![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Self-references_to_avoid, we cannot have an article refer to itself using terms such as "this article" - articles are not supposed to break the "fourth wall" and discuss the fact that they are an article, or use instructional MOS:NOTEs that specifically say things like "this article will do X, Y, and Z." -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
So, what we have here are the following added wiki-links:
matter,
Earth,
chemical elements,
hydrogen,
helium,
lithium,
atoms and
stars, as well as the
billion years ago moved from the middle of the section to the beginning. I would gladly hear your explicit opinions on why those links should be removed, besides the plain "overlinking" arguments, which are purely subjective and do not correspond with any
guidelines whatsoever. What do the guidelines tell us? A couple of things:
1) "An overlinked article contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly".
2) "A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from."
3) "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked: ... "
4) "The function of links is to clarify, not emphasize"
Needless to say that addition of the previously mentioned links does aid the reader's understanding, does help understand the article, does provide a pathway to the articles on the relevant topics and, as a consequence of the latter, does clarify the concept of abiogenesis. Moreover, absolutely nothing mentioned in the examples of the "things not to link" resembles the scientific terms such as the ones we're talking about. And, yes, you may argue people talk about "Earth", "matter", "hydrogen", "stars" and "chemical elements" every day, however, even if that is the case, use of these words in the scientific context demands the whole new level of definition clarity, as well as the clarity of understanding, which are provided by reading the corresponding articles.
I would also like to mention, none of those wiki-links are duplicated, so the formal reason for reverting these edits does not exist - these reversions are based solely on your value judgments about "overlinking". --
Nicholas Velasquez (
talk)
19:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a recent article in Nature that estimates the probabilities of self-replicating RNA spontaneously assembling somewhere in the universe for differently sized universes. ( [1]) It claims to give an explanation to the Fermi paradox. Should we refer to this? It got a fair amount of coverage on science news websites (like here), but none that I saw in regular media. -- Lambiam 05:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AFAIK there are three versions of abiogenesis: abiogenesis on planet Earth, abiogenesis elsewhere (panspermia) or abiogenesis by miracle (creationism). Panspermia simply refers to abiogenesis at another place, and creationism isn't a scientific hypothesis. Drawing the line, abiogenesis is uncontested. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
The very existence of this talk page on consensus simply demonstrates that this is NOT a topic without controversy. There are perfectly reasonable inferences to intelligent design, and to argue that the scope of your claim that science has no other conclusion therefore there is no other conclusion, precludes the possibility that there are scientists who also subscribe to intelligent design. I am one of them, so now that I have posted on this page, I will once more post my edits to the effect that this is a popular, but not uncontested theory. Glennfunk ( talk) 14:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I will just quote you and thank you for proving my point: "there is no other THEORY or hypothesis about the mechanics of the origin of life on Earth that is as robustly studied or thoroughly supported than Abiogenesis" Glennfunk ( talk) 15:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
It appears I have ruffled feathers around here as I am now being accused of warring with concensus. Is it wrong to call something a theory if it is acknowledged as such here? I just don't get why the word "theoretical" is being flagged as a weasel word when saying "the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontested among scientists" is allowed to remain. Again, if there are ANY scientists that disagree with this statement, then it is baldly false. Does anyone have a better way to reconcile this disagreement? I will try to play nicely. I would like to hope that there are fair editors out there. Glennfunk ( talk) 15:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Suggest that abiogenesis applies to all life, on earth or (possibly) elsewhere. Thus suggest first para goes;
"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter.
For life on earth, it is speculated that life arose from simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.[12]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCJC777 ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
For the interested, this section Creation_of_life_from_clay#In_science could use improvement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
It seems that the section "Early universe and Earth: astronomy and geology" mostly contains information which is related to, but not necessary for the description of abiogenesis. Should this section be removed or rewritten in terms of abiogensis? Pretentieux ( talk) 21:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
This article is impossible to navigate. Main points and side issues are not separated at all (which is most likely a by-product of WP:OR), making the overall structure very unclear and messy. I would say this article needs some real streamlining. Does anyone have some overview literature for this? TheBartgry ( talk) 08:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
It needs to be broken up or better organized. Too long to read. 2601:241:8D82:5750:D5C5:9D60:5609:B0B3 ( talk) 02:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)BeaMyra
I think the text for Mulkidjanian and co-authors is enough. Point 9.3 Zinc-world hypothesis with text for hypothesis of Mulkidjanian needs of edition.
8 Pertinent geological environments
8.1 Darwin's little pond
8.2 Volcanic hot springs and hydrothermal vents, shallow or deep
8.3 Deep sea hydrothermal vents
8.4 Fluctuating hydrothermal pools on volcanic islands or proto-continents
8.5 Volcanic ash in the ocean
8.6 Gold's deep-hot biosphere
8.7 Radioactive beach hypothesis
The proposal is to preserve the texts hear in point 8. Whole authors have reliable publications in index Copernicus, Web of Science and Scopus. There are proofs with stromatolites and hot mineral water in open lakes and hydrothermal vents.
I think the text for Mulkidjanian and co-authors is enough.
