Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Incorrect data alert

In the section on hypercycle hypothesis, someone claims that RNA enzymatic properties are "limited to self-excisions (in which a longer RNA molecule becomes shorter), and much rarer small additions that are incapable of coding for any useful protein. The hypercycle theory is further degraded since the hypothetical RNA would require the existence of complex biochemicals such as nucleotides which are not formed under the conditions proposed by the Miller-Urey experiment." This is incorrect or perhaps outdated; RNA has been shown to be able to catalyze its own replication, and it is now widely believed that it is responsible for protein synthesis in ribosome. Refer to any recent data on RNA enzymes, even to the Wikipedia article on ribozymes. In addition, the second phrase about the requirement of complex biochemicals and Miller-Urey experiment is non sequitur.

It may also be worth adding that the primordial polynucleotides have likely been built on a different sugar, and so would not be properly called "RNA". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.126.248 (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed Polyphosphate edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For those of you still following this thread, I have decided to hold off on contributing the Darwinian Polymer Model to Wiki for a few months. I will research the literature thoroughly, and let you know my plans at that time. While I remain convinced the model is a significant contribution and could be included under the Wiki guidelines (with the aforementioned modifications), I can wait for a more appropriate opportunity. Thanks to all who contributed to this thread. I'll be back. Polyp2 (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to say "Well done" to the various editors involved in this dialogue. It is a pleasure to see such reasonable speech here. Here a newbie was treated with a 'don't bite the newbies" approach; explanations were given in detail on both sides, patience was demonstrated and all the signs are that the page and the new editor will both be the better for it. I sincerely hope that Polyp2 does come back ready to help make this a TOP CLASS page and perhaps to assist in the creation of a Spontaneous Generation page (see notes on this talk page) I have changed the title of this section of the page so that it is more meaningful to new viewers. IceDragon64 (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Consesus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

Limits of Current Progress

Proposed additional sentance from the National Academy of Science.

According to the National Academy of Science (2008), Scientists who study the origin of life do not yet know which sets of chemicals could have begun replicating themselves. Nevertheless, researchers have been developing hypotheses of how self-replicating organisms could form and begin to evolve, and they have tested the plausibility of these hypotheses in laboratories. While none of these hypotheses has yet achieved consensus, some progress has been made on these fundamental questions.

--DrivelEliminator (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The first reference for the first sentance is to http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=22 The second reference for the second sentance is to http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=21

--DrivelEliminator (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This strikes me as a more simple repetition of what is already in the article, so I would be against it.--Jorfer (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Crick and panspermia/exogenesis

The current article restates the widespread myth that Francis Crick "supported" panspermia/exogenesis, in the sense of favoring it over the alternative. Crick (and Orgel) merely proposed it as a potential possibility. Orgel later called that paper "something of a joke". Crick said the paper and his later book, Life Itself, were basically conversation starters to get people thinking. In Life Itself (long before the RNA World pushed him to be comfortable with terrestrial abio) he says there is no reason not to believe in terrestrial abiogenesis - our knowledge circa 1984 was too small, the time and chemical possibilities too vast to be anything other than agnostic on it. In it he also said in frustration he couldn't figure out how to make a research program out of a panspermia hypothesis. If a single word is to be used, this is not "support", it's "consideration". I think the article should drive a stake in this myth once and for all (I have the references for the above), or perhaps it could just drop the Crick reference altogether.

(A second point - under Autocatalysis, I don't see why Dawkins and his book should be mentioned, since it's a secondary source. Go right to the primary research of Rebek, Szostak, etc., the theoretical stuff of Eigen, Kauffman, etc. Foggg (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed restoration of Origin of life

Hello!

ScienceApologist suggested here that a new version of the article Origin of life would be a good idea. Here is a draft that I've written up. I haven't included any refs, but those could be found later if this is found acceptable (I don't think I've included any controversial claims). Please let me know what you think. Thanks! Eseymour (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think ScienceApologist's idea is a good one, but I don't think that is representative of what he had in mind. At the moment I think your draft will have problems with WP:UNDUE. It looks like you're trying to write an article to give different ideas equal weight. Ben (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ben. I didn't pay much attention to the weighting of the different ideas; this is just a rough draft. I'm very much open to suggestions. I'm guessing you believe that theories of Abiogenesis should get more weight. In fact, I had considered adding a sentence saying that Abiogenesis was the scientific framework for investigating the origin of life, but I couldn't immediately think of a non-awkward way to phrase that. Please feel free to edit my draft, and we can discuss changes here. I think it is important for this page to be restored, so that Wikipedia represents all human thought about the origin of life, not merely redirecting to Abiogenesis. Thank you! Eseymour (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important for this page to be restored, so that Wikipedia represents all human thought about the origin of life

It's this idea I have a problem with. I don't think anyone has a problem with Wikipedia representing all human thought about the origin of life, and so far, Wikipedia at least mentions most of these ideas. But an origin of life article should not simply be a list of these ideas. Claiming a creation myth, for instance, is responsible for the origin of life is a controversial claim - it's not represented in the scientific literature on the origin of life, and so fails WP:UNDUE. Ben (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"But an origin of life article should not simply be a list of these ideas". Why not? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. Maury (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE was also the first issue that I thought of. The present article lists several competing hypotheses, but at least they are in the running. We should not give undue weight to hypotheses that have been discarded. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 05:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Early conditions" section bothers me

There's something I can't describe well, but this section seems really "wrong". I'd like to attempt a re-write.

The problem is that the wording starts by saying that the crust and oceans formed early, then mentions impact issues, then moves onto the LHB. I think this glosses over the very interesting LHB history, as well as leaving a confusing mash of apparently contradictory statements. If the oldest known life is from 3.5 bya, as the caption above states, then why does this section state it could have formed 4.2 bya?

I think some clarity in this section would really help. Something like this perhaps...

• Start by mentioning that we believe the earth collapsed into a ball around 4.5 bya for a variety of reasons.
• Now mention that most rocks show a strong cutoff at about 3.8 bya, which suggests that is when the crust solidified.
• Mention that we used to believe that the time between collapse and crustal formation was long, about 700 mya, and we called it the Haedean, "Hell-like", because it would be a lava-world and no life could have formed during this period.
• But then we did find rocks older than this date, while at the same time finding the same ~3.8 bya cutoff date on the Moon. Additionally, developments in planetary dynamics suggested that the crust should have formed quite early. This is a bit of a mystery, and one suggestion to solve it is the LHB hypothesis.
• Assuming that LHB is correct, there were two periods of time in which life could have formed, pre-LHB and post-LHB, or potentially both. Even if the LHB did not occur, the Haedean would not have been terribly conducive to the formation of life.
• Evidence is then given to demonstrate that it is at least possible that abiogenesis occurred before the LHB time-frame, and that there is some evidence to suggest that it had.
• Finally, offer "real world" evidence that shows that we are relatively confident that it had formed for sure by about 3.5 bya.

I think this sort of outline would significantly improve the flow. However, I am not a planetary scientist, and my understanding of these topics is relatively weak, and more importantly, the arguments against them much more so. Still, I think some effort here is warranted if anyone would like to take a stab at it with me.

Maury (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to...

Hello clever people.

I'd like to suggest you take a leaf from the books of the spacey-physicsy-clever people. They've made "Introduction to general relativity" as a companion to the outrageously inaccessible general relativity article; this article, as it is today, sits somewhere between the academic chutzpah of the aforementioned. I think an introduction to this topic would be a breath of fresh air... and you could name it something memorable should you see fit too! This is just a suggestion, but I'd be curious to know what you think. Seegoon (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why an "introduction to" is in an encyclopedia, but I'm doubly unsure on this one. It is interesting to see that the phys community here on the wiki has managed to produce at least one readable article, as most of their stuff, imho, it trash. Maury (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you do have to bear in mind the general audience of Wikipedia: curious, generally well-educated people with a desire to broaden their horizons. Some articles don't enable you to do that – enter general relativity. But an introductory article, however, does allow the layperson to glean something worthwhile. Seegoon (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to focus on making this article easier to read for a general audience. The policy WP:Jargon is applicable here. Why don't we just go through all the sections that a general audience would find inaccessible and work on improving this article?--Jorfer (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, and I'd volunteer to lend a hand as someone with no knowledge of biology whatsoever. The risk you run is upsetting those who do understand the jargon and would object to the subsequent destruction of the economy of language. Seegoon (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Count me in too. Maury (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree that we risk turning this article into one that contains an unfair amount of explanation of terminology for someone familiar with the matter, but it is worth a shot, and if it doesn't work we can run with the introduction idea. Why don't you post some paragraphs on the talk page that you find most confusing.--Jorfer (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Spontaneous generation - It WAS just a redirect?

Spontaneous generation shouldn't redirect to such a general page as this. It was a long held belief which here seems to be compressed into something under a page. My library has an 8000 page volume just on this topic. Surely the redirect should not be permanent. Richard001 (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It will redirect here until someone makes a suitable page for it! If you feel like making the page, do! Provided it follows the usual rules/guidlines of making a wiki page, then I am sure people would like it. Study the subject as described here and consider what is important/relevant to that subject which could not be appropriately put here, then find some key refs and make the page putting in-line refs to the key parts. I imagine that quite a lot more could be usefully said about the history of it, including names and places, then more could be said about the religious and cultural significance of these varying beliefs. As I understand it, the phrase Spontaneous generation is used to describe out dated ideas that life is spontaneously generated in modern conditions and that is how it differs from the real spontaneously generated life 4 billion years ago. This would need to be clearly explained with refs, since in fact abiogenesis literally means spontaneious generation of life.

IceDragon64 (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

IT NOW HAS A PAGE OF ITS OWN_ PLEASE JOIN US IN IMPROVING THAT PAGE WITH PIX AND CATAGORIES! IceDragon64 (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeowch, no need to shout. It is currently a redirect, I also feel it should have it's own article. I think even a stub would be better than a redirect here. I'll add it to my TODO list. -Verdatum (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Miller-Urey experiment is plausible?

Under "Current models" the Miller-Urey experiment is called "plausible". What is the evidence for this especially when it has been shown NOT to be plausible? How was that experiment plausible when the experiment costed millions of dollars and did not result in anything close to being alive? So an experiment that costed millions, demonstrates natural chance, and leading to a precisely structured living cell? Huh? Has someone lost their ability to reason logically? How is the experiment plausible either, when it's been shown that early Earth had plenty of oxygen for various organisms to, in part, live on -- the same kind of oxygen which destroys the very components of life that are supposedly plausible via the Miller-Urey method? Stop with your creation myths, and lying about the Genesis account being a myth you biased and confused liars. At the very least, place a citation needed remark after the word "Plausible". Mere claims are not evidence in themselves. Factpointer (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? Read your Bible again, try for example [2 Cor 3:6], and then consider whether your interpretation of Genesis is correct, or even relevant for humans in their daily life. Science follows science rules. Myths are for bringing forth creativity, but that precludes literal interpretation of the Scriptures. Said: Rursus (☻) 07:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest retaking Middle School science class Factpointer?

A brush-up on English wouldn't hurt, either. While good grammar and knowledge of biology are not necessarily correlated, it's much less likely that people will take you seriously if you use words like "costed." --BRPierce (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak though his grasps of basic science and of English grammer may be, Factpointer has a point about the use of the word "plausable" in the description of the pre-biotic conditions presumed in the Miller-Urey experiment, and indeed about the entire intro to the "current models" section. There are legitimate questions within the scientific community now about the plausibility of the reducing atmosphere simulated in the experiment. For example, this is from the biochemist Robert Shapiro's 1987 book "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the 'Creation' of Life on Earth", page 111:

The presense of a strongly reducing atmosphere is a central assumption of the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis, and underlies the design of Stanley Miller's experiment... Urey based his argument on the cosmic abundance of hydrogen and the probable composition of the solar nebula. As we discussed in a previous chapter, the current geological consensus supports the idea that the atmosphere came from the interior of the earth rather than the nebula. Thoughts concerning its composition vary, but the most frequently heard guess supports the presense of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and a bit of hydrogen... Geologists now realize that a methane and ammonia atmosphere would have been destroyed within a few thousand years by the chemical reactions caused by sunlight.

There are other significant problems with the section as well. It describes five "discoveries", and indeed points (1) and (2) are discoveries, but it then rapidly veers into the realm of postulation with points 3, 4 and 5:

• Point 3: With the words "might have", rightly self-identifies as a conjecture.
• Point 4: To my knowledge, no one has demonstrated ribosome formation through the selective pressure of catalytic efficiency, so this point too is speculative in nature.
• Point 5: This is one theoritical point of the origin-of-life school of thought loosely known as "nucleic-acid-first". There is very active, current, on-going debate within the scientific community between the "protein-first" school and the "nucleic-acid-first" school. Neither side is particularly well supported by direct evidence at this time, and certainly the enthronement of one point from one of school as a "discovery" serving as the basis for "most currently accepted models" is unjustified.

Frankly, the entire section should be re-written with a clearer understanding of which points are theoretical assertions, and what theories they belong to. For the short term, at least the following changes would add to the article's accuracy and neutrality:

• The phrase "But most currently accepted models build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life, which are listed..." could be replaced with something like: "Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework layed out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Under that umbrella, however, are a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures such as the following, listed..."
• The whole section about "the basic biomolecules... from which life is thought to have formed" should be changed from a free-standing bulleted list into the #1 bullet point of the previous list, since the presumed reducing atmosphere predates the Miller-Urey experiment. The whole paragraph introducing the list is inaccurate in its assertion of non-controversy, and could be replaced by something like "Some theorists suggest that the atmosphere of the early earth may have been chemically reducing in nature, composed primarily of..."
• "Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in..." would then be changed to something like "In such a reducing atmosphere, electrical activity can catalyze..."

