Talk:Abiogenesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Some users have noted that many of these questions should be included in the text of Abiogenesis. The reason for their exclusion is discussed below.

The main points of this FAQ (Talk:Abiogenesis#FAQ) can be summarized as:

  • The occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists.
  • 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.

More detail is given on each of these points, and other common questions and objections, below.

Information.svg To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Evolutionary biology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy). If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Abiogenesis is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Palaeontology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Geology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Abiogenesis is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article has an assessment summary page.

Lead sentence does not meet the standards of Wikipedia core content policies[edit]

Wikipedia was founded on the fundamental principle that its content must fall under certain criteria to be admissible. One criterion is that it must submit to a neutral point of view ( see WP:NPOV ), another is that it must be verifiable. (See WP:VER ) "Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds" does not meet these standards, whereas "abiogenesis is the hypothetical natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds" does. Since it is not verifiable that life arose through natural processes, saying so is not a neutral point of view and therefore not acceptable.66.190.249.214 (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A difficult subject to define by concensus, when the principle of a NPOV is itself in contention. Perhaps if it could be worded / interpreted more closely with the definition given in Encyclopeadia Brittanica:- "Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex. Biogenesis, in which life is derived from the reproduction of other life, was presumably preceded by abiogenesis, which became impossible once Earth’s atmosphere assumed its present composition." Given the concept that the first life forms on the planet came from elsewhere, then eventually somewhere back down the line of evolution those life forms had to evolve from something. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Great suggestion, I like it! It paints much more of an accurate picture of where we are at scientifically to include terms like "idea","proposes" and "presumably" since as illustrated by the first word of the second paragraph in the article, the theoretical processes of abiogenesis are merely hypothetical at this point. Hypothetical meaning assumed by hypothesis, supposed or highly conjectural since abiogenesis itself is not supported by any sort of available evidence at this point in time and no models of abiogenesis have been empirically proven.66.190.249.214 (talk)
Nobody knows how gravity and mass came to be; there are hypotheses, explaining the possible mechanisms, but they do not make gravity and mass hypothetical. Juggling semantics will not make it less real. I will not discuss science in this venue, besides your semantic arguments have not succeeded in academia or in the US Supreme Court. I don't expect you will produce a reliable reference that may supersede the hundreds of references now cited in the WP article, so I leave this matter in the hands of the administrators instead of entertaining WP:CHEESE. Thank you, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Could someone provide the precise wording which is being proposed? Alongside sourcing to back up the change, of course. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ 05:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't think sufficient sourcing exists to outweigh the long list of RS that treat the subject as factual. If it ever became necessary, we could go line by line through the entries at Talk:Abiogenesis/Sources. :-) Sunrise (talk) 06:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I started this thread to propose that the lead sentence be changed to "… the hypothetical natural processes of life originating from non-living matter…" because:
1.) To be brief, abiogenesis has never been observed and - based on current science - is no where close to being empirically verified.
2.) That is how it is defined in all professional encyclopedias and dictionaries.
A.) Brittanica: "The idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth."
B.) Oxford: "The supposed production of living organisms from nonliving matter."
C.) Dictionary.com: "The theory that the earliest life forms on earth developed from nonliving matter."
D.) Thefreedictionary.com "The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter."
E.) Webster: "A theory in the evolution of early life on earth: organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substances."
66.190.249.214 (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Typical creationist argument: "Were you there?" "Did you observe it?". Ever heard of data? Heard of evidence? The Big Bang was not observed by anybody, yet nobody contradicts it happened, based on scientific evidence and physics. Same with abiogenesis. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
None of those sources use the word "hypothetical". And have you read through the sources we're using now, for instance, those within cite 8?   — Jess· Δ 02:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
First, "hypothetical" is the correct word to use here since the first paragraph of the article begins by outlining the various "hypotheses" regarding the theory. Next, the publications in cite 8 reference not abiogenesis itself, but the "RNA world hypothesis" - the shortcomings of which are illustrated by biologist Eugene Koonin later in the article: "Despite considerable experimental and theoretical effort, no compelling scenarios currently exist for the origin of replication and translation, the key processes that together comprise the core of biological systems and the apparent pre-requisite of biological evolution. The RNA World concept might offer the best chance for the resolution of this conundrum but so far cannot adequately account for the emergence of an efficient RNA replicase or the translation system." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.249.214 (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Abiogenesis is not hypothetical, the proposed mechanisms are. Got it? BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that could be clearer in the article, e.g. perhaps "Hypotheses about mechanisms of abiogenesis" would be better in that regard. On the other hand, I just checked the source and it doesn't actually mention hypotheses at all. It says "The study of prebiotic evolution divides itself into three main stages, which one may label geophysical, chemical, and biological" (pg. 22) - so we should probably address that discrepancy. Sunrise (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
First off, your statement "abiogenesis is not hypothetical, the proposed mechanisms are" does not make any sense and is not factual. Since you cannot currently describe, explain or prove any process of abiogenesis, the entire concept is hypothetical at this point. You couldn't say "time travel is not hypothetical, but the proposed mechanisms of such are." You can't say "antigravity technology is not hypothetical, but the proposed mechanisms are." Since abiogenesis has never been observed or empirically verified, it is nothing more than a hypothesis. Got it? Next, speculation and assumption are not science and since there is no evidence that abiogenesis is possible,.you cannot claim that it occurred and call it fact. For a concept to scientific, it must be falsifiable (I recently read paper published by researchers in Egypt and Canada that called out some of the major flaws in the big bang theory) and abiogenesis is not on some pedestal that excludes it from such burden of proof. The first sentence of this Wikipedia article needs to be modified to reflect this.66.190.249.214 (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The idea that abiogenesis is not scientific is one that flies in the face of all our sources. On wikipedia, we go by sources exclusively.   — Jess· Δ 04:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Is abiogenesis falsifiable? Yes or no? If it is (like I claim here) then it is science. If it is not (like BatteryIncluded most likely will claim) then it is not science. If it is falsifiable, therefore making it scientific, the lead sentence needs to be modified to demonstrate that it is hypothetical; not proven or otherwise verified, explained or described.66.190.249.214 (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
