gene, let alone 355, seems too complicated to me] - nonetheless, if so, such biochemical complexity may have begun much earlier, and well before, the formation of the Earth - and consequently - there may be other suitable places in the universe for life to have been seeded and started - at least imo atm - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The intro must be the general state of current knowledge, and it should not cherry-pick one person's assessment. I suggest that if you can find a reference that deals with this (panspermia), you could write a better sentence to replace the quote by Stephen Blair Hedges. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

References

If the Universe is Teeming with Aliens ... Where is Everybody? by Stephen Webb (Springer, second edition, 2015, ISBN 978-3-319-13235-8) discusses abiogenesis from a Bayesian perspective on p. 284 ff., concluding on p. 288, "In other words, with the evidence we have available to us, the fact that we are here is entirely consistent with a low probability of abiogenesis. The fact that life arose early here gives us little confidence in the belief that life must be common elsewhere."  --Lambiam 17:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to change "Primordial soup hypothesis" to "Heterotrophic origin of life hypothesis"

I would like to change the term "prebiotic soup hypothesis" to the most appropriate "heterotrophic origin of life hypothesis". I think we can start an article that describes in detail the proposals of Oparin and Haldane, as well as Darwin's "warm little pond" and all the implications that these proposals had. Also adding the current state of the hypothesis. The article on the Prebiotic soup should simply describe the characteristics of the ocean and the atmosphere in the primitive Earth as a fundamental part of the heterotrophic theory. Avazquez-salazar (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

The introduction uses the language:

"Abiogenesis or origin of life is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.

This is not neutral. The idea that life comes about from non-living matter as being a purely natural process is a claim not a fact proven to a full enough extent to invalidate creation tales, which aren't just tales if they prove to be accurate. Human knowledge of nature is nowhere near the point of being able to explain the origin of life such as to say its just a "natural process." -Inowen (nlfte) 19:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

From User talk:Inowen: You repeated insertion of POV and "Citation needed" tags are not appreciated, as there are 4 high-quality references stating the natural process. In total there are 338 references in this article to natural biochemical evolution and related processes/hypotheses. None are about magic. Thank you. Rowan Forest 23:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem with stating that life (on Earth) began through purely natural processes is that its overstated; there currently is no substantial explanation for the origin of air and water let alone life. In looking at the four sources listed in the article, it would be either:

A: * a mischaracterization of sources to state that all life came about by way of natural processes,

B: * an overstatement on the part of the source, to claim that these theoretical processes were sufficient to generate all life.

In the paper by Petro published in Microbiology, the author starts with a very general opening which appears to be inclusive:

"Different viewpoints, many with deep philosophical and historical roots, have shaped the scientific study of the origin of life.

But then states there are only two possibilities which cover everything:

Some of these argue that primeval life was based on simple anaerobic microorganisms able to use a wide inventory of abiotic organic materials (i.e. a heterotrophic origin), whereas others invoke a more sophisticated organization, one that thrived on simple inorganic molecules (i.e. an autotrophic origin)

which is a very disingenous way of writing, and along with other factors, keeps the source outside of the high-level category. -Inowen (nlfte) 00:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

[…]is a claim not a fact proven to a full enough extent to invalidate creation tales, which aren't just tales if they prove to be accurate."

Please see the FAQ section above as well as "young Earth creationism" section regarding creationism. In a nutshell, creation science is religious rather than scientific because it stems from faith in a religious text rather than by the application of the scientific method and observation of actual phenomena. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes - *entirely* agree with the comments by User:Rowan Forest above - and as well => please see the "FAQ section above" - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

A scientific theory is not proven unless it is proven completely. If the issue is that "abiogenesis" (why not just title this "origin of life") is in the context of science, then state upfront "in scientific theories about the origin of life, abiogenesis is.." and then state it is a collection of theories about life on Earth coming up from the muck, but which has *areas which are seriously incomplete.* State also that there is a relationship between scientific worldview and atheism in which science thinks exclusively of creation theories which do not have a supreme being, and instead of categorizing other theories, rather atheistically disapproves of the idea of an invisible extraterrestrial supreme being made of quantum fabric that through quantum chemistry and without human approval or help seeded the life on Earth and has silently guided its evolution. -Inowen (nlfte) 01:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I advise you to take a wiki-break. Abiogenesis is not atheistic, for the mere reason that God could have created the initial conditions which have permitted the apparition of life. I mean at the moment of the Big Bang. God cannot violate his own laws. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

PS (continuing): There is a common sense root to atheistic theories of biogenesis which is that the universe and nature must have come first and any life developed within in accord with the physical laws of the universe. That leads many to jump to the idea of life on Earth developing on its own through crude chemistry, and so its easy to label those ideas "up from the muck" theories. And its underestandable because the idea of being created by a "supreme being" has the problem that the Supreme Being has to have come from somewhere, and then "origin of life" discussions which accept that life doesn't just come "up from the muck" have the difficulty of asking how the Supreme Being was created. "If people came from God, where did God come from?" And then they are vindicated somewhat in asserting that though we humans were created, the Supreme Being therefore was himself a creation of Nature through some kind of natural genesis process, perhaps one which honors the idea of localized loops in the quantum fabric through some kind of energetic events forming a kind of cognitive organ which then learns to survive in its own environment. Thats the flow of arguments. So theres some common sense in the abiogenesis idea, but its not to be overstated and its not to misreperesent theories as fact. And its not to replace origin theories which have the Supreme Being in them as also a scientific possibility, explainable in their own way. -Inowen (nlfte) 01:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The point is "non-scientifc views" is inaccurate; these are "scientific" views also, and its prejudicial to call only "up from the muck" theories "scientific." PS: Calling all theistic theories categorically "non-scientific," then all scientific theories are (by simple logic) atheistic. And then the binding between the words "scientific" and "atheistic" are examined, and the binding fails because science (at this time) has a refutation of atheism as prejudicial (and its also a political entity encroaching into the science domain). -Inowen (nlfte) 02:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

