Jump to content

Talk:Abiogenesis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joe Sloppy (talk | contribs) at 06:01, 10 May 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Definition of life

According to the section "Definition of life", the question about the origin of life requires a common definition of what can be considered "life", and that there might be disputes about that. There are three quotes in that section. However, only the third one provides an actual and workable definition (metabolism, self-repair, and replication). The first one protests about the circular definition from dictionaries (that we should ignore anyway, as trivial for the context of this article), and the second does not define anything. However, if we simply remove both we would stay with just one definition, and that would contradict the premise of conflicting definitions of the concept of life. Are there other scientists that propose alternative definitions of life than the one of metabolism, self-repair, and replication? Cambalachero (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambalachero: and others - FWIW - a definition of life may be challenging - perhaps "Life#Definitions" may help to some extent - also => my thinking at the moment is similar to the comments I made some years ago - as follows:

Source: "Talk:Life/Archive 4#Definition of Life 2"

FWIW - Of Possible Interest - Seems Others Have Defined "Life" Similar To The One I Posted Earlier [ie, "'Life' (and/or 'Life-Forms'), At The Most Basic Level, Simply Seems To Be *A Chemical That Can Reproduce Itself*"] - There Are Several Examples: One Astronomer Phrases It As "matter that can reproduce itself and evolve as survival dictates"[1] (also, PDF-1[2] and PDF-2);[3] Another Scientist As "a molecule that can reproduce itself" - I Have No Particular Investment In Such Definitions For Purposes Of The Main "Life" Article But Perhaps Such Thinking Might Be Considered To Some Extent? - In Any Regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC) - UPDATE -> Added A Brief Line Of Related Text (And Several References) To The Main Article. Drbogdan (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ADD => as many as 123 definitions of life have been compiled[4] - one definition seems to be favored by NASA: “a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.”[5][6][7][8] - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Luttermoser, Donald G. (2012). "Lecture Notes for ASTR 1020 - Astronomy II with Luttermoser at East Tennessee (ETSU)". East Tennessee State University. Retrieved 8 March 2021.
  2. ^ Luttermoser, Donald G. (2012). "ASTR-1020: Astronomy II Course Lecture Notes Section XII" (PDF). East Tennessee State University. Retrieved 8 March 2021.
  3. ^ Luttermoser, Donald G. (2012). "Physics 2028: Great Ideas in Science: The Exobiology Module" (PDF). East Tennessee State University. Retrieved 8 March 2021.
  4. ^ Trifonov, Edward N. (17 March 2011). "Vocabulary of Definitions of Life Suggests a Definition". Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics. 29 (2): 259–266. doi:10.1080/073911011010524992. Retrieved 15 December 2020.
  5. ^ Voytek, Mary a. (6 March 2021). "About Life Detection". NASA. Retrieved 8 March 2021.
  6. ^ Marshall, Michael (14 December 2020). "He may have found the key to the origins of life. So why have so few heard of him? - Hungarian biologist Tibor Gánti is an obscure figure. Now, more than a decade after his death, his ideas about how life began are finally coming to fruition". National Geographic Society. Retrieved 15 December 2020.
  7. ^ Mullen, Lesle (1 August 2013). "Defining Life: Q&A with Scientist Gerald Joyce". Space.com. Retrieved 15 December 2020.
  8. ^ Zimmer, Carl (26 February 2021). "The Secret Life of a Coronavirus - An oily, 100-nanometer-wide bubble of genes has killed more than two million people and reshaped the world. Scientists don't quite know what to make of it". Retrieved 28 February 2021.

The concept of abiogenesis is clearly only at the rank of scientific hypothesis. It has never been empirically observed: no experiment or natural observation has demonstrated it. Because it has not been proven to be an existing or producible phenomenon, other, non/supernatural origins of life are logical candidates; the scientific process has been incapable of a demonstrable natural explanation. To exclude such non/supernatural origins of life is therefore scientifically illogical, and evidences not logic but emotional (pre-rational) judgment that another explanation is erroneous; this illogical judgment is contrary to scientific practice and an affront to science itself. It is belief/conjecture, or what is commonly called 'closemindedness'. Therefore, scientific inquiry necessarily mandates that abiogenesis be qualified as a hypothesis, which it clearly is. Being a hypothesis does not diminish its significance, but rather acknowledges the degree of scientific significance appropriate to it.Prestinius (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative scientific hypothesis are listed at "Conceptual history until the 1960s: biology" Cambalachero (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW - for even more details re "abiogenesis" and "hypothesis" see the FAQ above and/or at => " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abiogenesis#FAQ " - as well as the related discussions in the ARCHIVES above and/or at => " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abiogenesis#ARCHIVES " - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edition of Abiogenesis