Point 9.3 Zinc-world hypothesis needs of edition.
Petrov Russia (
talk)
07:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This point 3 needs edition with direction origin of life.
3. Early universe and Earth: astronomy and geology
3.1 Early universe with first stars 3.2 Emergence of the Solar System 3.3 Emergence of Earth 3.4 Emergence of the ocean 3.5 Late heavy bombardment
Petrov Russia ( talk) 09:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
As noted in the template at the top, the article is very long right now. Some content that we may move away is the "Conceptual history until the 1960s: biology" section, as it deals with other hypothesis that have little or nothing to do with abiogenesis, such as spontaneous generation. We can move that content to an article with the history of the studies of the origin of life. Cambalachero ( talk) 21:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
According to the section "Definition of life", the question about the origin of life requires a common definition of what can be considered "life", and that there might be disputes about that. There are three quotes in that section. However, only the third one provides an actual and workable definition (metabolism, self-repair, and replication). The first one protests about the circular definition from dictionaries (that we should ignore anyway, as trivial for the context of this article), and the second does not define anything. However, if we simply remove both we would stay with just one definition, and that would contradict the premise of conflicting definitions of the concept of life. Are there other scientists that propose alternative definitions of life than the one of metabolism, self-repair, and replication? Cambalachero ( talk) 17:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Source: " Talk:Life/Archive 4#Definition of Life 2"
FWIW - Of Possible Interest - Seems Others Have Defined "Life" Similar To The One I Posted Earlier [ie, "'Life' (and/or 'Life-Forms'), At The Most Basic Level, Simply Seems To Be *A Chemical That Can Reproduce Itself*"] - There Are Several Examples: One Astronomer Phrases It As "matter that can reproduce itself and evolve as survival dictates" [1] (also, PDF-1 [2] and PDF-2); [3] Another Scientist As "a molecule that can reproduce itself" - I Have No Particular Investment In Such Definitions For Purposes Of The Main " Life" Article But Perhaps Such Thinking Might Be Considered To Some Extent? - In Any Regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 14:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC) - UPDATE -> Added A Brief Line Of Related Text (And Several References) To The Main Article. Drbogdan ( talk) 13:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
References
The concept of abiogenesis is clearly only at the rank of scientific hypothesis. It has never been empirically observed: no experiment or natural observation has demonstrated it. Because it has not been proven to be an existing or producible phenomenon, other, non/supernatural origins of life are logical candidates; the scientific process has been incapable of a demonstrable natural explanation. To exclude such non/supernatural origins of life is therefore scientifically illogical, and evidences not logic but emotional (pre-rational) judgment that another explanation is erroneous; this illogical judgment is contrary to scientific practice and an affront to science itself. It is belief/conjecture, or what is commonly called 'closemindedness'. Therefore, scientific inquiry necessarily mandates that abiogenesis be qualified as a hypothesis, which it clearly is. Being a hypothesis does not diminish its significance, but rather acknowledges the degree of scientific significance appropriate to it. Prestinius ( talk) 14:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
From a purely grammatical perspective, what is this jargon abbreviation doing in the lede? It's not used anywhere else in the article, except in one citation where it's also in parenthesis after the full term. It adds nothing to the understanding of abiogenesis, which is the purpose of an encyclopedia; it's superfluous jargon that should be avoided. I would have removed it, if not for the message to discuss changes the first sentence.
Ira
Ira Leviton ( talk) 16:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is not to change citation format without broad consensus, which there isn't. The article was written with "Smith, John" format for its entire history until this week, though some chemists had (probably accidentally) smuggled in six Vancouver citations. We should immediately revert to a last, first author format and convert the few v-refs to comply with that, not the other way around. I've noticed that same thing in other biology articles: it is an unacceptable breach of policy. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 12:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
This article is now well over 300,000 bytes, far longer even than behemoth articles like Napoleon; it is certainly one of the longest biology articles. The topic may be complex but we are not obliged to try to cover the whole thing in one article; complex subjects like Evolution are at the head of substantial trees of subsidiary articles.
The normal thing to do in such a situation is to provide {{main|...}} links to a set of subsidiary articles, covering the key subtopics, and then to summarize each of those "main" articles with a concise paragraph (or maybe two) and the key citations from those articles, so that the reader of the top-level article – this one – gets an acceptably short, clear overview of the whole topic, with equally clear guidance as to where to read more.
Instead, this article actually already contains 14 "main" links (a good start), but each of them is then accompanied by a long, rambling, and often highly technical discussion, complete with multiple competing theories cited (ahem) to primary sources, i.e. a wholly un-summarized, undigested Wiki-ramble accreted, if I may use the metaphor, by an evolutionary process which randomly proceeds at each step by modifying whatever was already there, opportunistically ... in other words, there is no discernible plan, and the top-level text randomly repeats and overlaps with a large number of other articles.
I suggest that we cut each section that has a "main" link down to a summary, in accordance with policy on "summary style", to create a shorter, more readable article that acknowledges it is part of a family of articles, rather than a stand-alone monster.