See WP:TPG. This page is not for debating the subject of the article. If you have sources indicating that abiogenesis is not scientific, please present them.   — Jess· Δ 05:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Once again, the fact of the matter is that abiogenesis itself is hypothetical and that needs to be reflected in the opening sentence to comply with the quality standards of Wikipedia content. Any seventh grade science teacher will tell you that a hypothesis needs to be tested, observed and verified to gain scientific validity - and abiogenesis has not. What is so hard to understand about the fact that since there is currently no scientific evidence that abiogenesis is possible, the lead sentence shouldn't suggest that there is? Again, since it is not verifiable that life arose through natural processes, saying so is not a neutral point of view and therefore not acceptable.
I suggest following the lead of professional publications and modifying the opening sentence to a more accurate definition of abiogenesis: Collins Dictionary defines it as "the hypothetical process by which living organisms first arose on earth from nonliving matter." Encarta Dictionary calls it "the hypothesis that life can come into being from nonliving materials." To be taken seriously, Wikipedia needs to be held to the same standard as professional publications when presenting information. For these reasons, the lead sentence should read "abiogenesis is the hypothetical natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds." 66.190.249.214 (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
So... no sources that say abiogenesis is not scientific. In that case, please stop advancing that position - your opinion on the matter cannot influence our decisions about content. Regarding the wording proposal, "hypothesis" != "hypoethetical". Hypothesis is a scientific label, whereas "hypothetical" introduces (it appears intentionally) implications of controversy and dubiousness. Our policies on due weight apply. Is abiogenesis dubious or controversial within the scientific community? I don't believe our sources back that up; AFAICT, abiogenesis is very widely accepted within the scientific community as having happened, despite there being several hypothesis about how it happened, and we detail this distinction within the article already.   — Jess· Δ 06:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok post one source that proved, tested, observed or verified abiogenesis as a fact. I have posted excerpts from seven professional publications that describe it, in one way or another, as the undemonstrated concept that it is and Wikipedia should follow suit. So let's see it, where does a publication say abiogenesis is a proven scientific fact and what evidence is used to justify the claim? And please don't again have me re-read citations from the article itself that merely point in the direction of other unproven hypotheses that precede abiogenesis itself. Based on the consensus of professional publications, other acceptable lead sentence options would be "abiogenesis is the (supposed/presumed) natural process of life arising from non-living material" as this would also show that the topic is unproven, untested, unobserved and unverified. 66.190.249.214 (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Your opinion and understanding of science is cute. Nobody knows the cause of gravity, mass or the Big Bang. Therefore goddidit? Should we modify those articles too and say they too are just hypothetical voodoo? BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Your opnion about science is even cutter. There are some big differences. If we go to the corresponding article about the Big Bang, there it is written: The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe. Gravity and mass observable, measurable, testable, mandatory attributes when we talk about the real science.
Like I said before, both gravity and mass are observable and the big bang theory is disputable: I just read a paper by university researchers from Egypt and Canada that disputed it. Abiogensis has never been observed and is non-disputable according to you, which leads me back to the point that speculation and assumption are not science. Testable, observable hypothesis are. Since abiogenesis is unproven, untested, unobserved and unverified - nothing more than a hypothetical supposition at this point - the lead sentence of the article needs to be changed to reflect that. For these reasons, it could appropriately be changed to "the supposed natural processes of life originating from non-living material" if you don't like the word "hypothetical." That's how some of the professional dictionaries I've mentioned define it anyway. Am I wrong? Then let's see it: where does a publication say abiogenesis is a proven scientific fact and what evidence is used to justify the claim? 66.190.249.214 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
20 days later and nobody has come up with any evidence from a professional publication against it. Hmm... The Pokémon Fan (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - added relevant HatNote to article as follows => This article considers Abiogenesis a "scientific fact". per { {Hatnote|This article considers Abiogenesis a "scientific fact".}} - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I am not sure using a hatnote to make that statement on the article is useful. I'd let the introduction and the cited references state that. Besides, the talk page has a couple of them already. My 2 cents. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments - probably right - deleted the HatNote - can always restore it later if needed - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for the comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
How can the article consider abiogenesis a scientific fact when, according to "scientific fact", 'a "fact" is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence.'? For the umpteenth time, since abiogenesis is unproven, untested, unobserved and unverified there is no way it can be considered a scientific fact and the lead sentence needs to be changed to reflect this. Am I wrong? Then let's see it: where does a publication say abiogenesis is a proven scientific fact and what evidence is used to justify the claim? I've already posted seven definitions from professional publications that describe abiogenesis as the hypothetical supposition that it is, and the Wikipedia article needs to reflect this. 66.190.249.214 (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@66.190.249.214: Thank you for your Opinion - Nonetheless - According to "WP:OWN", "All Wikipedia content ... is edited collaboratively" - Seems the consensus view of editors supports the notion that the article considers Abiogenesis a "scientific fact" - please see the relevant Wikipedia essay => "ONE AGAINST MANY" - in any case - Thanks again for your Opinion - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article you cited, a "fact" is "a repeatable, careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means)." By that definition, since abiogenesis has never been observed or verified, there is no way it can be considered a fact. That's black and white, no opinion whatsoever involved. Professional dictionaries and encyclopedias, on the other hand, describe abiogenesis as:
An "idea" - Britannica
"Supposed" - Oxford
A "theory" - Webster
"Hypothetical" - Collins
A "hypothesis" - Encarta
So in order to avoid intellectual dishonesty (as you are trying to convey by stating abiogenesis is a fact without providing any evidence of such) and maintain a neutral point of view, the lead sentence of the article needs to be changed to reflect the fact that abiogenesis is merely hypothetical. Hypothetical meaning assumed by hypothesis, supposed or highly conjectural - since that's all abiogenesis is at this point. 66.190.249.214 (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not familiar enough with the literature to know if abiogenesis is a "fact" or not, but the idea that "not a fact" means "hypothetical" is wrong. "Idea" does not mean hypothetical, and "theory", within a scientific context, absolutely does not mean hypothetical. While examing other encyclopedias is useful, this is a science article, and scientific sources are more significant. I don't know of any scientific sources which discuss abiogenesis as "hypothetical", and I'd need to see those to be convinced of the wording proposal.   — Jess· Δ 02:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - As a matter of scientific fact, life in the universe has been around for at least 4 billion years - also - life in the universe was not around at the beginning of the universe - about 14 billion years ago - either life came about naturally - or - by magic - the "Abiogenesis" article, by regarding abiogenesis a scientific fact, considers natural processes of going from a universe containing no life to a universe containing life - the "Creation Myth" article, on the other hand, considers magical (and/or supernatural) processes instead - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