8. Pertinent geological environments

The proposal is to preserve the texts in point 8. Whole authors have reliable publications in index Copernicus, Web of Science and Scopus. There are proofs with stromatolites and hot mineral water in open lakes and hydrothermal vents, which are connected with point. • 4 Earliest evidence of life: palaeontology.

I think the text for Mulkidjanian and co-authors is enough. Point 9.3 Zinc-world hypothesis with text for hypothesis of Mulkidjanian needs of edition.


8 Pertinent geological environments 8.1 Darwin's little pond 8.2 Volcanic hot springs and hydrothermal vents, shallow or deep 8.3 Deep sea hydrothermal vents 8.4 Fluctuating hydrothermal pools on volcanic islands or proto-continents 8.5 Volcanic ash in the ocean 8.6 Gold's deep-hot biosphere 8.7 Radioactive beach hypothesis


The proposal is to preserve the texts hear in point 8. Whole authors have reliable publications in index Copernicus, Web of Science and Scopus. There are proofs with stromatolites and hot mineral water in open lakes and hydrothermal vents. I think the text for Mulkidjanian and co-authors is enough. Point 9.3 Zinc-world hypothesis needs of edition. Petrov Russia (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3. Early universe and Earth: astronomy and geology

In point 3 there are a lot of texts without connection with origin of life.

This point 3 needs edition with direction origin of life.

3. Early universe and Earth: astronomy and geology 

   3.1 Early universe with first stars
   3.2 Emergence of the Solar System
   3.3 Emergence of Earth
   3.4 Emergence of the ocean
   3.5 Late heavy bombardment

Petrov Russia (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other hypothesis

As noted in the template at the top, the article is very long right now. Some content that we may move away is the "Conceptual history until the 1960s: biology" section, as it deals with other hypothesis that have little or nothing to do with abiogenesis, such as spontaneous generation. We can move that content to an article with the history of the studies of the origin of life. Cambalachero (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could split off "Conceptual history..." into its own article, like "History of Abiogenesis"?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not with that name. Those other theories are about the same topic (the origin of life) but not about abiogenesis. Cambalachero (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism on abiogenesis

In the talk page it is stated that: "The occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, and there is ongoing research and competing hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred." >>>That alone is a statement that is very diffuse. Which scientists agree? Are there surveys and data that support this hypothesis?

Then it is stated that: "Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis. It is against Wikipedia policy for views without scientific support, such as all known objections to abiogenesis, to be included in a science article like Abiogenesis."

>>>My question is: In view of this statement, why is it okay to delete a section on a critical reception of the chemical evolution theories, based mainly on the scientific contribution of a professor of polymer chemistry and published in a highly recognised scientific publisher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Sloppy (talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Sloppy: and others - Thank you for your comments - the edit in question is copied below:

Copied below from the following => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abiogenesis&diff=1020675249&oldid=1020656503
My edit summary comments => "Rv edits - added text does not seem to be clearly supported by cited ref - please discuss on the talk-page for WP:CONSENSUS - per WP:BRD, WP:CITE, WP:NOR & related - thanks"


-- Criticism --

The hypotheses on chemical evolution and especially their optimistic interpretation with regard to the clarification of the origin of life are partly viewed critically. For example, the german expert for polymer chemistry Prof. Hans R. Kricheldorf, after analyzing the current hypotheses on chemical evolution, comes to the following conclusion: "The numerous gaps in knowledge, negative results and counter-arguments, [...], make it difficult with the current state of knowledge to accept from a distanced, scientific point of view the former existence of a chemical evolution leading to life. Despite numerous advances, especially within the framework of the RNA-world hypothesis, the results available so far are by far not sufficient to sufficiently substantiate a chemical evolution up to living organisms."[1]

References

  1. ^ Kricheldorf, Hans R. (2019). Leben durch chemische Evolution?: Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme von Experimenten und Hypothesen (in German). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-57978-7. ISBN 978-3-662-57977-0.