I'd also suggest that we make some effort to make the article easier to read. For example:
Despite the likely increased volcanism and existence of many smaller tectonic "platelets," it has been suggested that between 4.4 and 4.3 Gya, the Earth was a water world, with little if any continental crust, an extremely turbulent atmosphere and a hydrosphere subject to intense ultraviolet (UV) light, from a T Tauri stage Sun, cosmic radiation and continued bolide impacts.
runs to about 51 words (are numbers and acronyms words I wonder) with an elaborate clause structure, asides, and lists. It is only one of hundreds, picked at random. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Anomalocaris, Apokryltaros, Boghog, Chiswick Chap, Habil zare, Headbomb, Hemiauchenia, Jonesey95, McSly, Sunrise, Tgeorgescu, and Viriditas: - As before, please understand that I have no problem whatsoever improving the " Abiogenesis" article - including trimming the length - but perhaps the better way of improving the article may be by appropriate agreements with other editors rather than otherwise - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 04:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Cutting this in a subsection since the above seems more general. My impression is that pansperma could have a mention but if so, should remain contextualized as a minor speculative hypothesis in a single sentence at the end of the lead (that is already quite long, admitedly). — Paleo Neonate – 05:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I forgot to mention it but it's important: if it's mentioned, it should also be specified that diversification still happened on earth from unicellular life. — Paleo Neonate – 12:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
AFAIK atm - seems there was no " life" in the " very early universe" - and then there was life - on " planet Earth" at least - life may (or may not) have begun uniquely on Earth (" Terrestrial abiogenesis") - or elsewhere (" Extraterrestrial abiogenesis") and related to " Panspermia" - the notion of panspermia has been discussed numerous times in the archives of this " Abiogenesis" article - even somewhat recently (2018), there's been many authors (over 30) in a peer-reviewed study published in a reputable science journal (" WP:RS") [1] [2] who have presented the notion that life forms in the " Cambrian explosion" may have come from outer space - and not otherwise - this particular study seems fringe (" WP:Fringe") imo atm - nonetheless, perhaps panspermia itself - with many other even better " WP:RS" mentions in the responsible scientific literature [3] [4] [5] [6] - is worth an appropriate mention (at least) in the abiogenesis article? - including in the lead? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 11:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
References
"In addition, some scientists contend that abiogenesis was unnecessary, suggesting instead that life was introduced on Earth via collision with an extraterrestrial object harbouring living organisms, such as a meteorite carrying single-celled organisms; the hypothetical migration of life to Earth is known as panspermia."- and links the related "panspermism", not only to the "abiogenesis" article, but also to the "Svante-Arrhenius" article - an 18th century Swedish chemist who, according to the Britannica, "launched the hypothesis of panspermism" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 03:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
a valid argument to have this in the lead. If anything, the lack of emphasis given the topic rather argues the opposite. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
RECENTLY REVERTED TEXT IN LEAD
NOTE: " Panspermia" has been in the LEAD of the " Abiogenesis" article for at least the last eight years - from " at least 2014" to the most recent revert " 29 January 2022" - and has most recently been presented in the following way (see copy below): [ which seems *entirely* ok to be in the lead to me - added by Drbogdan ( talk) 19:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC) ]
Copied from " Abiogenesis version at 07:06, 29 January 2022"
"The alternative panspermia hypothesis [1] speculates that microscopic life arose outside Earth and spread to the early Earth on space dust [2] and meteoroids. [3] It is known that complex organic molecules occur in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth. [4] [5] [6] [7]"
References
- ^ Rampelotto, Pabulo Henrique (26 April 2010). Panspermia: A Promising Field of Research (PDF). Astrobiology Science Conference 2010. Houston, Texas: Lunar and Planetary Institute. p. 5224. Bibcode: 2010LPICo1538.5224R. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 March 2016. Retrieved 3 December 2014. Conference held at League City, TX
- ^ Berera, Arjun (6 November 2017). "Space dust collisions as a planetary escape mechanism". Astrobiology. 17 (12): 1274–1282. arXiv: 1711.01895. Bibcode: 2017AsBio..17.1274B. doi: 10.1089/ast.2017.1662. PMID 29148823. S2CID 126012488.
- ^ Chan, Queenie H.S. (10 January 2018). "Organic matter in extraterrestrial water-bearing salt crystals". Science Advances. 4 (1, eaao3521): eaao3521. Bibcode: 2018SciA....4.3521C. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aao3521. PMC 5770164. PMID 29349297.
- ^ Ehrenfreund, Pascale; Cami, Jan (December 2010). "Cosmic carbon chemistry: from the interstellar medium to the early Earth". Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology. 2 (12): a002097. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a002097. PMC 2982172. PMID 20554702.
- ^ Perkins, Sid (8 April 2015). "Organic molecules found circling nearby star". Science (News). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved 2 June 2015.
- ^ King, Anthony (14 April 2015). "Chemicals formed on meteorites may have started life on Earth". Chemistry World (News). London: Royal Society of Chemistry. Archived from the original on 17 April 2015. Retrieved 17 April 2015.
