This template is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Template:Origin of life is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Somehow it is not working for this article. I fixed redirect and yet, it doesn't work. Maybe the Miller-Urey article needs to be "refreshed" or updated in order for the template to work... I'll check back here a little later to see what is going on. -- Loukinho (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
All good. It works now. -- Loukinho (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Hydrothermal vents and the alkaline-spring hypothesis
I noticed the recent addition and deletion; although Spontaneous generation was proven wrong, it was the leading explanation of the origin of life for a very long time. I think it does have a place in this template if only for historical reasons. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
But it wasn't seen as 'the origin of life' at all. It was rather that some forms of life (like sponges) were so low that they continuously emerged from non-living matter, to which they were close. There was no concept of change (let alone the modern kind of evolution): species were static. There was no suggestion in that view of "life .. having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one" and that hence a single "origin" of that one form was even in question. So putting spontaneous generation into the template is a category error, it's just completely askew from being "a hypothesis" for a mechanism—it was explaining something different entirely. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk)
I agree. It was more an explanation of [inanimate] reproduction than the origin of all life. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)