Blorblowthno (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the section could use some revision, I'd be extremely careful about citing sources 20 years old. Consider, for instance, what a source 20 years old would say about the current state of computers. --BRPierce (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, and thank you for the cautionary note. Of course, not everything changes as rapidly as computers; I understand that Gray's Anatomy is still in use even though the original edition appeared in 1858. In the spirit of your concern, however, I've cited Shapiro's work in my revisions only for his summary of Oparin's theory. Since the theory itself dates from the 1920's, that seems safe enough. Blorblowthno (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the grammar-challenged fellow that plausable should be changed. Based on a quote by Miller himself, he would not use that word himself:

"While amino acids are easily synthesized in the laboratory, the synthesis reported here is the first one carried out under conditions that might reasonably be present on the primitive earth. The synthesis of amino acids is not the synthesis of life, nor is it a synthesis of proteins. However, it represents a step toward our understanding of how live matter may have arisen on earth." (8)

(8) = Stanley Miller’s quote is in William L. Laurence: “The Creation of life is recognized as part of the physics of the universe.” The New York Times, December 30, 1956. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrafan007 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A seeming contradiction

It appears to me that a possible contradiction occurs in this article, let me elucidate. At the beginning of the article it is stated that:

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but life cannot emerge from life for if it did then it would have already previously existed (and therefore that couldn't be the point of emergence). Yet the article clearly states that

life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules.

Since organic is that which is or was alive then this is not an instance of emergence. Furthermore, what is meant by "inanimate organic" ? This seems to be a contradiction in terms, since that which is inanimate, is that which is not alive and organic means that which is the opposite, i.e. that which IS alive. Maybe I'm missing something here, but if so, then surely this article could be a little clearer for the sake of the non-specialists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.135.69 (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your first point, but on your second point, organic is not a synonym for alive...it is "noting or pertaining to a class of chemical compounds that formerly comprised only those existing in or derived from plants or animals, but that now includes all other compounds of carbon" [1]. Gasoline for example is made up of inanimate organic compound.--Jorfer (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Do I understand that you don't like the word 'emerge' where it is not something that previously existed? If so, what word would you like us to use? IceDragon64 (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Lipid World

I don't think the first sentance is very good english-

There is a theory that ascribes the first self-replicating object to be lipid-like

As I uderstand the meaning of ascribes one would say lipidity when using the word ascribes, or one would say describes the first self-replicating object as lipid-like. If no-one objects I will change this some time. IceDragon64 (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. A better sentence would be: This theory postulates that the first self-replicating object was lipid-like. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SS- I was BOLD and did it! IceDragon64 (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Miller's Experiments Revisited

Some of Miller's experiments have recently been revisited, and found to be much stronger support for his theory than he himself realized. With adequate sourcing, would this be significant enough to merit inclusion in the Miller-Urey section of the article? --BRPierce (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the recent news was the reason that brought me here. We must respond to it fully. My only reservation is that the page is already officially deemed as very long- when you try to edit it, there are warnings about how some browsers cannot cope. I will start a topic on how the page could be reduced, can you please set about getting the information required, then join the reduction dialogue before posting significant additional information on the page? IceDragon64 (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Will do. --BRPierce (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty actually finding a good source for the experiment proper; whereas I can find articles about the experiment, I'd really prefer to cite firsthand info, rather than a secondhand account. Does anyone know if the specifics of the experiment (or at least an abstract) can be found online in a public-access database? --BRPierce (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that much of a change is really needed here. The importance of the Miller experiment was that it simulated the abiotic sythesis of amino acids. The new finding was that there were 11 amino acids instead of 5. It doesn't really change the significance of the experiment very much. The new discovery may be of interest as a historical footnote in the main article about the experiment itself, but for the purposes of the abiogenisis article, the Miller experiment is of interest only because it supports one point of the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It still does that. What new information needs to be included here? Blorblowthno (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I also thought that the fact that the hypothesized environmental conditions of the experiment have been shown to be much more viable than initially thought was possibly worth noting.

--BRPierce (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

How can we reduce this page?

I am no wiki expert, but when you try to edit this page it warns you that the page may be too long and asks that we try to reduce it. Assuming that all the information contained in this page should be in Wikipedia somewhere, the only way to reduce it is to simplify some sections and put the details elsewhere. This could mean moving the more detailed descriptions to other existing pages or to creating new pages. I will begin the suggestions: IceDragon64 (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Create a Spontaneous Generation page and reduce the section here by 3/4- a section about this is already here above.

Life can arise from Inanimate material?

How actually buys this crap? How can something organic and alive arise from something that isn't? I guess this is how desperate evolutionists can get. Make up outrageous and false assertions and make it look like it is "science".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2008 199.175.27.10 (talk) 19:01, 3 December

Please restrict discussion to how the article can be improved. -Verdatum (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, I think the article does an adequate job of referencing the experimentally-verified ways in which organic molecules can be produced from inorganic material. What shortcomings, specifically, do you see? --BRPierce (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was commenting on the original post, not the author of the original post. I'm adding Template:unsigned on the post, but this is probably just a random wandering troll, and not worth further discussion. I even initially considered deleting it outright. Instead, I assumed in good faith that the author just forgot to actually make a point. -Verdatum (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"Possible role of bubbles" section cleanup?

Right now, it reads a bit too much like the abstract for a paper. The language used makes it feel like original research. This could possibly be fixed by citing the Fernando-Rowe paper first, and adding more citations to the general text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.231.124 (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Perspective of the article

Is the topic of this article the origin of life from inorganic matter by purely natural means? That is, does the article assume that the only possible cause of life's origin is a physical force or principle? I'm trying to make a distinction here between a decision to restrict one's options - because, let's say, it's easier to explore that way - and a philosophical assertion that no other options are possible.

It's like the story of the drunk looking for his car keys under a street lamp - the light's better there - even though he lost them several meters away (in the dark).

If that is the perspective, maybe we could make it clearer for that sizable fraction of our readers who are not scientists and have not studied much science in school. I propose to clarify the assumptions of abiogenesis by saying something like this:

Biologists and organic chemists have both searched for the origin of life. They hope to discover a physical, material cause for two reasons. First, it would provide a complement to the theory of evolution, which explains how living organisms acquire and pass on heritable characteristics. Second, it might lead to discoveries in medical science, such as the cure for cancer or AIDS.

Does this sound promising? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You need some reliable sources for your proposal. From the sources I know about this subject, you are are almost wholly incorrect. Find a biology or chemistry text that backs you up and we'll listen to you. Otherwise, you're just spinning your wheels. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ed, I think the problem is that you're incorrectly distinguishing 'abiogensis' from 'origin of life', from a scientific perspective. The difference is not the "natural means" bit -- that's part of the definition of science itself, not just abiogenesis. The real difference is that the scientific speculation into the origins of life covers a range of natural explanations: most notably abiogensis & panspermia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 21:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if both of you feel I'm barking up the wrong tree then I'll stay out of it. I need to study NCSE's article on the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism a little more. I think the distinction everyone's trying to make here has more to do with naturalism or the philosophy of science. Anyway, the point is not to "make a point" but to explain what scientists and philosophers and other major writers have said. I myself have no ideas to share: I merely report. (Compare: advocacy journalism). --21:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ed, your juxtaposition of "purely natural means" and "the story of the drunk looking for his car keys under a street lamp" makes your disavowal of advocacy quite absurd. But you are correct that this is not an appropriate venue for arguing the merits of methodological naturalism, let alone philosophical naturalism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 21:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Perhaps I was unclear. I did not mean to assert that anyone was like the drunk in that story. What I meant to say was that a researcher who made a decision to restrict his options would be like that comical drunk. This is (if I understand your comments elsewhere) precisely where Creation Science advocates go wrong: they restrict their options by exalting the Bible (or their interpretation of it) over the facts discovered by science.

To be even more clear: I am not saying that either side is right or wrong. Rather, I am trying to forge an understanding of just what each side is saying. If I have given the impression that I want any particular article to endorse one of my personal beliefs (or anyone's beliefs for that matter), please point this out so I can clarify my remarks.

I hate Wikipedia:POV pushing. I don't want to indulge in it, even by accident or nuance or appearance. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, that may be so -- but it would appear that you have a great many viewpoints that are so deeply ingrained that you 'push' them by simply assuming their truth, and thus basing arguments on them that therefore cannot help but be POV. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 22:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

In the above example you were POV-pushing by assuming that methodological naturalism may be an arbitrary restriction on inquiry, whereas the majority view within the philosophy of science is that it's an essential one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 22:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm neutral on that point as well. I've been studying Eugenie Scott's article on the relationship between methodological and philosophical naturalism, and I know what the majority view is. I neither wish Wikipedia to endorse the majority view, nor to reject it.

I'm sorry if any of my discussion comments sounded like I was endorsing or rejecting the mainstream - just as I'm sure you do not intend to endorse or reject it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ed, once again your comments look like a tendentious failure to accept or comply with policies, in particular NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight , NPOV: Giving "equal validity", and NPOV: Making necessary assumptions. . dave souza, talk 23:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ed, just find a source for your proposed statements -- preferably a text on the subject.

You can start with [2] and [3].

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

First life forms were prokaryoutes or eukaryoutes?

Currently the second paragraph says, The first living things on Earth were single cell eukaryotes [emphasis added]. Shouldn't that be prokaryotes? That matches both my understanding and the second reference (Schopf JW, Kudryavtsev AB, Agresti DG, Wdowiak TJ, Czaja AD (March 2002). "Laser--Raman imagery of Earth's earliest fossils"). Guanxi (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Arnt the cyanobacteria the first recognised life following Abiogenesis? http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html. If that is so then they are prokaryotes. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I would in fact dispute the whole sentence. The iron-sulfur world theory suggests that the first forms of life were not even cellular. As for the question, Prokaryotes (organisms that lack a cell nucleus) is right. I will fix the text. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I wrote "eukaryotes" when I meant to write "prokaryotes". My bad. The rewrite is an improvement. Thanks. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Some stuff I'm writing to clear things up

I'm thinking this article's introduction should explain that abiogenisis is also a highly accepted theory on how life came to be (not just a branch of science); and maybe you should delete some of the stuff that does not have to do with the subject. I also feel that the history should expanded so that it mentions S. L. Miller (Stanley Miller, but I feel it should be mentioned earlier) and S. W. Fox (Sidney W. Fox), of whose work were among the first to suggest "chemical evolution" (what this is, basically). I feel that's important because, once you think about it, they're the ones who started those theories (as in, provided a basis for), and everything else just stems from that.

I could say more, including suggestions on how to make a simplified version of what the article says (making it shorter basically), but I think, right now, these changes are enough enough.

7h3 3L173 (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a controvercial topic, you'd really need to find a reliable source that states explicitly "Abiogenesis is a highly accepted theory", beyond that, I'd say try your proposed revisions and see if they meet concensus (or can be fixed to meet it). -Verdatum (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

All right, err... this might not soumd very on topic now, but apparently, according to Dictionary.com, abiogenisis also means spontaneous generation. I was just wondering, should that be mentioned, or should we dismiss the Dictionary.com article/definition as incorrect? (No, I'm not trying to generate bias or anything,it's just the best I could word it)

Oh, yes, and CreationWiki says it is a theory. I'm not entirely sure it's correct (pretty sure, but not entirely)... and uhh... well that's all I'll say for now.

7h3 3L173 (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking back on it again, I realise the definitions change via time period (the Dictionary.com source is from the 1930s or so, I think). But the CreationWiki thing still stands, right?

7h3 3L173 (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically, abiogenesis does not fully mean spontaneous generation. It was one form of spontaneous generation, the other being heterogenesis. The historic meaning of abiogenesis is discussed in the article. The use of that historic word for a modern hypothesis is common. Once it was thought that the weight of objects was determined by the balance of two properties, levity and gravity. Novangelis (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm... I meant if it (the article) should mention it. How you interpreted it (what I said) was completely... off.

Seriously, should it mention it? I mean, at all? It seems a bit hollow otherwise.

7h3 3L173 (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

All right, thanks for adding it.

7h3 3L173 (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, umm... Jorfer? ::[4] Book II. He knows crocodiles. And, on the discussion of whether to keep those sentences or not, I say yes, because; [5]. That helped, I hope

7h3 3L173 (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Second Law of Thermodynamics

I'm just curious, I don't believe this article addresses how complex biological molecules, and life forms, could have evolved in view of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I am vaguely aware of how it is possible, but I've kinda forgotten. I believe it has to do with favorable low-energy molecules forming in solution and the thermal energy input of the Earth's early seas allowing endothermic reactions to produce more complex molecules?? I'm pretty vague, but it is an issue some creationists seem to raise a lot, so maybe if someone who is more knowledgeable about the issue wants to write it into to the article in a few sentences or explain it to me, I'd be very grateful. --Pstanton (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is; somewhat briefly mentioning that in there actually. Try to expand on it, nothing could really go wrong as far as I'm concerned. I mean, it's vague, so just the little bit you know can improve it actually.--156.3.74.84 (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the article for the second law has a portion of it's article for this thought. There is also a main article for Entropy and life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.29.3 (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, interesting, I'm going to add that article to the see also section. --Pstanton (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Confused

Hello,

I am confused on why abiogenesis claims that life arose from inanimate molecules. If that is the case, then why are rocks not alive even though living and inanimate objects are made of similar, if not the same, molecules. Can someone answer this for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.148.159 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, a talk page is not a discussion forum. You have already been directed to ask these sorts of questions at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science when you asked a similar question on the History of evolutionary thought Talk Page. Master z0b (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I should say something about bad faith; anyway, I think 69.137.148.159 wrote that comment so the article can explain why that is etc., but whatever... Just a bit of a comment here.

7h3 3L173 (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In short, life forms evolved from systems of molecules that come together to cooperate in reaching a chemically and thermodynamically ideal state... It is hard to wrap your head around... Its hard, but I think thats basically the gist of it. --Pstanton (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced comment

Is it necessary to use "myr" as an abbreviation for "million years?" It strikes me as making the article more inaccessible to a popular audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.62.15.129 (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll change that. --Pstanton (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Better introduction?

I'm trying to study this and I think the introduction should be improved (by people that know a lot about this naturally). I want the introduction to say whether abiogenesis is believes by scientists, and if so what form of abiogenesis. I read that abiogenesis is an outdated theory, but I think that book was referring to "spontaneous generation" rather than abiogenesis. I'd also like this to be added because I want to learn more about this (especially what the main theory is today). --BiT (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Abiogenesis is a field of study, so you can't say whether or not scientists believe in abiogenesis. That's like saying whether or not scientists believe in organic chemistry, or whether or not they believe in mechanics.