- ^ Saladino, Raffaele; Carota, Eleonora; Botta, Giorgia; et al. (13 April 2015). "Meteorite-catalyzed syntheses of nucleosides and of other prebiotic compounds from formamide under proton irradiation". PNAS. 112 (21): E2746–E2755. Bibcode: 2015PNAS..112E2746S. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1422225112. PMC 4450408. PMID 25870268.
Andrew J.; Fletcher, Stephen P. (2 December 2013). "Mechanisms of Autocatalysis cites Wikipedia which cites Fletcher. This is circular reasoning. For more see Stephen Meyer The Return of the God Hypothesis page 307 second paragraph. ScientistBuilder ( talk) 22:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
In the talk page it is stated that: "The occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, and there is ongoing research and competing hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred." >>>That alone is a statement that is very diffuse. Which scientists agree? Are there surveys and data that support this hypothesis?
Then it is stated that: "Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis. It is against Wikipedia policy for views without scientific support, such as all known objections to abiogenesis, to be included in a science article like Abiogenesis."
>>>My question is: In view of this statement, why is it okay to delete a section on a critical reception of the chemical evolution theories, based mainly on the scientific contribution of a professor of polymer chemistry and published in a highly recognised scientific publisher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Sloppy ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Copied below from the following => https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Abiogenesis&diff=1020675249&oldid=1020656503
My edit summary comments => "Rv edits - added text does not seem to be clearly supported by cited ref - please discuss on the talk-page for WP:CONSENSUS - per WP:BRD, WP:CITE, WP:NOR & related - thanks"
-- Criticism --The hypotheses on chemical evolution and especially their optimistic interpretation with regard to the clarification of the origin of life are partly viewed critically. For example, the german expert for polymer chemistry Prof. Hans R. Kricheldorf, after analyzing the current hypotheses on chemical evolution, comes to the following conclusion: "The numerous gaps in knowledge, negative results and counter-arguments, [...], make it difficult with the current state of knowledge to accept from a distanced, scientific point of view the former existence of a chemical evolution leading to life. Despite numerous advances, especially within the framework of the RNA-world hypothesis, the results available so far are by far not sufficient to sufficiently substantiate a chemical evolution up to living organisms." [1]
References
- ^ Kricheldorf, Hans R. (2019). Leben durch chemische Evolution?: Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme von Experimenten und Hypothesen (in German). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-57978-7. ISBN 978-3-662-57977-0.
My main concern at the moment is that the added text does not seem to be clearly supported by the cited reference - there may be other concerns as well (wording, balance, more?) that may also need to be considered before adding the text to the article - in any case - Comments Welcome from other editors (esp those familiar with German) - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 13:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, okay @Hob Gadling. I didn't know you had to have a certain status to contribute to Wikipedia. Can you perhaps give me a hint on how to achieve this? Is there anyone else who would like to discuss the content of the topic instead of discrediting the author or the scientific reference without knowing it? @Drbogdan: I appreciate your effort to prevent any unsubstantiated claims and unscientific assumptions about abiogenesis from appearing in this wiki article. However, you yourself write that you cannot judge the German source. This means to me that your main concern: "that the added text does not seem to be clearly supported by the cited reference", is merely that you cannot assess the source because of the language barrier. So I think your suggestion is great that other (German-speaking) editors take another look at the source. Until then, however, I would ask for impartiality, as this is a publication in a renowned scientific publishing house, which should contribute to critically questioning previous hypotheses and thus enable scientific progress in the field of abiogenesis (this goal is also formulated in the corresponding publication). From my point of view, this is exactly what science is all about: critically questioning and falsifying hypotheses. General rejections of such contributions and persons, such as in Hob Gadling's answer, I therefore find rather counterproductive at this point. Best regards, Joe Joe Sloppy ( talk) 12:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
a magic man done itisn't a scientific theory. And because panspermia simply means
abiogenesis elsewhere. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I *entirely* agree with all the editors above presenting concerns, as I have as well originally, about this material and reference(s) - seems the " WP:CONSENSUS" is clear => the proposed edit material (and related references) are not to be added to the main article - and for reasons that are very well described above by the editors challenging the proposed edit - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 06:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
It's nice to see that after so much back and forth, it's actually possible to discuss the content and the form on a factual level. Even if I'm a bit skeptical about statements like: "actually it's quite simple".
I understand TheBartgry's argument. However, what has also happened in the discussion so far reflects a general problem of this branch of research. If criticism is formulated, one is put into a religious or pseudo-scientific corner and no discussion comes about at all. In my opinion, however, such mechanisms are a major problem because they prevent critical thinking.
That's why I think it would be important, especially for a medium like Wikipedia with a large reach, to let critical voices have their say (as in most other Wikipedia articles, by the way).
If the editors are of the opinion (and I can understand this to a certain extent) that this rediscovery of a critical way of thinking in the field of abiogenesis must first reach the broad scientific community, this is ultimately a pity, but it is to be accepted.
However, I hope that at least those who have followed this discussion get a somewhat critical view and do not directly cover their eyes and ears with an automatism.
Best regards and thank you for an in the end still somewhat constructive discussion
Joe Sloppy (
talk)
21:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged.