PPS: A scientific theories of a Supreme Being article needs to be written, of which Boltzmann's brain is one. -Inowen (nlfte) 04:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The main problem with theistic theories being "non-scientific" is that their proponents today have neither the ability nor desire to demonstrate how these theories can be tested with or be used to do science, i.e., the problem with Intelligent Design, which was marketed as an alternative to evolutionary biology, but was designed explicitly to insert blatant anti-science religious propaganda into science classroom curricula while flouting US laws that explicitly prohibit such situations.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes theists are tyically lacking in fluency when it comes to dealing with using the common language in the way logical form of argument. Religous language needs a translation dictionary. -Inowen (nlfte) 08:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Inowen:, tell me, how does fluency factor into the situation of neutrality when theists unanimously present neither the ability nor desire to put forth a scientific explanation of how and why "GODDIDIT" (or "DESIGNERDIDIT") ever since Catastrophism fell out of vogue during the 1700's due to its explanation of "Biblically undocumented cycles of biblical creations following biblical catastrophes" being simultaneously unsatisfying and unobservable?--Mr Fink (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Science isn't atheistic. He conflates metaphysical naturalism with methodological naturalism. Imho, science is agnostic: cannot know/say anything, good or bad, about God (or gods). God has been razored out of science by a monk. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

User Inowen is abdicating for creation science, but we don't have to analyse it all over again because: The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science fails to produce scientific hypotheses, and courts have ruled that it is a religious, not a scientific view. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Issue is lack of Neutrality, not Creation science

The issue isn't one of Creation Science but one of neutrality, where the language in the article that declares that:

"Abiogenesis or origin of life is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter

is not NPOV because it asserts a thesis that life comes about through an "up from the muck" process only, which is vastly overreaching and overstated, and categorically rules out "down from the stars" theories. Rowan claims science is agnostic, then the POV here is that science and the article should remain agnostic and not atheistic.

(An editor Apokryltaros (labelled as Mr Fink) claimed the right of closing the above discussion, which was improper in my view. He also removed my comment from his talk page.[3]) -Inowen (nlfte) 05:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

PS: (If the term "abiogenesis" is reserved for a science point of view, it needs to declare it upfront, and relinquish the redirect from "origin of life" which will be a disambiguation which then will include scientific and theistic views. The fact that "origin of life" redirects here, and this article then is claimed for a-theistic theories, loses the argument). -Inowen (nlfte) 06:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

A) Firstly, the article lede describes the most logically plausible scenario put forth the most popular and well-supported theories. Secondly, Panspermia has its own page, and is not discussed in depth here. Thirdly, you are not, and have not been clear or fluent on what you want done in the article, especially since you and your complaints about atheism sound dangerously similar to creationists and other anti-evolution/anti-science-themed editors who come to this talkpage with the obvious intent to rewrite the article into something far more friendly to Creationism. You need to explicitly state what you want, and explicitly articulate it in a way that does not run afoul of WP:UNDUE, WP:Original Research, WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. I mean, what is your complaint about the article being atheistic? Because it precludes mention of God or some other supernatural creator being? If that is your complaint, then it runs afoul of the boilerplate warning forbidding such discussions. If it isn't, then you are not being clear. Fourthly, I can delete whatever I want from my own user talkpage within reason, and deleting your trivial complaint from my own user talkpage is within my editing rights in Wikipedia.--Mr Fink (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment @Inowen: I've removed the RFC tag. Please see WP:RFCST for how to write a neutrally-worded RFC (that other readers even know exactly what they're being asked). Also follow the various links from there for more information, especially see the essay WP:Writing requests for comment. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Abiogenesis and creationism are not equivalent scientific concepts and there is no controversy about that: Scientists and even the courts of law ruled that 'creation science' is not science but religion. So: A) This science article deals with scientific principles, which by default, are neutral; therefore: B) No disambiguation is needed. And C) A scientific concept that seeks an evidence-based explanation to the origin of life, does not have to "relinquish" the redirect from origin of life to articles on folk tales. By now it is clear that your arguments are in the WP:ICANTHEARYOU realm. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@MrFink. Your theory about "the most logically plausible scenario" is your opinion of what is out there in terms of research, and has no place on Wikipedia. Or its a scientific opinion gone off the reservation, and is exceeding its the bounds of its home domain. Even Dawkins agreed that he "can't be sure God doesn't exist." Panspermia and abiogenesis and other ideas each need to be discussed at an origin of life article. To redirect "origin of life" here is a hijacking of that term. Atheism/agnosticism: The agnostic approach is fine with me, and the atheistic approach fails. That should be agreeable. Boilerplate: Boilerplate is not an argument, its a claim to authority in some document, which cannot seriously have the power to state that improving the article by removing POV is precluded. @Rowan Forest: Scientific theories dont just include "up from the muck" theories, but other ones as well. Science is no authority at this time in explaining how life began, and so the general topic "origin of life" as a topic must include panspermia and those "folk tales." Creationism isn't the issue here, its the POV claim of ownership of the origin of life title. "Seeks an evidence-based explanation" is market-speak from atheistic science. 'God leaves no footprints which you can see with a microscope only miracles you can see with common sense.' Be agnostic instead, like you noted above. -Inowen (nlfte) 23:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

We're getting tired of your accusations of atheism. There's no "atheistic science" vs. "theistic science", that's a figment of your imagination. And panspermia means abiogenesis somewhere else than the Earth. This discussion should be closed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

|}