Scientists believe that life exists, yes. And for life to exist, it must have come into existence somehow. Abiogenesis is the study of how that happened. So yes, you probably meant "spontaneous generation" instead of abiogenesis.

I think the introduction is relatively clear. I think the introduction's also clear in saying that there's no clear consensus of which theory of abiogenesis is correct. --Zarel (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I should have known better than that but essentially I wanted to know about the "life formed because amino-acids made protein that formed the first creature in some pool" theory? If spontaneous generation got an article why haven't some of the main theories got their own? Or are they maybe too many theories? --BiT (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Too speculative and too tangled up with one another, I think. However, the perhaps best known, RNA world hypothesis, is linked from the introduction. As is Iron-sulfur world theory, which may be the best known metabolism-first theory. That doesn't give much of a picture, but you have to draw a line somewhere – you can't jam the complete picture into the introduction. But I agree the introduction doesn't do a good job at showing just how big this picture is. Perhaps replace "several" with "many"? Or add a sentence to the effect that, without hard evidence, just about any chemical process that might lead to DNA, has been proposed in some theory as the origin of life? :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that might be a good idea, the phrase "abiogenesis" was kind of confusing and I wasn't sure whether it was really synonymous with "origin of life". Dictionaries always redirected "abiogenesis" to "spontaneous generation" and described it as an "obsolete theory" which just added to my confusion. Also when I read that SG was obsolete something like "...how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter" seemed obsolete as well (keep in mind that I'm still studying this and I wasn't sure whether "life from inanimate matter" referred to something silly like flies being born from rotten meat). --BiT (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

move to Origin of Life?

I've looked in several places, and Wikipedia is the only source I find that calls the origin of life Abiogenesis. I think this article used to be called Origin of Life, which is a far more common phrase.

The main argument against moving this article to Origin of Life is that it is a lot of work, and whoever does it needs to take the time to visit all of the "What links here" articles in the toolbox to the left and change them to avoid redirects. Any volunteers? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Abiogenesis is just one theory on the origin of life, it should be a subsection of the "origin of life" article. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Abiogenesis, if I understand the word, means "origin of life". There is no "origin of life" article any more. Origin of Life redirects here.Rick Norwood (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Abiogenesis, as a term, does not mean origin of life. The etymology of Abiogenesis is not the same as the denotation (explicit definition) of the word. In modern biology, abiogenesis refers to a specific concept related to the origin of life, it is the instance where non-living molecules combine to form a living entity. The term sometimes carries with it the connotation of The first time abiogenesis occured in nature; a topic which (IIRC,) Charles Darwin intentionally did not explore in his writings. I strongly believe abiogenesis deserves an article of it's own. I am not opposed to an article covering the origin of life, so long as the content isn't redundant with an article on abiogenesis (beyond a WP:SUMMARY section). I do also agree, some of the content of this article in it's current revision is more appropriate to an article on the origin of life.

Concerning fixing "What links here" links, I do believe there are scripts/bots to deal with that. I don't believe it's a concern in this proposal. -Verdatum (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Until there is an article discussing the origin of life in different world systems, this is probably not the best target for a redirect. Abiogenesis simply means life forming without a living or life-derived parent (e.g. spores). Theoretically, we could build a disambiguation page to creation myths, Special creation, Panspermia, this page, and any others that seem appropriate. It's a weak fix, since some creation myths deal with the inorganic as much or more than the organic. Once there is enough of an Origin of life article, we move the disambiguation page to Origin of life (disambiguation) and put a For other uses... at the top until everything relevant has an entry with a Main article link. Novangelis (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. Here, let me define "origin" in the context of "life" for you:

Step 1. Living things do not exist.

Step 2. Living things exist.

Now let's define abiogenesis:

Step 1. Living things do not exist. (i.e. only non-living molecules)

Step 2. Living things exist. (i.e. living entity)

...I'm not seeing the difference.

As for the etymology, they're pretty identical, too. "Origin of life" is short for "Origin of life from nonlife", since "origin of life from more life" is usually called something else, like "sex", or more generically, "reproduction". "Abiogenesis" can be split into three parts: genesis - "origin [of life]" (think 'generate'), a - "not" (think 'atheist'/'theist'), bio - "[from] life" (think 'biology'). "Origin of life from nonlife". They're identical. --Zarel (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What you are missing, Zarel, is that "abiogenesis" refers to the formation of life from non-living matter by chemical processes, as opposed to God creating man out of dust by non-chemical processes, which some (not I) believe to be the "origin of life".

On consideration, probably it is best to leave this article as "abiogenesis". Cool word, in any case. And a google search for "origin of life" leads here first, which is also cool.Rick Norwood (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's naming conventions atWP:NAME and in particular WP:COMMONNAME, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, ". I don't think a lot of people use abiogenesis in every day language, its more of a scientific term. A google search yields the following search results

• Abiogenesis approx 221,000 results
• the phrase "origin of life" has 1,250,000
• the phrase "origins of life" approx 660,000

Based on google search, "origin of life" is the common name. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but as Verdatum and Rick Norwood point out, we can't use 'Origin of Life' because that phrase is ambiguous. I think that a separate page should be created for 'Origin of Life', as Verdatum suggests. Shanata (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the origin of life article going to contain that this one doesn't? I think you're inviting serious WP:UNDUE problems. Ben (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues of Undue Weight are solved by proper enforcement of WP:SUMMARY. Only a few short paragraphs would discuss abiogenesis, which would be headlined with Template:Main pointing to this page. The rest of the article would be open to verifiable alternative theories regarding the origin of life throughout history and across geographic regions. -Verdatum (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Only a few short paragraphs would discuss the origin of life at the article 'origin of life'? And you want to devote the rest of that article to fringe theories and mythology? Give me a break. I remain opposed to having separate articles on this. Ben (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this page was originally located at Origin of life and it was renamed here; which would be the reason for the redirect. There is also a lot of discussion both in the disscussion page of the non-redirected page, and in the comments of the edit history. The redirect is also the reason why it comes up first in the Google search. If an origin of life article was created, it would soon supplant this page as the first hit. Because there is valid dispute, I don't believe the simple version of WP:COMMONNAME is sufficient. According to the more detailed article on common names at WP:UCN, it suggests as a possible alternative, using WP:Naming conventions (precision), which would favor Abiogenesis for this content, and still allow a higher overview article be created at Origin of life. I think more than anything, it's just that no one has bothered to write an even mildly decent article that addresses the concept in the all encompassing stance. If someone starts it, I'd be more than happy to copyedit, and do what I can to keep it at a high standard. I just don't know enough about the alternative beliefs regarding the origin of life to write it on my own. -Verdatum (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As basic outline of "Origin of life" might include

History of study

• Spontaneous generation, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant etc

Scientific arguments

• Abiogenesis
• Panspermia

Teleological arguments

• Creation myths
• Intelligent design

Wapondaponda (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I think it is just a matter of will power. Start sandboxing it, and I will give my input, but I don't think it is reasonable to expect a good article to be ready in a matter of days.--Jorfer (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

One thing I notice about Wapondaponda's proposal is that 'Origin of life' covers mainly philosophic (& theological) material, whereas this article covers nearly all of the scientific material (the sole exception being Panspermia -- which remains largely a point of idle speculation, rather than serious scientific study). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and as the origin of life is a scientific topic I believe due weight should be accorded to the scientific point of view. An article that does that already exists, abiogenesis. I don't object to moving this article to origin of life, but I do object to having separate articles on the same topic. Ben (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to create a page about various ideas about how life originated, that's one thing; there's clearly a need for a page that discusses JUST scientific theories of life's origin, specifically the birth from the primordial soup. That is 'abiogenesis' (historical usage issues aside), and this article should continue to cover that subject. The above outline is a discussion of an entirely different subject matter; it might include links or subsections referring to this article, but its subject matter should NOT be confused with the subject matter of this article. I think this article is just fine where it is and doesn't need to be moved.

Also, this statement, "I've looked in several places, and Wikipedia is the only source I find that calls the origin of life Abiogenesis" seems false to me. Google Books searches and general internet searches reveal many people using "abiogenesis" to mean a chemical origin for life. Graft | talk 05:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The origin of life is JUST a scientific topic. We don't create non-scientific versions of scientific articles, packing them full of fringe theories and mythology. Some of those concepts should feature in an article (or section) on the history of the topic, and some of those concepts deserve articles on their own (intelligent design, creation myth, and so on), but that's it. Ben (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the article abiogenesis as it stands is just fine. But abiogenesis deals with just one aspect of the origin of life, that is the chemical processes that could have led to the evolution of life from primitive chemical elements. Abiogenesis is strictly speaking, scientific in its entirety. However, we know that the vast majority of people in the world today, and who have ever existed, rightly or wrongly, have believed in some form of teleological explanation for the origin of life. There is deep interest in some of these teleological explanations, even though they are not scientific, sometimes irrational. Consequently, an article "origin of life" should be a reflection of what the most people think. According to WP:VERIFY, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".

As far as we know, the emergence of life has been a highly improbable event. At present, no known life forms, at least as we understand life to be, have been demonstrated to exist anywhere in the galaxy except for on Earth. Even on earth, life emerged only once. We know this to be the case since all life is DNA/RNA based. Because of the improbability of life, even abiogenesis, in its current form, is subject to criticism. Respected scientists like Francis Crick have favored panspermia over abiogenesis. My opinion is that abiogenesis should deal with theories on the chemical origins of life. The origin of life article should deal with abiogenesis along with other theories, both scientific and non-scientific. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This:

Consequently, an article "origin of life" should be a reflection of what the most people think.

is precisely why there should only be one article - the one that already exists. Please try not to confuse reliable sources on a topic for opinion polls. Cheers, Ben (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The scientific view should be given the majority of the text, as they are the relevant experts. Creation of life might be a good article for more detailed summaries of the the relevant religious views. In no case should Creationist screeds be placed next to scientific text as if to give the idea there was any weight, meaning or ability to their "debunking" claims. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur that vox populi is not the criterion, but then again, abiogenesis is a nascent science. Origin of Life is a broad topic, which calls for a broad approach. Abiogenesis is a narrow subset. Panspermia is not Origin of Life, but Origin of Life on Earth. As the only life we know is on Earth, it is easy to muddle the two ideas. Panspermia avoids the issue if it was just a frozen transplant, but can be used to explain accelerated complexity, but avoids the issue of the ultimate origin. On the other hand, it is the origin if we hypothesize some sort of "cosmic protoplasm".

We do not know the single origin to be true. All life we know is DNA based, but that does not mean that there are not pockets of life that are so biochemically alien that our conventional means of testing don't detect them. There is research being done of the subject. Further, if scientists can synthesize life in the lab, then there will be two origins.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a general reference, not a strict scientific reference. If people look up the phrase origin of life, they may or may not be looking for abiogenesis, the collection of hypotheses on the chemical origin of life. While the best scientific explanation should head any list, the breadth of human thought on the subject should be made available. Creation myths, on their own are not just origin of life, but generally cover cosmology, origin of life, and origin of human life as separate entities. Various concepts in vitalism (e.g. blood, spirit) are commonalities.Since Crick seems to be our source on the argument from authority, I'll add his thoughts: "And so to those of you who may be vitalists I would make this prophecy: what everyone believed yesterday, and you believe today, only cranks will believe tomorrow."

Discussing historical ideas is not "giving equal weight". Shying away from non-scientific historical world views out of fear gives undue weight to pseudoscience. Novangelis (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement on current state of theory - misleading

At the beginning of an article on a complex theory (and one can hardly imagine a more complex theory) such as the origins of life, one would expect a summary statement at to the current state of this theory, so that reader knows what to expect. In this regard there is the following statement in the introduction

"Some facts about the origin of life are well understood, others are still the subject of current research"

Having read the article I find this to be very much at odds with the content. From the latter the only thing reasonably well known, to which the statement must be referring, is that life in the form of monocellular organisms began between 3.8GY to 2.4GY ago. There is no agreed, let alone calculable or demonstrable aspects to this theory, and while some aspects are subject to current research, most of them have not yet been touched by scientific investigation.

I propose this statement be changed to something more reflective of the content.Unveiled (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentence you object to is illustrated with examples.Rick Norwood (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont think so. The facts following this sentence, if these are the examples you mean, all relate to the timing of the origins of life, as I stated above. Where as the aim of this page as the intro states is how"

"life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter"

On this matter the article proceeds to list a plethora of divergent theories with no particular agreement, asnd not one theory taking a lead over the others. In this state of affairs one can hardly claim to have a reasonable undestanding of even the basics of such a theory.Unveiled (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, not all of the facts relate to timing. I'm not sure what your point is? If it is that there are many unanswered questions about abiogenesis, that is the state of our knowledge at the present time, and so that is what the article should say. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was clear. Ill repeat. When a person reads about a field for the first time, such as happens in an encyclopedia, he initially wants to know what to expect, are there various theories in the field or just one main one? Are the theories behind this field substantially developed and tested, is there essentially agreement on the main points, or is the entire basis still up in the air? In other words is the field mature. The quote above is the only statement on this aspect in the intro and pretends a certain level of maturity to my understanding. Reading the rest of the article the impression is the opposite. The statement to me is therefore misleading.Unveiled (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what you call lack of "maturity" is exactly the meaning of some things are known and some are not. We know more about aboigenesis than we know about life on other planets, but less than we know about biology.Rick Norwood (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins's Relation to Clay Theory?

The mention of Dawkins in the Clay Theory section was tagged for citation, and I have added the citation. However, I am unclear on a few things. I admit some of my confusion is over how to cite an assertion like this. Is the citation helpful, or should it be noted that the book only explores Clay Theory for three paragraphs in chapter 6? Would a link to a website that directly quotes said passage be more helpful or just less credible? Does the fact that Dawkins briefly discussed the theory support the notion that he has "...adopted [Clay Theory] as a plausible illustration [of abiogenesis]"? And finally, is this mention particularly relevant to this section?

I'm a very new contributor, so any help is appreciated. Also, I'm not as familiar with Dawkins's views as many others, I only know he discussed the theory in his book, so to anyone who can make this more clear, please do so.--Thusled (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

In citing sources, the original source is better than a secondary source. If the book only mentions clay theory in passing, it is a good idea to mention a page number in the citation. If Dawkins says that he has "adopted" clay theory, say that. Otherwise just use the reference as descriptive rather than conclusive.