Why does the section at the to with links to the archives only list Archives 1-3? (Which only contain discussions from 10 years ago and earlier)? It seems there are at least 7 pages of archives. I have no idea how to fix this..and sorry if this isn't the right place for posting this. Thanks 20:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirTramtryst ( talk • contribs)
The notion of life arising before the formation of Earh [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] may be worh considering for several reasons: a possible fully-biofunctional complex LUCA to have arisen de novo on the very early Earth [6] may simply be too complicated to have quickly occurred spontaneously, especially given the presumed timing (so quick after ocean formation [7] - according to biologist Stephen Blair Hedges, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth ... then it could be common in the universe". [8]), chemistry and terrestrial conditions/circumstances of the very early Earth - and may have arisen instead via of pseudo-panspermia, seemingly plausible on the basis of current findings and evidences, and/or via of the panspermia process (albeit currently considered a fringe notion, since there is lacking sufficient evidences at the moment) but, nonetheless, possibly originating on Mars, [9] for example, and involving a much more complex (and fully functional) bioentity (or even an actual microorganism) to start the evolutionary process later on Earth - in any case - Comments Welcome - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 02:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
References
@ Chiswick Chap: (and others): Of possible interest - Laurence A. Moran (Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto) commented recently (5/9/2022) on my Facebook Page regarding the new Wikipedia " Good Article" version of " Abiogenesis" (afaik) as follows:
"That's a pretty good article but I'd quibble with the simplistic view of
eukaryotes as a sister group of
archaea. The current consensus is that eukaryotes arose from a fusion of an
alphaproteobacterium and a relative of the
Asgard group of archaea. Both of these ancestors arose WITHIN their respective domains. Modern eukaryotes contain genes derived from both Eubacteria and Archaea with a slight majority tracing descent from the Eubacteria ancestor. This give rise to a "Ring of Life" phylogeny and represents the end of the
Three Domain Hypothesis. (
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-three-domain-hypothesis-rip.html )
"
Perhaps worth noting for those more knowledgeable about this than I am at the moment - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 12:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
There is some edit-warring about to happen over the inclusion of this article in Category:Events in biological evolution. Maxaxax and Chiswick Chap, please discuss this here, nobody would like things to go wrong so soon after this level-3 vital article became a GA. Please explain in a bit of detail your reasons for and against the inclusion in the category, and let's hope we can reach an agreement. Cambalachero ( talk) 17:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Since by definition abiogenesis is the pre-biological process that led to life, it is rather clear that it cannot properly be categorised as "biological evolution". Its name, indeed, means from not-life, not-bio. I do hope there will be no more attempts to miscategorise this article in this way. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Let's give a big hand to Chiswick Chap's dedicated efforts to tame this monstrosity. The current version has neat coherence and solid prioritization. A tremendous improvement on the previous situation. Full marks! TheBartgry ( talk) 21:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
While improving, two refs were deleted in the summary. The missing point tells me that the modifier did not see that these are TWO refs, and deleted the words between them. I restored these words, apparently omitted unintentionally: "and implosion of bubbles in sea and ocean waves." Netsivi ( talk) 23:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
May I suggest to reflect changes described in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrRxI_9cRM0&ab_channel=AntonPetrov and found in associated links to papers from its description, including https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/apr/diverse-life-forms-may-have-evolved-earlier-previously-thought ? Sleeditor ( talk) 15:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
FWIW - (For being aware only of newly published relevant studies - not necessarily to incorporate into the main article) - On 8 July 2022, astronomers reported the discovery of massive amounts of prebiotic molecules, including for RNA, in the galactic center of the Milky Way Galaxy. [1] [2]
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 22:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Supporters cite common name and primary topic, but the data proportions have come under fire for being likely to include irrelevant results. The opposers make strong points on WP:PRECISE, namely that the current title fits the article's scope (a specific theory of the origin of life) far better than the proposed title (a general concept with multiple pondered explanations). ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 04:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Abiogenesis → Origin of life – The term "Origin of life" is close to 100 times more commonly used than "Abiogenesis". "Origin of life" gets 176 million ghits, against 1.78 million for "Abiogenesis". Similarly, the Google books Ngram shows that "Origin of life" has always been far more widely used in printed sources; it is considerably older, starting in 1800 rather than around 1870, and its usage has resurged since 1995. In contrast, "Abiogenesis" was most popular around 1891, though still only at about 23% of "Origin of life", and most the time much less than that, for instance in 1980 it was at about 5% of "Origin of life". Google Scholar gives "Origin of life" some 116,000 hits, and "Abiogenesis" some 6,400. Thus both scientists and other authors concur in using "Origin of life" as their preferred term.
I therefore propose, per WP:COMMONNAME, that we move the article to "Origin of life". Chiswick Chap ( talk) 10:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 17:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc. talk 11:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I came across this today & thought it might be useful for someone to weave into the article.