First off, let's see if the citations following "abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds" are even sufficient to verify the statement. They are [3][4][5] and [6] so let's go through each of them and see what they say:
[3] Oparin's "The Origin of Life" never uses the word "abiogenesis" but rather "presents a fairly complete survey of all the theories on the origin of life, from ancient times to the beginning of the twentieth century." So that source does not back up the current lead sentence, but says that the processes of the origin of life are still theoretical.
[4] is a Scientific American article that states 'most scientists have long assumed that life on Earth is a homegrown phenomenon. According to the conventional hypothesis, the earliest living cells emerged as a result of chemical evolution on our planet billions of years ago in a process called abiogenesis.' This source uses the word abiogenesis but also mentions that it is based on assumption and hypothesis, rather than evidence.
[5] Page 47 of Michael Yarus' "Life from Another World" is not listed publicly so there is no verifying what it says. However, page 36 reads "this book is not primarily about the origin of life, but the origin is an essential gateway to the RNA world." … "nevertheless, this is not for the most part an account of life’s origins, because the RNA world cannot occur at the origin, as a property of the first living things." The bottom line is that this source does not verify the current lead sentence either.
[6] Is an article in the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology which says: "while many scientists assume that life started as a self-replicating molecule, the first gene, a primitive self-catalytic metabolic network has also been proposed as a starting point." Though it does not mention the term abiogenesis, it still describes the proposed starting point of life as being based on assumption.
Based on these sources, saying "abiogenesis is the presumed natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds" would make a much better lead sentence rather than how it is currently written. Let's go on though. The next statement "the study of abiogenesis in involves three main types of considerations: the geophysical, the chemical, and the biological" is backed up by citation [7].
Citation [7] Freeman Dysons' "Origins of Life" states on page 11 "the main reason I am hopeful for progress in understanding of the origin of life is that the subject is moving away from the real of philosophical speculation and into the realm of experimental science." This alone is enough to warrant a change in the lead sentence as it is a primary source that also acknowledges the fact that abiogenesis is merely speculation at this point.
66.190.249.214 (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The support of these sources for the lead sentence was discussed in this talk section (note that I'm Arc). Some sample quotes are given in my comment about halfway through. In any case, these are only a small sample of the sources that could be used for the statement; if any of them is actually insufficient after consideration, I have no objection to removing it and adding another.
Just looking briefly at your own quotes, I would add that you're again missing the difference between "theory" as it is used in science and as it is used in informal speech. Also, the use of "assumed" in the SciAm article is referring to the location of abiogenesis and not whether it occurred; I also own the book by Yarus and would be happy to provide you with as much context as necessary. Sunrise (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Then let's see it: where does a publication say abiogenesis is a proven scientific fact and what evidence is used to justify the claim? It's a simple question. 66.190.249.214 (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
You don't need the statement "is a fact" to source the statement that an event happened. Something like "it happened" is fine - as in the SciAm source (to take one example), "the earliest living cells emerged as a result of chemical evolution." There are further quotes in the discussion I linked. Sunrise (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
You're still dodging the question; what evidence is used to signify that abiogenesis occurred? You can assume that "the earliest living cells emerged as a result of chemical evolution" all day long, but until evidence is provided that shows that's the way it happened it's nothing more than a blanket statement. Either way, the lead sentence needs to be changed to reflect that nothing is concrete at this point. How about "abiogenesis is the supposed natural processes of life arising from non-living material..."? 66.190.249.214 (talk) 07:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