Good edit.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the help. I am adding a page citation. I would think a chapter and paragraph citation more useful, but I'm still unsure of Wikipedia's stance on that. I am also changing the word "adopted" to "explored," as that is more in keeping with the tone of the passage in question. --Thusled (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Cartoon History of the Universe

Larry Gonick writes in this book (I don't have a scan) that the soup theory is almost certainly wrong, but scientists have gone with it for lack of a better theory. He added that the creation of life was more like a sandwich (open-faced) and went on to explain. If anyone has a scan of this, or a transcript, please upload it! --204.246.229.194 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like its too much tongue-in-cheek to be seriously scientific... --Pstanton (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Scientists are not noted for their seriousness, but rather for their sense of humor. Gonick has a sense of humor, but his science is serious and accurate. What he calls the "sandwich" theory is essentially the shale theory, that life evolved on the surface of a solid rather than in solution in a liquid. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Homochiralty

This is not so great a conundrum. I started with threee types of water hyacinths in my aquarium, with different blossoms, and in the off season I culled them because they grow so much -- but at a time when I couldn't see the blossoms. At the end of the year, lo and behold, there was only one type of blossom. The same thing happened another year Then I figured it out -- in the comptition, statistically, at some point one charialty is going to get pushed back to the point of nonexistence, and from that point on, there is only one type to be found.AtomAnt (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Theory

Since Abiogenesis is a "theory" and has never been observed in the 6,000 years of human history i think that should be metioned in the article. Never once has life been observed to come from non life but this article reads as if Abiogenesis is a scientific law, like biogenesis. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that biogenesis is not "a scientific law", merely an observation. And for most of "the 6,000 years of human history", modern science didn't exist, let alone the tools and knowledge to go looking for life's earliest forms. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure I see your point. Abiogenesis is a theory, and that should be mentioned in the article? I never said modern science existed for 6,000 years of human history, if you read above I mearly said abiogenesis hasnt been observed in 6,000 years of human history. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• No, Abiogensis is not a theory. It is either (i) the obvious point that if the Earth was originally lifeless, then at some point life must have arisen from non-life (a point that both science and a literal reading of Genesis agrees upon) or (ii) the speculative scientific study of possibilities for how this might have occured through natural processes, and the hypotheses that this speculation generates. In neither of these senses is Abiogenesis a scientific theory.

We really don't have to humour YECs, which seems to be where this guy is coming from chandler ··· 05:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Chandler.......What? --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

YEC stands for Young Earth Creationist and he infers this because of your reference to 6,000 years of human history as opposed to a longer period of time as is the scientific consensus. He thus feels it is a waste of time to argue with you despite the validity of the rest of your comment.--Jorfer (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Come now ... prehistory started ending about 5ky ago ... if anything, 6ky of human history is beyond the scientific consensus.  ;-) — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, "the rest of" Lucius Sempronius Turpio's comment was patently invalid, as my above comment demonstrated. I would note that LST decided thereafter to respond purely to chandler's comment to me, rather than my response to LST. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, I am familiar with the concept of YEC, and 6,000 years of written human history is what i ment. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry read stuff wrong, forget last comment (Need to work on my English it seems) --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant to say "whether the rest of the statement is valid or not" and I was thinking of the reference to no record of abiogenesis as opposed to the theory comment. Now we know that Lucius meant written human history (see how dangerous it is to assume). Is prehistory really before history? I mean obviously you have dating of things like the Venus figurines, which tells us something about the cultures before written history even if it is vague. Whatever the case, human existence is what was inferred which is not what he meant.--Jorfer (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that abiogenesis was "observed" and was a mainstay of ancient natural philosophy until the rise of experimental science discredited the observations, the concept of unobserved through human history is moot. It has not been observed since spontaneous generation was discredited in the 19th century. Novangelis (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Novangelis when was abiogenesis "observed" in ancient natural philosophy? When I think of abiogenesis I think of the story with Aristotle the meat and the jars with the maggots, im sure you all know the story. Actually I think that story is or was in the german wiki abiogenesis article im gonna check now. In anycase sorry if my initial comments were a source of confusion (again will work on the English if I plan to edit here). --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Francesco Redi performed the experiments with meat in jars, countering Aristotle. Aristotle's writings include descriptions of worms deriving from sources including meat and snow. (History of Animals, Book V) Novangelis (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Redi's experiment wasnt a "counter" to Aristotle but rather a copy of Aristotle's experiment. They both did the same thing, and the purpose of Aristotle's experiment was to prove the worms came from an outside source showing the life didnt arise out of the "dead meat" --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

With great detail, Aristotle reported the copulation of flies and the development of larva (some were probably accounts by others). This was observational, and I am unaware of any experimental approach prior to Redi. Novangelis (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A few points that I hope will put everyone on the same page:

• The meaning of abiogenesis, as used in this article, is a concept, not a theory. In other words, so long as you agree that life has not always existed, then there must have been some point where the was no life, followed by some point where there was life. Details on the mechanism in which abiogenesis took place, on the other hand, are indeed theories. Without a time machine or omniscience, none of these theories can ever be proven to be the origin of life as we know it. Truly observing an instance of life from lifelessness would merely give support to the plausibility of that particular mechanism being the origin of life as we know it.
• An instance of abiogenesis has never been positively identified. Aristotle did not observe abiogenesis (nor spontaneous generation, or whatever term you wish to use). He observed phenomena which he incorrectly concluded to be the formation of life from lifeless material.
• This article (and discussion) should take care to separate the concept of Spontaneous generation and specific theories of cell origin. The former made the claim that such generations were a regular occurrence, the latter makes no such claims. Moreover, certain cell origin theories postulate that the environment quickly changed after the first instance of life such that further occurrences could not happen in nature, thus making observation of the phenomena extremely difficult.
• I understand that many English dictionaries define "abiogenesis" as a synonym for "spontaneous generation", and thus refer to it as a defunct theory. This article instead uses the definition used by origin of life scientists, which is closer to it's explicit latin translation. -Verdatum (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well said, Verdatum. Perhaps in English abiogenesis and spontaneous generation can be easily confused with one another. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Update Needed

Sorry, I have no account here, but can be reached by e-mail at <courtesy blank>

There are a couple areas of this page that could be updated.

1) Protocells: The work by Jack Szostack on protocells is barely mentioned in the main article. But he has done a lot of recent work on fatty-acid vesicles as plausible protocells. For example, Szostak recently performed an experiment confirming that activated nucleotides can spontaneously enter into fatty-acid vesicles (containing template DNA, where non-enzymatic DNA copying occurred). Relevant papers include:

• Hanczyc et al. Experimental Models of Primitive Cellular Compartments: Encapsulation, Growth, and Division; Science 24 October 2003: Vol. 302. no. 5645, pp. 618 – 622) PMID 14576428
• Irene A. Chen, Richard W. Roberts, Jack W. Szostak, The Emergence of Competition Between Model Protocells, Science 3 September 2004: Vol. 305. no. 5689, pp. 1474 - 1476 PMID 15353806
• Sheref S. Mansy, Jason P. Schrum, Mathangi Krishnamurthy, Sylvia Tobe´, Douglas A. Treco & Jack W. Szostak, Template-directed synthesis of a genetic polymer in a model protocell, Nature, 2008 PMID 18528332

2) Homochirality (a): Large increases in enatiomeric excess - from 1% up to 90% - were achieved simply by 2 rounds of evaporation.

• Ronald Breslow and Mindy S. Levine, Amplification of enantiomeric concentrations under credible prebiotic conditions, PNAS, August 29, 2006 vol. 103 no. 35 12979-12980 PMID 16938839

3) Homochirality (b): Although the experiment did not involve molecules relevant to the origin of life, it did show that small enantiomeric excesses can be amplified through autocatalysis when suppression/inhibition of one enantiomer through formation of heterodimers (consisting of the “L” and “D” forms of the catalysts) operates. This is based on what’s called the “Frank model” after a theoretical paper Frank wrote in 1953.

• Donna G. Blackmond, Asymmetric autocatalysis and its implications for the origin of homochirality, PNAS, April 20, 2004 vol. 101 no. 16 5732-5736 PMID 15067112 24.94.233.30 (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Rick Pierson

I've blanked your e-mail address to prevent you from getting spammed, formatted a couple bits for readability and added PMID numbers to allow access to the documents. The sources look good, so long as you aren't placing undue weight on the topics, I suggest you be bold and add them to the page yourself. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Origin of life

I have never heard abiogenesis really be referred to as "origin of life". I was going to remove it but I should probably get some people to comment on it first. So.... comments?

Also, it should probably also be noted that it's also called "chemical evolution" (that's the name I was taught it by [the concept/theory anyway] actually).

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c) 03:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The article started from a hundred year old encyclopedia article. As far as I can tell, very few scientists use the term "abiogenesis" to refer to the origin of life. Maybe Wikipedia can revive this quaint old term. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a credible source referring to abiogenesis as "chemical evolution". The claim may be fraudulent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soobtoob (talk • contribs)

Just a very quick look at Google Books proves you wrong, e.g.:[6],[7],[8],[9],[10] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

All of the books you listed are speaking of how organic chemicals changed ("evolved") during the formation of life, however, NONE of those books refer to this evolution of chemicals as the origin of life. (i.e. chemical evolution is a part, but not the whole). Besides, if there was a credible source saying that chemical evolution equates to abiogenesis, why not source this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soobtoob (talk • contribs) 02:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your posts or leave the unsigned template so we can see who says what.

Abiogenesis is about how life started, not how it evolved. They're different ideas and branches of research, though frequently conflated by lying creationists. But anyway, Talk.origins has a faq, please review that before commenting further. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. I have read this faq before, it doesn't really say much to do with the problem at hand, which is whether "chemical evolution" can be considered a synonym to "abiogenesis". All I request is that a credible source be used to support this before it's put into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soobtoob (talk • contribs) 16:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be confused. All of the books I cited above use "chemical evolution" as "a synonym to 'abiogenesis'". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No. The first book, "Chemical Evolution" by Melvin Calvin, states "The word 'evolution' in the title of this paper is the key to our subject, because what we are going to do is to extropolate the Darwinian idea as far back as we can go." When it says "chemical evolution", the book states that it means a specific aspect of the origin of life, not the entire field.

The second book, "Chemical Evolution" By Stephen Finney Mason, isn't specifically about the origin of life. It details how light elements have changed over time into it's many forms. The overview of your link states "It relates the history of chemicals, from the earliest generation of the light elements in the Big Bang, to their transformation into heavier atoms and their subsequent molecular evolution into myriad forms, including life on Earth". Life is only a piece.

The third book, "Chemical Evolution, Self-organization of the Macromolecules of Life", was difficult to find information on. However, the overview of your link was adequate. It states that the book pertains to the "record evidence of early life from the oldest known fossil in the geological record, as well as the prior events of chemical evolution & self-organization[...] The book is organized in five sections corresponding to chemical, geological, biochemical, & biophysical aspects of self-organization, concluding with a section on chirality." It covers many aspects of how chemicals can evolve, and life is part of that.

The forth, "Chemical Evolution, the Structure and Model of the First Cell", details the evolution of many chemicals within life. It shows the evolutions of individual chemicals, but does not refer to the whole of the origin of life as "chemical evolution". Granted it does state (on page 255) that abiogenesis is the "chemical stage of evolution", as it deals with the first stages when structures could only be considered chemicals and not life, this is not the same as using "chemical evolution" as a synonym.

The last book's title doesn't even give the impression. It says "Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life", not "Chemical Evolution; the Origin of Life". Similarly, overviews of the book make the point to seperate "chemical evolution" and "origin of life". For example [11].

If there is anything we can conclude from these books, it's that "chemical evolution" is merely the study of how chemicals (of any description) can change over time, and changing chemicals is an important occurrence for the origin of life. However, none of them state "chemical evolution" is, and can only be, the origin of life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soobtoob (talk • contribs) 19:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Undent. Chemical evolution has multiple meanings. One of those is synonymous with abiogenesis - the movement from unliving molecules to self-replicating, hereditary, energy-transforming cells (i.e. life). It seems pretty clearly stated in the sources. Another definition is the development of complex elements from simple ones as part of the big bang and life cycle of stars (specifically supernovae). I don't see a problem here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the term is too general to be a synonym for abiogenesis. If this article is going to say "also known as chemical evolution", than we should put the same label on all nucleosynthesis related articles, and all articles pertaining to chemical reactions. The Kinematics article should say "also known as classical mechanics" and the chemistry article should say "also known as science". Do you see my point? The article implies that chemical evolution is abiogenesis, even though chemical evolution details how chemicals change over time. Chemical evolution is too general of a term to be marked as equivalent to a specific field such as abiogenesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soobtoob (talk • contribs) 06:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:HAT, and {{otheruses4}} WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The link to Chemical evolution is already a disambiguation page, so I don't see what you are getting at WLU. Soobtoob point is valid. Saying that abiogenesis is an example of chemical evolution is legitimate, but to equivocate the two as is being done in the article right now is out of line.--Jorfer (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. I should have pointed out that chemical evolution is a DAB page, chemical evolution appropriately links there, and accordingly, nothing needs to be done. If chemical evolution led directly here, then a hatnote would be appropriate. It's not equivocating between the two, it's stating synonyms, as is common in many articles, and again I see no need to change anything as sources support the two being interchangeable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to equate chemical evolution and abiogenesis on a 1:1 (synonymous) cardinality in the lead section. Opening the article with "abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution"" is inappropriate. At some point later on in the lead, I would be fine with the fact that the concept described in this article is sometimes referred to as "chemical evolution" (I'm presuming this is true, have not yet followed above sources), but chemical evolution sometimes refers to other concepts, as shown in the disambiguation page. -Verdatum (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Life in the galaxy?

If one surveys stars, and their planetary systems, of 4.5 - 5 Byrs old; and then detects terrestrial exoplanet of say 1.5 earth masses, then one propably still has a magnetosphere - if we are typical (Copernican Principle). And if in habitable zone, then also look for oxygen signature in atmosphere, from very far distance (lyrs). So if photosynthesis for such a long time of 5 Byrs (stromalittes 3.5 Byrs ago for here), then would there be some probability of a species developing culture? Consider large number results fall out for our galaxy of 100-200 B stars.