Peaceray ( talk) 19:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
It would be helpful to include the origin of the word 'abiogenesis', namely "from a-‘not’ + Greek bios ‘life’ + genesis 'origin'" (see here). This would be naturally placed in the first sentence, but there is a warning not to change that without consulting on the talk page, so I am. Chris55 ( talk) 21:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if a dictionary can be used as a source. Cambalachero ( talk) 01:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
[... with: "Prebiotic synthesis of α-amino acids and orotate from α-ketoacids potentiates transition to extant metabolic pathways" & a section/article structured sequentially for integration of notable study results]
I think it may be good to add at least very brief info from/about this study and/or similar articles to the article. It's currently featured in 2022 in science like so:
Scientists report the discovery of chemical reactions by potential primordial soup components that produced amino acids and may be part of the origin of life on Earth. [1] [2]
Moreover, info about abiogenesis is missing over at amino acid.
Maybe it would be good to add such studies (and you can search the year in science articles for abiogenesis-related items; examples below) to a timeline at History of research into the origin of life which is missing newer info (but also didn't get many reads so far).
Alternatively, maybe it would be possible to structure an article or section so that such studies can be integrated in a sequential/chronological order that shows which potential steps of abiogenesis have e.g. been demonstrated in the lab, basically like emergence of first suitable conditions->amino acids->RNA world->proteins->simple life->complex life (when things may have occurred in parallel or other theories suggest another step, there can be subsections).
Two more examples of relevant studies that could be included there from "2022 in science":
Scientists report evolution experiments of self-replicating RNA showing a segment of how life may have emerged on Earth ( abiogenesis) e.g. from RNA world conditions – from the long self-replicating RNA chemicals to diverse complex molecules. [3] [4]
Scientists close a missing link in the potential origin of life from a RNA world – synergistic formation of peptides and ever-longer RNAs or peptide-decorated RNA, leading to a protein world. [5] [6]
References
Prototyperspective ( talk) 17:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Hemolithin (newly named Hemoglycin) - first polymer of amino acids found in meteorites - somewhat newly studied, and presented as a well-sourced Wikipedia article - and - which may (or may not) be relevant to the abiogenesis article - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 13:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I think that for the Greek a a better translation would be "without" as opposed to "not" the reason being is that we are looking at the origin of life without life, i.e. from the physical, chemical world. Halfcreek ( talk) 22:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Under Q2 section, of this talk page, in actual question, change the word "theory" to "hypothesys by itself" then answer it. 89.249.108.117 ( talk) 13:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I think the article makes it clear that abiogenesis is the general description of how life arises in any circumstance. Not just the single event that created our particular strain of life on our planet. I.e. if life starts on the moon, or in a petri-dish, or on a planet far far away, it will still be 'abiogenesis' so past tense in the lead is not appropriate. Past tense to refer to life arising on earth makes sense, but not in the definition in the lead sentence.
Propose change:
In
biology, abiogenesis (from a- 'not' + Greek bios 'life' + genesis 'origin') or the origin of life is the
natural process by which
life has arisenarises from non-living matter, such as simple
organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event
User:Chiswick_Chap you reverted this but it was intentional!
JeffUK ( talk) 09:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
FWIW - seems this discussion may be similar in some ways to an earlier one (ie," Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 7#Panspermia in the lead" re " Panspermia" - incidentally - and possibly relevant to this current discussion - the notion of [" Terrestrial abiogenesis"] - or - origin of life elsewhere [" Extraterrestrial abiogenesis"] has been noted in the " earlier discussion") - nonetheless - the concern seems to be => is the " Abiogenesis" article about abiogenesis in general (perhaps to include panspermia?) or specific only to the " origin of life" on planet Earth - I would think in general, but understand that panspermia (and other possible forms of abiogenesis not related to life on Earth) may be considered " WP:FRINGE" (see earlier discussions in the abiogenesis archives) and perhaps may limit the scope of the Abiogenesis article for that reason - perhaps worth a further consideration? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 14:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
For FYI only - not for serious consideration to be included in the main " Abiogenesis" article - an updated article, " Hemoglycin" [1] [2] [3] [4] (formerly, " Hemolithin"), a space polymer that is the first polymer of amino acids found in meteorites, has been created - the newly created article contains recent references from " WP:RS" - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !!
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 18:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
FWIW - recent worthy article [1] about " protoribosomes" from the Journal " Nature" of possible consideration? - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 22:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 22:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Life Before Earth has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26 § Life Before Earth until a consensus is reached.
An anonymous username, not my real name
01:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Abiogenesis has never been observed and while competing theories are highly questionable, this entry would benefit from a section clearly discussing the current shortfalls in abiogenetic theories of life's origin (of which there are many). 128.40.96.125 ( talk) 14:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Is the following edit (or related) worth adding to the main Abiogenesis article?
Another strategy to understand abiogenesis may involve
electron transport chains in "bottom-up" (based on chemistries related to the prebiotic Earth) and "top-down" (based on chemistries related to current lifeforms) studies, according to biologists.
[1]
In any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 17:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
References
An editor has inserted a chapter on this aspect of life, but Abiogenesis is a process, and the question of what life is defined as is no part of this article. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 22:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Currently, the total number of living cells on the Earth is estimated to be 1030; the total number since the beginning of Earth, as 1040, and the total number for the entire time of a habitable planet Earth as 1041. [1] [2] This is much larger than the total number of estimated stars (and Earth-like planets) in the observable universe as 1024, a number which is more than all the grains of beach sand on planet Earth; [3] [4] [5] [6] but less than the total number of atoms estimated in the observable universe as 1082; [7] and the estimated total number of stars in an inflationary universe (observed and unobserved), as 10100. [8]
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 15:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 September 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Brinaluvsrocks (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
HaskelleTW.