As before, the Abiogenesis article considers abiogenesis a fact - and so presents this in the first sentence ("Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living material, such as simple organic compounds.") (ie, life didn't always exist in the universe - then life occurred - therefore - life occurred from non-life) - exactly how all life naturally came about, based on the fact that life occurred, is the point of the abiogenesis article - (if interested in related details and reliable sources, please see the Abiogenesis article itself, as well as the earlier discussion above and relevant archival discussions) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@66.190, there's no dodging. However, consensus has formed on this issue, and you haven't provided sufficient sourcing to sway that consensus. You're failing to understand due weight, an integral part of NPOV, and your suggested change would (perhaps unintentionally) place undue weight on a position not held by the scientific community. As a science article, we can't do that. I'm sorry, but it's time to move on.   — Jess· Δ 15:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If we are going to use the ONE AGAINST MANY argument to prevent abiogenesis being described as a hypothesis (as many other lead publications do) then we should have a general consensus on who agrees and who disagrees with abiogenesis. The Pokémon Fan (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There is actually a difference between "ONE AGAINST MANY" and I DIDN'T HEAR THAT, especially when it concerns making original research proposals to skew the article's point of view to a position contrary towards common consensus in the scientific community.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I see where the majority is actually going on this and I understand their position. This probably would be an example of WP:WEASEL if we were to, in this article, state that abiogenesis is a hypothesis. However, when mentioning abiogenesis, then it should be mentioned as a hypothesis. A reasonable explanation, no? The Pokémon Fan (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded: Your opinion about science is even cutter. On one side there are some big differences between the content of this article and the content of Big Bang article. If we go to the corresponding article about the Big Bang, there it is written: The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe. On the other side, gravity and mass are observable, measurable, testable, mandatory attributes when we talk about the real science and especially when we talk about facts Epetre (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@The Pokémon Fan: It is astonishing that ONE AGAINST MANY is the only argument that can be brought into the discussion and there is absolutely no interest to discuss the validity/invalidity of some others' arguments, as it is normally expected to happen on this TALK page. Epetre (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Add "Template:FAQ" to "Talk:Abiogenesis" Page?[edit]