This seems more relevant to Rare Earth hypothesis than to this topic (even assuming that there is WP:RS to back up these claims). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} In the Autocatalysis section, please change "In 1995 Stuart Kauffman proposed..." to "In 1993 Stuart Kauffman proposed...". The corresponding reference 73 (At home in the Universe) should be replaced by:

Stuart Kauffman (1993). The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0195079517

where the theory was introduced (see Chapter 7).

 Done--Jorfer (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Abiogenesis discredited?

I was looking up the definition of abiogenesis and I found this on Dictionary.com:

a⋅bi⋅o⋅gen⋅e⋅sis   /ˌeɪbaɪoʊˈdʒɛnəsɪs, ˌæbioʊ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh-] Show IPA Use abiogenesis in a Sentence See web results for abiogenesis See images of abiogenesis –noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

Is this true at all?--JohnJSal (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In a word, yes. In another word, no.

Abiogenesis is currently an area of science. But the term once referred to the notion of Generatio Spontanea, or Spontaneous Generation: which, in a nutshell, is the idea that rats are spontaneously generated by grain. In years past, it seemed reasonable to suggest that rats form spontaneously near grain. It doesn't, currently. The notion of spontaneous generation is very obviously discredited.

Mind, though, that Wikipedia talk pages are not intended to be used as a public forum. Please remove this exchange when you've read it, and direct further questions elsewhere. (My personal talk page, if you must.) Thank you. -- Ec5618 (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is misleading in the way it was worded. There was nothing natural about the Miller experiment. It was the product of a thought process that was administered by Stanly Miller. The article was cleverly worded To imply that these amino acids were able to produce proteins. People not familiar with this study may not come away with an accurate evaluation. This is a typical Simon Say's Simon didn't say approach. It is disheartening to me personally that world views can interfere with intellectual reasoning and writing methods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benthemiester (talk • contribs) 09:42, 24 September 2009

Perhaps I'm reading the wrong section, but I can't find any line that implies that the Miller-Urey experiment managed to produce proteins. Could you quote the offending passage? -Verdatum (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything of the sort, however, if you do see anything like this it is important you specify the exact place of the discrepancy, as it would also be wrong in the regard that amino acids don't produce proteins, enzymes do by forming amino acids into them [12]. Correcting mistakes is important and encouraged, so please be specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.141.190 (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2009

Transcription_(genetics) is related to RNA synthesis, not Protein synthesis. You may be thinking of Translation. While RNA is used in combination with enzymes to form proteins, that does not imply it is the only mechanism for forming proteins from amino acids. As I understand it, enyzmes are merely catalysts for reactions, allowing them to occur at lower energy states. Laboratory protein synthesis appears to be achievable without enzymes. Baring metaphysical questions, since enzymes are proteins themselves, it must be possible to construct proteins without enzymes. -Verdatum (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

German Link

Please add the Link to the German article: "Spontanzeugung" : http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenese Thanks. -89.58.33.241 (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My German isn't too good, but this appears to be more appropriate for Spontaneous generation, than this article. -Verdatum (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Added de:Chemische Evolution instead. -Verdatum (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Modern findings re: abiogenesis

I think the article should be amended in the opening paragraphs after it states, "Amino acids...can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth." The Encyclopedia Britannica, in an article about the topic, notes that modern findings “pose grave difficulties” for abiogenesis theories supported by the Miller/ Urey experiment (it goes on to explain why). And, NASA has reported that a “reducing atmosphere” has never existed, although the experiment assumes one. So it is not true anymore to suggest categorically that the experiment simulates conditions on early earth. These amendments need to be addressed here in this article, I think. Sources: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1424734/evolution-of-the-atmosphere, J. Levine, New Ideas about the Early Atmosphere, NASA Special Report, No. 225, Langley Research Center, August 11, 1983 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.214.124 (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Miller–Urey experiment was the first, and most famous, of a long series (15 in the summary mentioned below) of experiments that updated the original setup to simulate atmospheres reflecting updated knowledge of likely atmospheres. Some point of clarification on this might be appropriate, but the main point does not need to be altered. The PDF version of Alan D. Gishlick's Icon of Evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong (regretably MIA on the net at the moment) contains a good summary table (cited as being modified from Rode, B. M., 1999. Peptides and the origin of life. Peptides 20: 773–786). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the sentence explicitly states that the Miller-Urey experiment simulated the conditions of early earth, this is now incorrect, so it needs to be updated as you mentioned. Perhaps, "...as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and later models which were updated to simulate the likely conditions of the early Earth." I used the word models because they weren't all really experiments that were seen to produce amino acids, so much as they were models to explain it. Use of the word 'experiment' would be too strong (and not really true).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.214.124 (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2009

Just because the experiment had a different question it was trying to answer doesn't mean it is not an experiment. How's about as an alternative, instead of the added on details about more recent experiments, we just soften the sentence to be "...as demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment, which attempted to simulate conditions of the early earth"? -Verdatum (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they were not "models", they were explicitly experiments -- designed to test whether the modelled conditions could produce amino acids. I would suggest "…as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment (and a number of follow-up experiments), which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth." I don't think we should "soften" it so much as make it clear that the research on this did not stop with the (now outdated) Miller–Urey -- as creationists such as Jonathan Wells attempt to imply.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs) 08:56, 19 October 2009

If we do this, I'd like to split the sentence to avoid run-on. i.e. "...unrelated to life. This has been demonstrated in a number of experiments, beginning with the Miller-Urey experiment, which involved simulating..." -Verdatum (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Figure listing the experiments. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The assumption that the Early Earth was not reducing, a finding that was widely accepted in the early 1980s has more recently been questioned. See the article by Feng Tian, Owen B. Toon, Alexander A. Pavlov, H. De Sterck on "A Hydrogen-Rich Early Earth Atmosphere" They "show that the escape of hydrogen from early Earth's atmosphere likely occurred at rates slower by two orders of magnitude than previously thought. The balance between slow hydrogen escape and volcanic outgassing could have maintained a hydrogen mixing ratio of more than 30%. The production of prebiotic organic compounds in such an atmosphere would have been more efficient than either exogenous delivery or synthesis in hydrothermal systems. The organic soup in the oceans and ponds on early Earth would have been a more favorable place for the origin of life than previously thought." (see Science Express on 7 April 2005. Science 13 May 2005:Vol. 308. no. 5724, pp. 1014 - 1017). John D. Croft (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ga abbreviation

Is the use of Ga as an abbreviation standard outside of Geology? I have never heard of it before and think it would be better to use more commonly used terms such as 2.4 billion on 2400 mya (million years ago) to discuss these ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.69.92 (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

) 4.6 Lipid World

Hello, I would like to suggest that this section will be enhanced, perhaps in a dedicated page?
More references about groups studying this will be appreciated, other then the signle link to OOL @ Weizmann.
Thanks, Omer http://sites.google.com/site/omermar/ 14:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omermar (talk • contribs)

Pronunciation

Can someone add the IPA phonetic pronunciation for abiogenesis. Carlwev (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Cambrian Stromatolites Image

Hey, the article's stromatolites image caption says the stromatolites in the image are 3.5 billion years old, while the WM Commons caption for the image itself says 1 billion years old. Which one is correct? 70.113.127.94 (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Both. The stromatolite in the image is 1 billion years old. Others "such as this" are 3.5 billion years old. If there is a photo of the one of the oldest formations, it might be preferable.Novangelis (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

19th century?

"Until the early 19th century, people generally believed in the ongoing spontaneous generation of certain forms of life from non-living matter."

-- 19th century? Shouldn't it be 17th or 16th?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.130.38.77 (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 

The evolution of viruses

There was an interesting article recently published (I think it was in Science) that suggested that Virus evolution gives us another window into abiogenesis. I have been trying to find it, without much luck. Can anyone help? John D. Croft (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I believe /eɪˌbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ should be /eɪˌbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnəsɪs/, and that English never ever uses ɨ. Some speakers may actually produce /ɨ/ in that position, but it is then a non-standard pronunciation. Since I'm not an English speaker myself, most often pretty shocked about how English mangles Latin and Greek words, I won't change it myself. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Minor wording nitpick

In the Polyphosphates section, the term "phosphorus species" is used. Would "phosphorus-based molecules" be ok instead? The word "species" might be ok in an article on chemistry, but strikes me as slightly confusing in an article on life. --Scott McNay (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Theory or Hypothesis

In the opening sentence "is the theory". Given that this is a science topic, and potentially controversial, should we use the word hypothesis. (By the way, I'm assuming it's actually an hypotheis and not a scientific theory). Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.105.66 (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Abiogenesis is an axiom which encompasses several indistinguishable theories. A theory would generally require as a baseline some observed phenomena or empirical observation; and honestly the universe has not been forthcoming in this area. Naturalistic origin of life study is conducted as the most parsimonious solution, but because no one "theory" of the origin of life is yet functional, abiogenesis should not yet be considered a scientific theory. To put it another way: even though we have no empirical observations to date that suggest life arose naturally, the only other alternative is creationism, which is epistemologically untestable due to the underlyinig scientific principle of Methodological naturalism.

I think I agree with your objection, though not the solution. Refering to abiogenesis as a theory suggests that it is a coherent and well-related body of work on a particular explanation for life's existance, formation, or whatever, that is differentiated from other explanations. I don't believe this is the case. My understanding of abiogenesis is that it is simply the study of the originating processes which created life from inanimate matter. I don't see how this is a particular hypothesis nor theory in the best sense of these words, and would instead suggest it encompasses every explanation for life's formation (barring some arbitrary exclusion of certain explanations, i.e. supernatural-type processes, by convention, which I am not aware is the way in which this word is used even if it implies scientific study). I propose that the word theory be replace with study or body of work, et cet to be more generic. I'm going to change it, but feel free to suggest why this is a bad idea or why I'm wrong and edit it yourself.--Δζ (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Abiogenesis cannot be a hypothesis due to the lack of observed phenomena in nature.

152.121.16.7 (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's very interesting. However, this talk page is for discussing edits to the article on abiogenesis, not abiogenesis itself. See WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK. Do you have any sourced improvements to the article that you would like to discuss? Gabbe (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is that? We observe life, we observe nature, we posit that life came from nature: transforming the inanimate into the living. I don't see how this is lacking observation. If your argument would be that we don't observer this directly happening or something, I think you may misunderstand how science works- indeed how any observational study works. Nothing is directly observable per se, everything requiring other processes to detect, so this hardly counts as a qualitative refutation of this particular area, and if your objection would be clarified to raise the temporal seperation of our observation and the phenomena, the exact same comment applies. The fact that we cannot experimentally create abiogenesis says nothing about whether it occured in the past, and certainly doesn't speak to the fact that it is not a proper scientific hypothesis. I think the earth condensed from material rotating around our young sun till it formed the earth we know today. The fact that we cannot experimentally recreate such a process presently does not render this an improper hypothesis, nor does it suggest it is a poor hypothesis.--Δζ (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do in fact. 1) Biopoieses is misspelled in the main article, and 2) it is not synonymous with "abiogenesis." Abiogenesis is the now discredited theory that life can arise from inanimate matter (Random House Dictionary); or "the supposed theory..." (American Heritage Dictionary). The article here specifically and uniquely applies to the modern process called biopoiesis (Encyclopedia Britanica) as differentiated from the 1870 theory of abiogenesis.

I do not personally have time to differentiate the articles now, but the two terms should not be equated as they are here.

Lastly, 3) the Miller-Urey experiment Is only historically relevant to biopoiesis since the current consensus is that amino acids cannot autopolymerize, and thus cannot be the progenitor material; and that only the simplest amino acids can form in spark discharge environments (see test results). In either case, Miller-Urey has no relevancy to the 19th century theory of abiogenesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.76.37 (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thermodynamic Origin of Life: Ultraviolet and Temperature Assisted Replication (UVTAR) Model

This seems to be excessive coverage for a recent e-print; not really a model in the manner of the surrounding sections (more a constraint or encouragement); and overly keen to find "functions" and "reasons".--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 13:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect Debate

I think that the redirect "Origin of life" should not apply to this page, as the Abiogenesis theory has not yet been entirely proven. As such, any other claim of the origin of life that can muster any form of argument that stands through a decent inspection has just as much claim. "Origin of Life" should instead be a page that lists the various theories to the origin of life, i.e. Abiogenesis, Creation (according to various beliefs), etc... 208.106.47.61 (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. People come here looking to find out about the Origin of Life 'question'. Abiogenesis seems to be an 'answer', as yet, one step away from that question, as is creation. Mannafredo (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone else who has something to say about this? Actually, how about if I argued that this redirect violates WP:NPOV on the grounds that it implies that Abiogenesis is absoultley and conclusively proven, which it is not. 208.106.47.61 (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

But what would you want "Origin of life" to show? The question is obvious (how did life start?), but there is little an encyclopedia can say about the question. Apart from what is shown in this article (and the Creation myth link at the top), what other verifiable information could be presented? The article clearly states that many details of how life may have started are unknown. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If neither are proven 'answers', why give one precedence over the other. A very small article forking the two possible answers - unless there are more - would possibly be more appropriate. But I ain't gonna write it - some people will have a fit. Mannafredo (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the underlying premise of your proposition is that abiogenesis does not describe certain phenomena that may be described as an explanation for the origin of life. That was never my understandin g of the word. While certainly possesed of scientific or naturalistic connotations, it seems to only denote the process of life arising from that which is not life. Is my understanding in error? It seems like if your presupposition is correct that your proposal would likewise be meritous, but I'm not aware if it is or not. Could you explain why you feel that only those claims that stand up against a decent inspection would deserve inclusion in an origin of life article? This would seem to be blatant point-of-view pushing. I would think the criteria should be notability rather than editors' opinions as to plausibility.--Δζ (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

New success

Why no mention of this http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.133.139.5 (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The Link to Deutsch (German) does not work. it should link to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemische_Evolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.61.229.67 (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Abiogenesis "discredited"??