— Assignment last updated by HaskelleTW ( talk) 22:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
A student has today inserted a large amount of material and cut a substantial amount of existing stuff, for a total change of +20,000 bytes or around 10%. Students are likely to be correct about recent facts and scientific papers; they are less likely to be right about balance, formatting, repetition, and the appropriate home for different sorts of information. This article is at the top of a tree of articles on origin of life topics, so it should only contain a brief summary of each subtopic; any sizeable additions should be scanned to identify what should remain up here and what should be hived off to new or existing "main" or "further" articles, many of which are already linked in the article. Any suitably informed and skilled help filtering the "new" material, and indeed checking that the deleted materials were appropriately removed, would be much appreciated. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 21:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
NOTE: May not be worth addng to the main abiogensis article, but perhaps worth being aware of the latest related news about life chemicals found in other parts of the solar system?
On 14 December 2023, astronomers reported the first time discovery, in the plumes of Enceladus, moon of the planet Saturn, of hydrogen cyanide, a possible chemical essential for life [1] as we know it, as well as other organic molecules, some of which are yet to be better identified and understood. According to the researchers, "these [newly discovered] compounds could potentially support extant microbial communities or drive complex organic synthesis leading to the origin of life." [2] [3]
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 16:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
If organic compounds thrown together and organizing themselves into living systems is the hypothesis, then where does the instinct of Self-preservation come from? The first living thing cannot have been indifferent toward returning to a non-living state, otherwise none of the marvelous later developments in the complexity and diversity of life could ever have been made. There is a preference for being alive which seems key to abiogenesis just as it pervades all of biology. How would organic compounds awaken to the fact that they are now alive and form an opinion that death is to be avoided? See the hard problem of consciousness I guess. 73.51.218.241 ( talk) 10:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Possibly worthy studies? => On 10 January 2024, chemists reported studies finding that long-chain fatty acids were produced in ancient hydrothermal vents. Such fatty acids may have contributed to the formation of the first cell membranes that are fundamental to protocells and the origin of life. [1]
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 01:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not trying to help the creationist vandals of this article, but this article opens with a statement about how abiogenesis occured. Andndoes so as if the explanation given is a statement of fact and not just a statement of one of any different theories of abiogenesis. That's all I wanted to add. Even abiogensis is theoretical, but it's being treated as observed fact. 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:67 ( talk) 17:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
As this is a usual thing to clarify, I started the essay Wikipedia:Theory, to define in a few words concepts like "theory", "hypothesis", "fact", "law", etc, how they relate to each other and the differences between each of them. The Wikipedia article is fine, but it may be a bit too complex for that, and the comparison of scientific ideas would be a bit out of place. Cambalachero ( talk) 19:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
A review by scientist Denis Noble of a new book entitled " How Life Works: A User’s Guide to the New Biology" (2023) by Philip Ball (editor of the journal Nature) may be worth considering? [1] - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 04:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 04:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Recent studies [1] [2] seem to support the hypothesis that life may have begun in a shallow lake rather than otherwise - perhaps somewhat like a " warm little pond" originally proposed by Charles Darwin? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 20:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 20:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Self-references_to_avoid, we cannot have an article refer to itself using terms such as "this article" - articles are not supposed to break the "fourth wall" and discuss the fact that they are an article, or use instructional MOS:NOTEs that specifically say things like "this article will do X, Y, and Z." -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
So, what we have here are the following added wiki-links:
matter,
Earth,
chemical elements,
hydrogen,
helium,
lithium,
atoms and
stars, as well as the
billion years ago moved from the middle of the section to the beginning. I would gladly hear your explicit opinions on why those links should be removed, besides the plain "overlinking" arguments, which are purely subjective and do not correspond with any
guidelines whatsoever. What do the guidelines tell us? A couple of things:
1) "An overlinked article contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly".
2) "A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from."
3) "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked: ... "
4) "The function of links is to clarify, not emphasize"
Needless to say that addition of the previously mentioned links does aid the reader's understanding, does help understand the article, does provide a pathway to the articles on the relevant topics and, as a consequence of the latter, does clarify the concept of abiogenesis. Moreover, absolutely nothing mentioned in the examples of the "things not to link" resembles the scientific terms such as the ones we're talking about. And, yes, you may argue people talk about "Earth", "matter", "hydrogen", "stars" and "chemical elements" every day, however, even if that is the case, use of these words in the scientific context demands the whole new level of definition clarity, as well as the clarity of understanding, which are provided by reading the corresponding articles.