QUESTION: Could a "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)" Template (based at "Template:FAQ") — like the one posted at the top of the "Talk:Evolution" Page (and based on "Talk:Evolution/FAQ") — be a helpful addition to the present "Talk:Abiogenesis" Page as well? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I would support this. :-) I think we'd need fewer questions, so it shouldn't take a lot of work to put together. Maybe versions of questions 1, 3, and 4, plus something specifically about the lead sentence? Sunrise (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
You would need to read the archives and compile the FAQ and frequent issues. Then type them. Yes, I would support it and am willing to review a draft. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done@BatteryIncluded, Sunrise, and Mann jess: (and others) => a *very* basic (and incomplete) "Template:FAQ" form has been added to the top of the "Talk:Abiogenesis" page above - presently in collapsed form - at least until the relevant questions/sections are sufficiently completed - hope this helps start the process - any help completing the form is welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Added an answer to FAQ Question 2. I'd appreciate some extra eyes on my answer; I'm somewhat familiar with the literature, but there are certainly gaps in my knowledge, so please correct me if I've written anything that's not quite right.   — Jess· Δ 00:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer to FAQ Question 2 - Seems *Excellent* to me atm - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I saw @BatteryIncluded: updated Q#2 and #3. Thanks! I made a couple changes to 2, including restoring some of the removed text (and I referred to you as Biological in my edit summary. Whoops! Sorry about that! :)) I really think it's important distinguish between a fact and the theories which explain those facts in our answer. I also tend to think, for the purpose of the FAQ, it's best to aim for simple language; our purpose is to head off conflict before it begins, and making the FAQ as accessible as possible must have the best chance at that. I tried rewording it a bit. Let me know if the new version works better for you, Battery, or if there's something else we can try instead! Thanks!   — Jess· Δ 05:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It is OK. A work in progress. Thanks! BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup => added several new questions (and related) to *consider* (based on "Talk:Evolution/FAQ") - *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Religious vs supernatural[edit]

Regarding this edit, I'm confused why we're switching "religious interpretations" (what it used to be) to "supernatural interpretations". @BatteryIncluded: reverted me switching it back with the summary "Creationist "Science" claims a "non-religious" creator did it." However, checking the creation myth article, I don't see 'creation science' listed anywhere. I suspect Batteryincluded is referring to ID's claim to be non-religious, but that's a disingenuous claim, which is covered well in the Intelligent design movement, Wedge document and Of Pandas and People articles. Furthermore, ID is also not mentioned in the creation myth article. Why are we linking to an article on religious claims and avoiding the word "religious" when describing its contents?   — Jess· Δ 04:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Correction... it used to be "non-scientific views" until this edit by an ip.   — Jess· Δ 04:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Yes, we had IDots making their rounds around here, and it came down to supernatural creation. When I added ID to the creation myth article, it was deleted by a main editor because ID is a subgroup of something else already listed in that article. I am ok with reverting to your edit, though if you feel that way. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm only seeing religious claims in the creation myth article now. Maybe I'm missing something. They're certainly all "non-scientific views". I think I'd prefer "non-scientific" to my "religious" wording. Anyone else have an opinion?   — Jess· Δ 04:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
FWIW - I'm flexible with this atm - "non-scientific" is *entirely* ok with me as well - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Same - I'd be fine with either "non-scientific" or "supernatural." :-) Sunrise (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done => changed to "non-scientific" [views] - *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Why does religion have to be non-scientific? I think supernatural is a better description, personally. :) The Pokémon Fan (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, there is the scientific view, and then there are other views. Anything falling into the second category is not the "scientific view". There are several creation myths that I wouldn't call supernatural. They are religious or cultural, and sometimes there's a clear distinction between the two. Non-scientific is really the best descriptor.   — Jess· Δ 01:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
A fair description. However, some creationist views are somewhat scientifically viable, so maybe there should be a sub-category between the two? Just putting it out there. The Pokémon Fan (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
According to our sources, creationism is either 1) a religious proposition, separate from science, or 2) completely opposed to science and rejected by the scientific community. I'm not aware of any version of creationism that engages in scientific research; creation science falls into category 2 (and so does ID).   — Jess· Δ 00:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

False definition of abiogenesis[edit]

Need for presenting the abiogenesis in an objective manner[edit]

ANI Notice[edit]