Why is the dictionary.com definition of "abiogenesis" wildly different than the definition we're giving here? See: [13]. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 03:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now that I wasn't expecting. Apparently, someone at dictionary.com is suffering from CRI (cranial-rectal inversion). I mean, it's only been... what, a century and a half since spontaneous generation actually was discredited? You'd think that'd be enough time for the people putting the dictionary together to figure out that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are not the same thing. Abiogenesis is the process by which life actually is produced, and, by our current understanding, involves electricity running through shallow pools along coastlines on the surface of a terrestrial planet, pools replete with complex organic compounds that are formed in space and delivered to the planet's surface by meteorites, the electric current causing amino acids to be formed from these complex organic compounds, after which phosphorization and atleast one, possibly several, instances of evaporation and irradiation results in the residue from these pools forming ribonucleotides, after which these ribonucleotides form into RNA and then DNA, these last two steps still a matter of conjecture, but nevertheless serious research and debate.

Spontaneous generation, on the other hand, is the debunked idea that claims that life is generated fully-formed from various articles, such as flies spontaneously erupting from slabs of rotten meat. That the dictionary would have these two disparate concepts confused is inexcusable, and something I will personally address. Thank you, CIS, for pointing it out so that I can contact them regarding a correction.

Ohhhhh... while I'm here, just two things from the beginning of this article that someone may want to consider revising. First, abiogenesis refers merely to the formation of life from nonlife through natural chemical reactions. Although it was indeed the process by which life on Earth first arose, it does not specifically refer to life on Earth, as the article implies in the statement, "abiogenesis ... is the study of how life on Earth arose from inanimate matter". In fact, I will fix this one myself if no one has any objections. Second, in the first sentence of the third paragraph, while it does go on to clarify about protobionts, the first living things on Earth were most certainly not single-celled prokaryotes. In fact, unicellular life did not exist until hundreds of millions of years after the abiogenesis event. The first organisms on Earth were merely animate carbon molecules, similar to, perhaps even simpler than, a strand of DNA. From these, primordial viral life evolved, followed by primordial bacterial life. Cells are actually quite complex, and didn't arise until long after bacteria were around. -=[ Alexis (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC) ]=-

That last sentence is odd, since bacteria are also cellular life. Did you mean eukaryotic cells specifically? Mishlai (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"Intelligent Design Theory"

1. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, therefore per WP:WTA, should not be described as such.
2. This webpage does not make any mention of Abiogenesis, or Intelligent Design, so is not a valid source for this material.
3. Wikipedia articles are not a WP:RS for citation in other Wikipedia articles -- in any case neither Rare Earth hypothesis nor Planetary habitability appear to substantiate this material.
4. WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE apply -- pseudoscientific criticism of scientific research has no place in a scientific article.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

[Moved from User Talk]

Hrafn

I strongly disagree with your assessment regarding the link I showed having no relation to Intelligent Design. Wikipedia is about proving what you say to be true, correct? My argument for the plausibility of Intelligent Design uses what has been accepted in mathematics to draw a new scientific theory about the origins of life. As well, I would not be adamant about having my post be allowed accept for the simple reason when you type in "Origins of Life" into the search, you are taken to a page regarding spontaneous biogenesis- not a page discussing possible origins of life. Therefore, my post should be allowed to remain on the board. If a completely separate page is set up to specifically address the origins of life, then I will not object to the removal of my post.

Both spontaneous biogenesis and ID are plausible THEORIES according to the Scientific Method. In fact, you must have both (in essence) to formulate a valid hypothesis. Either life created itself or life was created by a higher being of some kind. If the former is true, then in what way did the building blocks come together? If the latter, who is (or was) this higher being?

To discuss the origins of life is, currently, as much philosophical as it is scientific. Both sides present evidence and either side can be wrong.

Afterrock81 (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Afterrock81

1. As stated above, the webpage you linked to "does not make any mention of Abiogenesis, or Intelligent Design, so is not a valid source for this material."
2. "Wikipedia is about" WP:Verifiability, not WP:Original research ("My argument for the plausibility of Intelligent Design...").
3. No scientific explanation for the origin of life has been offered other than Abiogenesis, so I see no problem.
4. "To discuss the origins of life is, currently, as much philosophical as it is scientific." No it isn't.
5. "Both sides present evidence and either side can be wrong." = WP:GEVAL. And ID 'isn't even wrong' -- it's simply vacuous.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There are many methods used by scientists to date the age of fossils which are not related to archeology. My argument is not directly related to the field of study; yet it has profound implications to the discussion. Therefore, it should be allowed.

Second: Define for me what a scientific theory is. Once you define- using the mainstream methodology, you will find ID is perfectly valid.

"No, it isn't" is not a counter argument. It is as much an idea of philosophy because no evidence has been presented to show how life actually began. People have great ideas as to what may have facilitated the origins of life, but none has offered any proof. Therefore, it is simply a point of discussion.

Vacuous? ID takes all of the known (and proven) scientific evidence which we currently have in our possession and arrives at a completely different conclusion. How is this "vacuous"? Oh, and I would appreciate it if you would not insult my point of view again. I thought saying such things was against the policy of Wikipedia.

Afterrock81 (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Afterrock81

1. As I made no claims about "archeology", your first statement is a complete non sequitor. 'Your argument...' is WP:OR. DO NOT keep harping on about your argument without presenting a WP:RS that explicitly states this argument.
2. See the first line in this thread -- where I link to scientific theory. ID is pseudoscience -- see list of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design. See also Young, Matt; Edis, Taner. Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-3872-6..
3. "Vacuous": ID provides no substantive positive explanation, it simply acts as a wrapper for a bunch of long-debunked 'why-evolution-can't-work' arguments. See Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ. "Oh, and..." Wikipedia doesn't exist to coddle vacuous pseudoscience. See WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE & WP:PSCI for policy on this.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

31 orders of magnitude!

The articl4e says UV ligth levels may have been 31 orders of magnitude higher. Is this correct? Does this really mean 10 nonillion times?  Randall Bart   Talk  01:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the source and it does appear to be more or less correct. The 31 orders difference is actually at +/- 250 nm, at 260 nm it's more like 27 orders of magnitude. Still a staggering number of course. The clue here is that at present, light of these frequencies can hardly be measured because it is virtually completely absorbed by the atmosphere's ozon/oxygen. The original article notes that

"The ratios between Archean and present irradiances are very high. However, absolute values for the present irradiance are very low, especially for wavelengths shorther than 300 nm, so that high ratios are easily obtained."

The amazing thing, therefore, is not that with a different atmosphere, this radiation would be extremely intense (although it would be very dangerous), but rather that our current atmosphere is such an amazingly effective shield for this. Lindert (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Omne vivum ex vivo", "omne vivum ex ovo" and "omne ovum ex vivo"

Dear Wikipedia Contribuitors,

please receive a respectful greeting. In this article the phrase "omne vivum ex ovo" occurs after the experiments conducted by Redi are mentioned. Can anyone ad some information about who coined the phrase (or trace it back in time as well as posible) and why it was used? According to most web sites about the topic, William Harvey is the name most associated to "omne vivum ex ovo", nevertheless, there are a couple of sites that beside it also show the phrase "omne vivum ex vivo" in relation to Harvey, e. g.,

http://books.google.com/books?id=JjsBeSphjjMC&pg=PA408&lpg=PA408&dq=william+harvey+omne+vivum&source=bl&ots=1zgpmoUDQg&sig=XGxhXmAGepN7wDXK7XDzYV9CoWE&hl=en&ei=-Tp5TYLSEcK60QGG2NHcAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=william%20harvey%20omne%20vivum&f=false

http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckels_After_Pasteur.htm

http://www.panspermia.org/pasteur.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Rodney Maruri Game (talk • contribs) 21:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There is yet anoter phrase "omne ovum ex vivo". What about it? Any information to share?

Could you please add more information on all these phrases? I think they are all relevant regarding the topic of the origin of life.

I'd like to quote the talk page from the dissapeared page "Omne vivum ex ovo" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Omne_vivum_ex_ovo) because I would not like this to be lost.

Should be on VfD: It's untrue. First, the "ovum" theory of life is not the rebuttal to the theory of spontaneous generation. It is, instead, the belief that all life originates in a single egg (one). The idea is that that each female has a fully formed microscopic being within her eggs, and each of these microscopic beings who are female have submicroscopic eggs within them containing the next generation, etc. The Ovum theory of life was one view of human generation from the Renaissance to the 18th century. The other, which goes back to the Classical era, was the homunculus theory, a spermatazoic model, where the male sperm contained a tiny human that would go and lodge in an egg to incubate. Both of these theories, however, are entirely independent of the argument about spontaneous generation.

Ancients weren't stupid. They knew exactly the connection between mating and breeding, and to think even for a moment that they thought that any higher animal life was spontaneously generated is absurd. The theory of spontaneous generation was fanciful to each generation that believed it, and it was resorted to only when they could not find females or males of a creature or when they could not see any breeding. Thus, they thought that crocodiles, biting flies, and the like, where hatching takes place in the absence of parents and where there is insufficient sexual dimorphism in adults to be apparent, were spontaneous generation candidates.

Finally, genetics is very late, and people rejected spontaneous generation long, long, long before microscopes were sufficiently powerful to track genes. I.e. this whole article is someone's misreporting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Omne vivum ex ovo is attributed to William_Harvey (1578–1657) and according to Farley (1977; p.12) - "But it was the suggestion of the Ova, stemming from William Harvey, that led eventually to late seventeeth-century pre-existence theories and the necessary denial of spontaneous generation." Omne vivum ex ovo mirrors Rudolf Verchow's formula - Omnis Cellula e Cellula that is an attack on Spontaneous Generation. Spontaneous Generation was not abandoned by experiment or latin phrases but by the realisation the even the simplest life forms are astoundingly complex - Diamond Dave 26/01/2006 18.00

Farley, J., 1977. The spontaneous generation controversy from Descartes to Oparin. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN: 0-8018-1902-4

Thank you all so much for your help.George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

31 orders of magnitude!

The articl4e says UV ligth levels may have been 31 orders of magnitude higher. Is this correct? Does this really mean 10 nonillion times?  Randall Bart   Talk  01:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the source and it does appear to be more or less correct. The 31 orders difference is actually at +/- 250 nm, at 260 nm it's more like 27 orders of magnitude. Still a staggering number of course. The clue here is that at present, light of these frequencies can hardly be measured because it is virtually completely absorbed by the atmosphere's ozon/oxygen. The original article notes that

"The ratios between Archean and present irradiances are very high. However, absolute values for the present irradiance are very low, especially for wavelengths shorther than 300 nm, so that high ratios are easily obtained."

The amazing thing, therefore, is not that with a different atmosphere, this radiation would be extremely intense (although it would be very dangerous), but rather that our current atmosphere is such an amazingly effective shield for this. Lindert (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Omne vivum ex vivo", "omne vivum ex ovo" and "omne ovum ex vivo"

Dear Wikipedia Contribuitors,

please receive a respectful greeting. In this article the phrase "omne vivum ex ovo" occurs after the experiments conducted by Redi are mentioned. Can anyone ad some information about who coined the phrase (or trace it back in time as well as posible) and why it was used? According to most web sites about the topic, William Harvey is the name most associated to "omne vivum ex ovo", nevertheless, there are a couple of sites that beside it also show the phrase "omne vivum ex vivo" in relation to Harvey, e. g.,

http://books.google.com/books?id=JjsBeSphjjMC&pg=PA408&lpg=PA408&dq=william+harvey+omne+vivum&source=bl&ots=1zgpmoUDQg&sig=XGxhXmAGepN7wDXK7XDzYV9CoWE&hl=en&ei=-Tp5TYLSEcK60QGG2NHcAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=william%20harvey%20omne%20vivum&f=false

http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckels_After_Pasteur.htm

http://www.panspermia.org/pasteur.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Rodney Maruri Game (talk • contribs) 21:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There is yet anoter phrase "omne ovum ex vivo". What about it? Any information to share?

Could you please add more information on all these phrases? I think they are all relevant regarding the topic of the origin of life.

I'd like to quote the talk page from the dissapeared page "Omne vivum ex ovo" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Omne_vivum_ex_ovo) because I would not like this to be lost.

Should be on VfD: It's untrue. First, the "ovum" theory of life is not the rebuttal to the theory of spontaneous generation. It is, instead, the belief that all life originates in a single egg (one). The idea is that that each female has a fully formed microscopic being within her eggs, and each of these microscopic beings who are female have submicroscopic eggs within them containing the next generation, etc. The Ovum theory of life was one view of human generation from the Renaissance to the 18th century. The other, which goes back to the Classical era, was the homunculus theory, a spermatazoic model, where the male sperm contained a tiny human that would go and lodge in an egg to incubate. Both of these theories, however, are entirely independent of the argument about spontaneous generation.

Ancients weren't stupid. They knew exactly the connection between mating and breeding, and to think even for a moment that they thought that any higher animal life was spontaneously generated is absurd. The theory of spontaneous generation was fanciful to each generation that believed it, and it was resorted to only when they could not find females or males of a creature or when they could not see any breeding. Thus, they thought that crocodiles, biting flies, and the like, where hatching takes place in the absence of parents and where there is insufficient sexual dimorphism in adults to be apparent, were spontaneous generation candidates.

Finally, genetics is very late, and people rejected spontaneous generation long, long, long before microscopes were sufficiently powerful to track genes. I.e. this whole article is someone's misreporting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Omne vivum ex ovo is attributed to William_Harvey (1578–1657) and according to Farley (1977; p.12) - "But it was the suggestion of the Ova, stemming from William Harvey, that led eventually to late seventeeth-century pre-existence theories and the necessary denial of spontaneous generation." Omne vivum ex ovo mirrors Rudolf Verchow's formula - Omnis Cellula e Cellula that is an attack on Spontaneous Generation. Spontaneous Generation was not abandoned by experiment or latin phrases but by the realisation the even the simplest life forms are astoundingly complex - Diamond Dave 26/01/2006 18.00

Farley, J., 1977. The spontaneous generation controversy from Descartes to Oparin. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN: 0-8018-1902-4

Thank you all so much for your help.George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

the RNA World hypothesis

The article states that the RNA world hypothesis is a "genes-first" theory. This isn't true: it posits that genes and metabolism arose simultaneously. That is to say, unlike either DNA or proteins, ribozymes can both contain genetic information and catalyze chemical reactions. Thus, the RNA world hypothesis is a third option in addition to the genes-first and metabolism-first options. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.171.227 (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Clay Theory

This quote is in the clay theory section.