My main concern at the moment is that the added text does not seem to be clearly supported by the cited reference - there may be other concerns as well (wording, balance, more?) that may also need to be considered before adding the text to the article - in any case - Comments Welcome from other editors (esp those familiar with German) - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some random book by some random person, pretty obviously picked for its conclusion. Not good enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay @Hob Gadling. I didn't know you had to have a certain status to contribute to Wikipedia. Can you perhaps give me a hint on how to achieve this? Is there anyone else who would like to discuss the content of the topic instead of discrediting the author or the scientific reference without knowing it? @Drbogdan: I appreciate your effort to prevent any unsubstantiated claims and unscientific assumptions about abiogenesis from appearing in this wiki article. However, you yourself write that you cannot judge the German source. This means to me that your main concern: "that the added text does not seem to be clearly supported by the cited reference", is merely that you cannot assess the source because of the language barrier. So I think your suggestion is great that other (German-speaking) editors take another look at the source. Until then, however, I would ask for impartiality, as this is a publication in a renowned scientific publishing house, which should contribute to critically questioning previous hypotheses and thus enable scientific progress in the field of abiogenesis (this goal is also formulated in the corresponding publication). From my point of view, this is exactly what science is all about: critically questioning and falsifying hypotheses. General rejections of such contributions and persons, such as in Hob Gadling's answer, I therefore find rather counterproductive at this point. Best regards, JoeJoe Sloppy (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We know that it happened, we don't know how it happened. Why? Because a magic man done it isn't a scientific theory. And because panspermia simply means abiogenesis elsewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe I do need to clarify that at this point. Especially for those who smell an agenda of religious people behind every criticism concerning the hypotheses of abiogenesis.
The source, which was quoted in the section, was published in a recognized science publishing house (as I already stated). The author is not religious in any way and even points out several times that his questions to the hypotheses on abiogenesis are not religiously motivated in any way. (Bad enough that a scientist must first explain themself before theories may be scientifically questioned.... But probably that is so in the case). As far as I know (and also other authors point out), there is up to now no theory which can explain the abiogenesis conclusively comprehensively. Therefore, in my opinion, it is logical or compelling to point out the ambiguities and open questions in the theories designed so far, precisely in order to enable progress in this regard. Everything else would be as if one had built an airplane that obviously cannot fly, but one does not look at the weak points out of fear that one could find out that the variant of the airplane will never be able to fly and one must perhaps start again.
Then, however, this is no more science which one pursues, but itself again a belief in the correctness of the own point of view.
That's why I think it's essential not to leave out critical, scientific voices, but to deal with the questions raised, because, well, because that's science.
In addition, I would be pleased if also (gladly critical) voices speak up, which first of all look at the source, before they put the author in any corner, because it is already clear to you before that it can be anyway only about any religious word messages. That is then nice, because you do not have to deal with the contents of the discussion and your own world view does not waver... But it is also anything but a scientific approach, which, at least as far as I understand it, should be the basis of the Wikipedia articles.
Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Sloppy (talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not "do" science, we only summarize mainstream science according to WP:DUE. We're not a scientific laboratory, not an university, not a publisher of original research, not a publisher of WP:FRINGE research, not a publisher of WP:UNDUE research, and so on. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. But when new scientific evaluations of hypotheses appear, it is perhaps worthwhile to take a look at it as a Wikipedia community, since the scientific discourse continues, which is to be represented on Wikipedia. As I said, to evaluate such contributions from the outset as pseudoscience without knowing them (I assume that you have not read the contribution yet) shows in my opinion only of wanting to represent their own opinion on Wikipedia and not the scientific consensus.

If that were so, contents would be discussed at the place. So one can also come gladly to the conclusion that the source can be inserted in another place. E.g., here: "Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.[12]" Although that is not as appropriate as a separate section in my opinion. Joe Joe Sloppy (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abiogenesis&oldid=1022381873"