"For a gene-like behavior the additional imperfections should be much less than the parent ones, thus Kahr concludes that the crystals "were not faithful enough to store and transfer information from one generation to the next""

What the heck does this mean? It really needs clarification because as it is currently worded, it makes no sense whatsoever. In a high importance article like this that is a bad thing. I would fix it myself but I have no clue about microbiology-that's why I came here in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.213.151 (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have modified the original text as I agreed that the clarity was missing. Having knowledge of the articles it was easy to assume what was being said but if looked at from an outsider it made little sense that Kahr was inferring that the mutations exceeded the inheritance. Kaylus (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

"living things"

The header of the article says:

By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments

I believe it would be better to change "linving things" for something more specific, like "organisms". 186.109.0.112 (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No big deal, but I cannot agree. Whether anyone likely to refer to the article also would be likely have difficulty understanding hard words like "organism" I can't say, but just how do you see "organism" as being more specific than "living thing"? Which "living things" are not "organisms"? And if there are such, then on what basis are they to be excluded from having had a role in affecting isotopic ratios? Just asking... JonRichfield (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Poesis? Poiesis?? Poeesis??? Genesis????

I am not terribly fussed with which term we adopt, but wouldn't it be nice if we settled on at least one spelling that is widely accepted and understood, with some authoritative source? At the moment we have both biopoesis and biopoiesis in the same article. I am more used to the latter, but on consulting Jaeger I find that there seems to be no definitive form. As I said, I am not fussed, but I'd like to see some uniformity, if only for encyclopaedicity. (Or swank, if you like!) JonRichfield (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

While the phrases seem very similar, they refer in practice to two very different things. Poiesis is more generally used to describe an already existing system which goes on to create: Like a person creating red blood cells. Though neither is really accurate since Poiesis is a poetic term, it is still mostly used even on wikipedia for describing the creation from an already existing system.

Abiogenesis on the other hand describes the emergency of complex structures and life from otherwise inert material. Because of the ambiguity of Poeisis -- and the fact that the wiktionary entry's spelling makes the red squiggles appear under the word -- Abiogenesis would be the way to go. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Improvements to the article

I feel the article is falling seriously behind latest scientific research. There is little mention of the possible role of alkaline vents and their differences from black smokers, no mention of RNA synthesis or the role of the Krebs cycle. To take account of this the article needs to separate into two sections - the first - a historical acoount of abiogenesis research, and the second, a scientific account of the latest findings. Thoughts anyone? John D. Croft (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, what you say is true of course, but I am left in doubt about your intention. Being aware, as you clearly are, of the scope of the field, your statement about falling behind cannot have been intended as derogatory, but this is a wiki after all; are you not contemplating doing a bit of gentle updating? That is the whole point, right?

As for splitting the article, well... I can't see it doing any harm as long as there is clear linking both ways between the two. JonRichfield (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are you going off on him like that? He raises some very valid points. Most of the experiments mentioned are in the time period of the 1990s and earlier. Surely with the advance in technology, there has been more research done. Mmallico (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Mmalllico, your antecedents are unclear. Were you addressing me, or was the indenting accidental? Assuming you were addressing me (if not, forget the rest of my response) then what did I say to suggest anything unfriendly or unhelpful? JDC said that the article was falling behind. I accepted that. I suggested that the proper thing for anyone with up to date knowledge was to do some updating. Did you read my wording as ironic or in any other way sarcastic? If so, how would you have phrased it differently? JDC suggested splitting the article. I expressed no objection, merely stressing the importance of proper linking (I might also have added something on the importance of proper structuring; splitting articles is not a simple as some people think). Please explain what I should have said instead. Thanks, JonRichfield (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Your comments do seem carefully crafted to imply an attack while also hiding behind plausible deniability - you raise the issue of intention, you deny a derogatory intent but then again you raise the issue where it didn't seem necessary. Why are you bringing up his intentions at all? Why not just stick to the science and leave out personal issues? Docwyoming

Personally, I think we should not split the page really, but do like pages such as Quantum mechanics do. Clean this article up a bit and make it the generally accessible, with a second one going deeper into the science of the issue, each with a lead link to the other.. The original would have it of course, but for anyone not in the field, too much science would throw off the entire article. Hard to keep track of something if you have to look up every third word. The more established would remain here -- as there has been more time devoted to a clearer understanding of those aspects of the science simply due to length of existance and the need to devise teaching mechanisms for people to make use of them -- while the newer more complex and emerging explinations would be on the second page.

If we can possibly find any way to simplify this, it would be of great value. And there is simply no good reason why a layman would need to know about emerging experiments, due to the sheer complexity of the issue. And if no one but experts can read it, theres not too much point of having it, you know? 74.128.56.194 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Im a bad writer, let me clarify. Unlike the original suggestion of describing its history, we should give overviews of all the key points, history included. It would also include the simpler explanations for things. The second would be solely for the emerging scientific theories and the more vastly complex ones. But both articles should reflect the whole of the work, not just one aspect. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. On a related note, I thought the active editors of this article may be interested in quoting this new research: "DNA Building Blocks Can Be Made in Space, NASA Evidence Suggests". I have not read the original peer-reviewed article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks For Noting The NASA Studies Re Possible Formation Of DNA-Related Organic Chemicals In Outer Space - Changed The Section "Extraterrestrial amino acids" To "Extraterrestrial organic molecules" And Added The Following:

On August 8, 2011, a report, based on NASA studies with meteorites found on Earth, was published suggesting building blocks of DNA (adenine, guanine and related organic molecules) may have been formed extraterrestrially in outer space.

If Interested, Please Feel Free To Edit, Modify and/or Expand With New Material - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the panspermia reference in the first sentence of that section (Italic part)

Another idea is that amino acids which were formed extraterrestrially arrived on Earth via comets, consistent with the theory of panspermia

Amino acids which were formed in space arriving on Earth via comets is a long way away from bacteria travelling through space spreading life. There's no evidence to suggest that these molecules were formed by biological processes. At least not that I know of.

The reference, based on what the abstract says, did not seem to be related to that sentence. Maybe used elsewhere? DS Belgium (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't check the source because for some reason my school's internet only loads WP and a few other pages in a decent amount of time, but if that's an accurate assessment then I support the edit. N^oformation ^Talk 20:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the weaselword template still justified? I don't see obvious examples, and given the subject matter... It was placed by an IP without any other edits, so can't ask him. I've trimmed the See also section a bit, and removed the "Too many see alsos" template that was placed by User:Fama Clamosa. Eight removed, ten left, pretty much personal opinion and taste, if anyone disagrees, feel free.

• Astrobiology : link in article del

• Astrochemistry

• Astrophysical maser : unclear why, del
• Autocatalytic reactions and order creation : several links to related articles in the text, del

• Biological immortality
• Common descent
• Entropy and life : could be worked into the entropy section.
• List of independent discoveries : not really related, but interesting ...

• List of publications in biology : red link, page deleted

• Mediocrity principle
• Mimivirus ; not sure

• Origin of the world's oceans del

• Planetary habitability

• Purple Earth hypothesis : stub, few links to, del

• Rare Earth hypothesis
• Shadow biosphere : few links to, science or science fiction, I don't know ...

• Zeolite : as substrate or catalytic surface? pumice raft alternative? del
• John Needham : added to Lazzaro Spallanzani article. del

DS Belgium (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Altered sentence to make clear that we aren't sure that abiogenesis is how life formed on Earth

Hi folks, I'm not a hardcore Wiki user so I hope I'm putting this note in the right place: I modified a sentence toward the beginning of the article to make it clear that Abiogenesis is not proven to be the way that life formed on Earth. I did this because some recent information from NASA has supported the theory that life may have been delivered to Earth on a meteorite from elsewhere in the universe (among other possible theories). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benz145 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

And I've reverted. As well as being "the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes" abiogenesis is also "the study of ... the method by which life on Earth arose" -- so the original is factually correct. Also "It is believed..." is bad writing -- both WP:WEASEL & passive voice. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're going but I'm a bit confused. As far as I can see, the sentence indicates that abiogenesis is two things: a theory of how life forms from inorganic matter, and at the same time, the study of how life on Earth arose. These two things have a natural disconnect because life didn't necessarily arise on Earth. Does this make sense? -- Benz145 —Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

It is both a set of hypotheses of how life arose on Earth and the study of the science related to those hypotheses. It would presumably touch upon investigation of evidence that life did not arise on Earth, should evidence for that alternative ever eventuate. But currently the latter is little more than complete speculation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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)

Arose or thought to have a rose?

I reverted a change from "arisen" to "thought to have arisen". The article is obsessively PC as it is, and we don't need all that pussyfooting, especially when it is meaningless; if life turns out to have arisen by being quickened by the finger of a creator, then the study of that process by which it arose is by definition the valid subject matter of abiogenesis. Otherwise we wind up replacing every single verb in the article with "thought to have ..." as in "thought to have thought to have thought to have arisen" or something thought to have amounted to that. JonRichfield (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The sentance reads as "In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth has arisen", however it is not entirely certain life did arise on Earth as oposed to ariving in a preexisting organised state through panspermia or exogenesis. These are less plausible origins than the emergence on Earth but not so implausible that we should discount them as having never happened without further evidence to entirely falsify them. It is a bonus but not the aim that young earthers read "thought to have arisen" as a concession to them, as it keeps them docile as they go about living their delusional bronze age fantasies. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 21:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

<Gronk!> OK, OK! I suppose... I won't change it back, but I won't make difficulties if someone else does. <mttr... mttr...! Stone heads in bronze ages... Gronk!> JonRichfield (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Definition

I personally think that current definitions of life are a bit too restrictive. I've even heard from a few places that life has to have DNA to exist. In my opinion, life should simply be anything and everything that can reproduce more of itself, if given resources to do so. For instance, viruses would be alive, as when given resources (host cells), they can produce more of themselves; self-replicating machines would be alive because, when given resources (materials such as steel, silicon, wires, circuits, etc.), as they can produce more of themselves; and perhaps even stars would be living, as after a supernova a nebula could form, which is a common birthplace of additional stars. I think that it is possible that we could discover extraterrestrial life, and not even recognize it as such. Carnivorousfungi (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

According to your definition, computer viruses would also qualify as living beings, as they contain instructions to copy themselves. And stars? Come on, such a definition is not usable in practice. Would a rock rolling off a mountain qualify too? Because it can induce other rocks to also roll down. Let's just stick to common sense definitions that everyone understands, because such broad categories are only confusing. -- Lindert (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the Wikipedia article is to be anchored in reliable sources. Abiogenesis and life need sourced definitions. It is interesting that what seem to be components of life can be generated; but not a living, growing entity. drs (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I sympathise with the inclusive definition until such time as we have worked out a definitive basis for discriminating between different phenomena that could be described as life in some sense and context, I must agree with those who would not accept crudely mechanical situations such as rolling rocks or snowballs, nor even trypsinogen cultures and the like. Viruses? Borderline. Best accept them in appropriate contexts and exclude them in appropriate contexts. For the rest, till further notice, in appropriate contexts I point out that for most practical purposes, we are discussing organic, information-coding, largely spontaneously generated, life of forms that occur or have left evidence for having occurred on Earth. Context is very important in educated discussion of this sort; let's respect it accordingly and thereby waste less of our own and each other's time. That question of the definition of life belongs in another article. JonRichfield (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• This thread is kind of off the topic of Abiogenesis here. A self-replicating machine is not subject to abiogenesis as it is designed by a person using the knowledge they have come up with. A star is not life as it does not pass on any usefull acquired encoded information after going supernova. Viruses are life (same common ancestor as every other life form on Earth, as far as we know) as they contain the variation of matter encoded information that has been selected for its ability to reproduce itself. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 21:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Abiogenesis lead

User:Harizotoh9 recently reverted one of my edits which added a sizeable lead to the article, saying that it "seems too long" now. The lead I created for Abiogenesis is more than adequate. It may have "seemed" long to Harizotoh9, but is is actually the perfect size in proportion to the rest of the article. Every article needs an adequate lead that summarizes the contents and gives an introduction to the topic, not just a quick definition. Depending on the size of the article a lead should not be more than 4 paragraphs, and for an article as long as Abiogenesis the lead size was perfect. Look at the leads for evolution, the history of life, and history of the earth and you will see that these articles are long and SO the leads are fairly sizeable in proportion. Please also see -- Cadiomals (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked whether any of the items in your version of the lead do not occur in the rest of the article. On a superficial reading I do not see anything that you have said as unnecessary, and would want to see them all in appropriate form in the body. I also have read what you said about the lead size balancing the size of the rest of the article, but there I fall out of the bus.

I also read WP:LEAD and I think there are some badly confused ideas there. First let us imagine as an academic exercise, an article with NO lead, right? At the start there would be a heading, say "Overview" or "Introduction" or "Why we wrote this" or "Did you know?" or something similar. In such a section we might write little or much. It might contain four paragraphs or four subsections of four words, and not many readers would be in a position to complain about the article quality as a result.

However! Lots of people have a certain inertia about getting into a body of reading. Others may be looking for something and skimming article after article in a hurry. They don't want your Intro or lead that extends over a page or so, be your eternal truths never so true or your prose never so deathless. Such people (and they are many) want to see in a short, simple, definitive sentence, what the article is about. At worst, it should fit into the floating window that we can invoke by holding the cursor over a link. It does NOT have to be a dictionary or textbook definition, but at the same time it does NOT have to balance the rest of the article, either in logic or in length. It does not have to summarise anything. It is NOT an abstract, a synopsis nor a part of a balanced literary exercise. Suppose that you do decide that a synopsis is desirable; then why is it desirable to deny it a heading and call it a lede or lead? It is at its most functional when the reader knows within ten seconds exactly why he should read on or not, even if he does not yet have any idea about the structure or the content. That is the sort of thing he can get from the introductory section, whatever its title, as long as it is competently written. The lead is not an introduction, or should not be. If it is written as such, it does no one any favours. The introduction should indeed have a proportion and structure proper to the rest of the article, but that is a totally different matter.

Now, consider the short lead. It is a pity if anyone should use vague expressions like "seems long enough", that is a pity because it offers no objective or even nearly usable criteria. You think it is too short he thinks it is too long, and the readers just want a route marker. The needs to be met are not yours, but your readers'. If you want to balance or structure your article, then the headed sections are the place to do it. If you want to tell the reader why to read on or drop the matter, and do so more helpfully than the title can do it, then the lead is the place. That is what to put at the top, with no heading beyond the article title.

But what of WP:LEAD you say? What indeed? Nothing the article says demands that you write ten words or ten thousand, so you are able to use your own good judgment, not about how long it is, but about what should most usefully appear in the lead and what in the headed sections. And don't forget what appears in the floating windows and the first page together with any leading illustration. No explanation, argument or justification is needed there. To put anything of the kind of into the unheaded lead rather than the headed initial section is a confession of inadequacy. That sort of thing should go into the article structure, and there is no reason why the article should start with an unheaded section. The fact that other long articles have long leads is no recommendation; it is an indictment. IMESHO of course... ;-) JonRichfield (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow you wrote a really long response. I did actually read through it and you bring up some good points. However, my rationale remains.

• This lead existed for a very long time before some user removed it and replaced it with a two sentence, unsatisfying definition and transferred and rearranged the lead material to a new section. A major change was made without discussion that is potentially detrimental to the article. So actually I'm just reverting those edits and its up to that user to explain themselves, not necessarily me.
• My reason for pointing to the evolution and history of life articles is the former is Featured and the latter is Good. That means something must have been done right with their sizeable leads, and Abiogenesis is a very similar article.
• As for WP:LEAD, I do my best to comply with the Manual of Style. WP:LEAD in a nutshell says, "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." This entire quote lends support to the current lead: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

The lead in Abiogenesis is very adequate and complies with the guidelines. I'm aware that you and I have our own opinions but ultimately the Manual of Style is above that. Cadiomals (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Marc Tessera's "Is A n+1 Definition of Life Useful?" Inappropriate?

I believe Marc Tessera added the section "Origin of Darwinian evolution rather than origin of life" which contains a cite to his own work "Is A n+1 Definition of Life Useful?". This article is labeled "Commentary" and has not been subsequently cited (perhaps not unexepected as it was published earlier this year).

As best I can tell this has already been rolled back a couple of times, although not necessarily for this reason. (This is my first wikipedia edit and I'm still learning how to navigate the deltas.) I've asked Marc in another forum (talk.origins) to revert this. Is there any reason I'm missing that it should not be reverted? Garamond Lethe (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reverted it as far to recent to establsh weight. It also appears to be self-promtional. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dominus -- thanks, I appreciate the quick response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garamond Lethe (talk • contribs) 22:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Garamond Lethe is wrong when he asserts that I added the section "Origin of Darwinian evolution rather than origin of life": Decruft did it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Tessera (talk • contribs) 18:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No. You added it on Feb. 2. Decruft partially reverted you and edited the section. Your additions have been reverted by several other editors, including User:Lindert, User:JonRichfield, User:Wdanwatts and me. If you want the material presented here, you will have to discuss it and get consensus for any addition on this talk page. You appear to have a conflict of interest, and seem to be using WP to promote your recent paper. Please familiarize yourself with WP policies and guidelines, including WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:CON, WP:DE]] and WP:TE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am here to respond to a Third Opinion request on this matter. There is no question that Marc Teressa added the section in question, as evidenced here. I have not looked to see if this was the very first insertion of this section or who inserted it the last time it was inserted (it appears to have been reverted and reinserted several times) but there is no question that Teressa has done it at least once. As a side note to Teressa: As a newcomer, you may not be aware that the entire editing history of each article page and each user are publicly visible: see here for this article's history and here for your editing history. There is (almost) never any doubt about who did what at Wikipedia. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

In thruth there is no question that I took the initiative of proposing the section “Origin of Darwinian Evolution rather than Origin of Life”. However the final version was written by Decruft from my publications and accepted apparently by the editors who did not agree with my first versions. Well, formally, I agree I was likely wrong but is the question only formal? At the heart I think there is the following more important question: is the idea presented in the section in question worth scientifically speaking and could be presented in the chapter “Other models” which is dedicated to other and possibly new approaches? If no, then I was wrong. If yes, I think it is a pity to censure it.Marc Tessera (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. As to your question: is the idea presented in the section in question worth scientifically speaking. As best I can tell from scholar.google and from reading the paper, the "n+1" paper is a "Commentary" piece that's never been cited by a peer-reviewed publication. This tells me that other scientists working in the field don't value this paper, at least not yet (and the paper probably hasn't been out long enough to receive that kind of evaluation).

In contrast, look at the other papers that are cited in this article. The PAH-world hypothesis is probably a pretty marginal theory, yet García-Hernández's paper has already been cited 12 times and just came out in 2010. Hartman's 1998 multiple-origin paper has been cited 49 times. Both of these were peer-reviewed. That's not to say that peer-reviewed publication and lots of citations are sufficient for a theory to be included in an encyclopedia, but I do think it's a necessary condition.

In short, don't try to make an argument that you have a good theory. Make an argument that a lot of other people think you have a good theory.Garamond Lethe (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

hypothesis or theory

It seems to me that many of the places that the words hypothesis and theory are used in this article they are used interchangeably. I don't wish to step on any toes if i am incorrect and am not an avid user of the edit function in wiki so i hope someone who keeps this page up to date will look into it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.168.141 (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The use of the word theory by the general public is equivalent to the word hypothesis as used in the science community. Scientists use the word theory to refer to well developed hypotheses (backed up with facts) or to scientific papers written by theoretical physicists, the general theory of relativity for example. Pterodactyloid (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Are Lankenau Edits "Vandalism" and/or "Conflicts of Interest"?

- At The Moment - Seems Lankenau Is Making Substantial Edits, Citing His Own Publications (WP:COI?), To The Main Abiogenesis Article - Lankenau Claims His Edits Are Not "vandalism," - afaik - Such Substantial Edits, Of Possibly Contentious Material(s), Are Usually First Discussed On The Talk Page(s) Of Main Articles With Other Wikipedia Editors - And A WP:CONSENSUS Reached - *Before* Actually Adding Such Material To The Main Article - Has This Usual Wikipedia Policy Changed In Some Way? - Or - May Not Apply To The Lankenau Edits For Some Reason? - In Any Case - Thanks In Advance For Your Comments - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Citing your own work is absolutely fine as long as your work is a "reliable source". This is not the case in this situation though. I think rather than vandalism it would be original research with WP:COI possible. There is a fine line between having knowledge vs. a conflict of interest. It is most certainly not vandalism because it seems to be done in good faith. You don't need to go to the talk page to edit if you don't feel it's neccesary. My guess is he saw the article, put his stuff in, and thought he improved the article. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

@Hghyux - Thank You *Very Much* For Your Time and Comment - It's *Very* Much Appreciated - I *Completely* Agree w/ Your Comments In *All* Respects - I Had Also Thought "Original Research" (As Well As A "Good Faith" Edit) Might Apply In This Instance - Thanks Again - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Calling it vandalism is going too far. I warned Lankenau over a similar comment in his edit summary for not assuming good faith. Regarding the content of the edits WP:UNDUE possibly applies here with the conflict of interest being a WP:NPOV problem.

From WP:UNDUE: Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

So if valid & reliable sources are provided we shouldn't have a problem. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 15:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

@SkyMachine - I Agree - Also - Thanks For *All* Your Help - And For Noting WP:UNDUE - As Well As The Jimbo Wales (paraphrased) Quote (new to me & *greatly* appreciated) - Thanks Again - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the subsection per Drmies at AN/I and because of the good referencing. Scientific views do change, and I see no reason not to include a summary of this hypothesis, which the subsection explains and relates to prior hypotheses. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's reach a consensus before adding this info back to the article. As far as I can tell, this hypothesis fits squarely into the "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" category referenced in Jimbo's quote. Am I missing something here? I'm not sure it warrants any mention at all, let alone the thorough discussion being added.JoelWhy (talk)

I'm pasting this from the Admin board, as it seems like a more appropriate discussion to have here:

Mislabeling edits as vandalism is, in theory, fixable - and not a threat. Yes, it's bogus, but if they don't get told the difference between their definition of vandalism and Wikipedia's definition, how do they know to stop? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ahem. If anything is a bad edit, trout-slappable even, it's this one. Dirk Lankenau adds information to the article, referenced to six articles published in academic journals, and someone has the moxie to call it original research? "Oh yes but he has a conflict of interest and blah blah blah"--so f***ing what? He is not forbidden from adding articles he wrote or co-wrote, and Lankenau's name is not found in all of those articles, nor is that of his partner in crime (well, in science, for crying out loud). Even Drbogdan's revert, with the "COI" edit summary, is incorrect: the linked guideline doesn't forbid any editor from adding a reference to their own work.

  I want to see some editors re-read the original research section, esp. the part that says "if it's sourced to published sources it's not original frigging research", and I want to see humble pie eaten and hairshirts worn. I'm not even kidding. "Original research"--I'll show you some original research, Google Scholar style: [14]. We got a scientist who has kindly come to help us out, and we treat him like this? Drmies (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed completely with Drmies. This is legitimate source material, well referenced, from secondary sources (peer-reviewed book chapters), in a niche area that very few of us know anything about, added by someone who is knowledgeable on the area (as evidenced by even a simple Google Scholar search on their name). We should be encouraging addition of this content, not rolling it back in one fell swoop with allegations of OR. -- Samir 05:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no OR, but WP:UNDUE may be an issue here. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 05:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What I see here is a new, enthusiastic, and very competent wikipedian. Who just might be a little out of their depth in a content issue, to put it bluntly. OK, we've identified the problem, now lets look for solutions. I would like to think I've started that here--Shirt58 (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Me, too; this is an editor who can be a real asset to the community. All they really need is to understand what is not vandalism, and they'll be fine here! Pesky (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hyhgux, please trout yourself a few times for not reading WP:OR properly and mishandling the situation. Blackmane (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point (or, at the very least, I need some more convincing.) I'm not disputing that this guy is a legitimate scientist. But, I would caution you all on giving too much weight to that fact. I could point you to at least half a dozen Nobel prize winning scientists who then went on to become fierce advocates on one form of pseudoscience or another. I'm not saying that's the case here, just that we can't simply rely on the fact that he's a professional in the field to conclude that his hypothesis holds any weight within the field.

I have searched on Google Scholar and I frankly am getting the impression that this is hypothesis has not been accepted by many in field. His work has not been cited by many others in the field, and I can find no references to "ZN-world theory" by anyone other than him. The language in the Wiki article also made me very skeptical of this. I mean: "The Zn-World theory of Armen Mulkidjanian is the most realistic. sophisticated extension and improvement of Wächtershäuser´s pyrite hypothesis." Really? Maybe it is, and I certainly am NOT an expert in this field (nor am I a scientist.) But, this sounds like self-promotion more than it sounds like science.JoelWhy (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"I have searched on Google Scholar and I frankly am getting the impression that this is hypothesis has not been accepted by many in field" - You are free to express scepticism of the hypothesis by providing reliable academic sources which refute it. But I would like to note that we do not remove information just because it's not true, we remove it if it is unsourced. The paragraphs that have been removed are clearly sourced reliably. —Dark 14:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, my hesitation to accept this is not whether it's true or not -- it's whether it's noteworthy. There are probably a million hypothesis related to abiogenesis (and every other major theory in the sciences.) We don't include all of them (even when sourced.) We include those which are noteworthy. If this is a hypothesis that is accepted by an insignificant fraction of those working in the field, it wouldn't be included. I'm not sure that this is the case, here, but based on my search into the issue, it sure seems that way. That being said, I really have no stake in this game. If I am wrong about that, I would be happy to support the addition.JoelWhy (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree the subsection could do with a little tightening up/rewriting for neutrality, but in a survey of hypotheses, one with as many references as this should be included. (And the edit was a nice clear explanation, in that respect very encyclopedic. I note that Google Scholar gives either 19 or 20 citations for the 2009 article, that the book only came out last year, and that the citations are all to reliable sources and involve more than one or two authors. The best person to explain why we should cover this hypothesis is Lankenau, but I think too much weight is being placed here on numbers at Google Scholar (and possibly also on Zn-world rather than Zinc world?) If it has good sources, it's not undue weight to mention it, and the sources are good. The onus is on someone who adds something to provide sources - but sources have been provided. I suggest that those who think it's being given undue weight condense it and tweak the wording. But IMO it's safely over the threshhold for inclusion. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - for my part, please understand that I had no problem at the outset w/ the proposed Lankenau *content* per se (others may however) - my own primary concern was *procedure* instead - that a discussion (& consensus if possible) of such (possibly COI?, possibly contentious?) material seemed indicated (appropriate? worthwhile?) - *before* actually adding such material to the main article - perhaps my related edit summary could have been clearer? - in any case - hope this present clarification helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the addition as COI - he's a co-author in what, 2 out of 7 cited works? Hence I cannot see a justification for submitting it here first rather than the normal BRD cycle, which starts with boldly adding it to the page. In any event, I'm not seeing a consensus forming for keeping it out, but indications that it should be tightened up a bit. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that WP:BRD may have worked in this instance after all - although the process could have gone better in some ways I would think - nonetheless, for my part, I have no objection for the material to be re-added to the main article - esp if there is consensus for this among others - in any regards - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I have accordingly reinstated the edit with Maxim's changes plus some phrasing changes to avoid undue weight, and corrections to the referencing in a couple of cases (ISBN, co-authors, etc.) I suggest further edits tweak it further; there seems no remaining objection to including it. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The last line of this Zn—World paragraph refering to his book for further reading should really be in Further reading section or a footnote. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 09:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I put it here, because these citations include the causal link between the Zn-world theory and the "protoribosome" (and beyond) published by Ada Yonath and colleagues (Davidovich, C., M. Belousoff, A. Bashan, and A. Yonath. 2009. The evolving ribosome: from non-coded peptide bond formation to sophisticated translation machinery. Res Microbiol 160:487-92.) That citation may be added as well - but matters may become too complex to be followed by the general reader.--93.204.95.180 (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)--Lankenau (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I had the same feeling that that amounted to an informational note, so I have made it into a long reference, and added that further citation to it. Anyone is of course welcome to revert that change. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)