I would also like to mention, none of those wiki-links are duplicated, so the formal reason for reverting these edits does not exist - these reversions are based solely on your value judgments about "overlinking". --
Nicholas Velasquez (
talk)
19:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a recent article in Nature that estimates the probabilities of self-replicating RNA spontaneously assembling somewhere in the universe for differently sized universes. ( [1]) It claims to give an explanation to the Fermi paradox. Should we refer to this? It got a fair amount of coverage on science news websites (like here), but none that I saw in regular media. -- Lambiam 05:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AFAIK there are three versions of abiogenesis: abiogenesis on planet Earth, abiogenesis elsewhere (panspermia) or abiogenesis by miracle (creationism). Panspermia simply refers to abiogenesis at another place, and creationism isn't a scientific hypothesis. Drawing the line, abiogenesis is uncontested. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
The very existence of this talk page on consensus simply demonstrates that this is NOT a topic without controversy. There are perfectly reasonable inferences to intelligent design, and to argue that the scope of your claim that science has no other conclusion therefore there is no other conclusion, precludes the possibility that there are scientists who also subscribe to intelligent design. I am one of them, so now that I have posted on this page, I will once more post my edits to the effect that this is a popular, but not uncontested theory. Glennfunk ( talk) 14:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I will just quote you and thank you for proving my point: "there is no other THEORY or hypothesis about the mechanics of the origin of life on Earth that is as robustly studied or thoroughly supported than Abiogenesis" Glennfunk ( talk) 15:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
It appears I have ruffled feathers around here as I am now being accused of warring with concensus. Is it wrong to call something a theory if it is acknowledged as such here? I just don't get why the word "theoretical" is being flagged as a weasel word when saying "the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontested among scientists" is allowed to remain. Again, if there are ANY scientists that disagree with this statement, then it is baldly false. Does anyone have a better way to reconcile this disagreement? I will try to play nicely. I would like to hope that there are fair editors out there. Glennfunk ( talk) 15:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Suggest that abiogenesis applies to all life, on earth or (possibly) elsewhere. Thus suggest first para goes;
"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter.
For life on earth, it is speculated that life arose from simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.[12]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCJC777 ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
For the interested, this section Creation_of_life_from_clay#In_science could use improvement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
It seems that the section "Early universe and Earth: astronomy and geology" mostly contains information which is related to, but not necessary for the description of abiogenesis. Should this section be removed or rewritten in terms of abiogensis? Pretentieux ( talk) 21:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
This article is impossible to navigate. Main points and side issues are not separated at all (which is most likely a by-product of WP:OR), making the overall structure very unclear and messy. I would say this article needs some real streamlining. Does anyone have some overview literature for this? TheBartgry ( talk) 08:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
It needs to be broken up or better organized. Too long to read. 2601:241:8D82:5750:D5C5:9D60:5609:B0B3 ( talk) 02:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)BeaMyra
I think the text for Mulkidjanian and co-authors is enough. Point 9.3 Zinc-world hypothesis with text for hypothesis of Mulkidjanian needs of edition.
8 Pertinent geological environments
8.1 Darwin's little pond
8.2 Volcanic hot springs and hydrothermal vents, shallow or deep
8.3 Deep sea hydrothermal vents
8.4 Fluctuating hydrothermal pools on volcanic islands or proto-continents
8.5 Volcanic ash in the ocean
8.6 Gold's deep-hot biosphere
8.7 Radioactive beach hypothesis
The proposal is to preserve the texts hear in point 8. Whole authors have reliable publications in index Copernicus, Web of Science and Scopus. There are proofs with stromatolites and hot mineral water in open lakes and hydrothermal vents.
I think the text for Mulkidjanian and co-authors is enough.
Point 9.3 Zinc-world hypothesis needs of edition.
Petrov Russia (
talk)
07:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This point 3 needs edition with direction origin of life.
3. Early universe and Earth: astronomy and geology
3.1 Early universe with first stars 3.2 Emergence of the Solar System 3.3 Emergence of Earth 3.4 Emergence of the ocean 3.5 Late heavy bombardment
Petrov Russia ( talk) 09:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
As noted in the template at the top, the article is very long right now. Some content that we may move away is the "Conceptual history until the 1960s: biology" section, as it deals with other hypothesis that have little or nothing to do with abiogenesis, such as spontaneous generation. We can move that content to an article with the history of the studies of the origin of life. Cambalachero ( talk) 21:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
According to the section "Definition of life", the question about the origin of life requires a common definition of what can be considered "life", and that there might be disputes about that. There are three quotes in that section. However, only the third one provides an actual and workable definition (metabolism, self-repair, and replication). The first one protests about the circular definition from dictionaries (that we should ignore anyway, as trivial for the context of this article), and the second does not define anything. However, if we simply remove both we would stay with just one definition, and that would contradict the premise of conflicting definitions of the concept of life. Are there other scientists that propose alternative definitions of life than the one of metabolism, self-repair, and replication? Cambalachero ( talk) 17:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Source: " Talk:Life/Archive 4#Definition of Life 2"
FWIW - Of Possible Interest - Seems Others Have Defined "Life" Similar To The One I Posted Earlier [ie, "'Life' (and/or 'Life-Forms'), At The Most Basic Level, Simply Seems To Be *A Chemical That Can Reproduce Itself*"] - There Are Several Examples: One Astronomer Phrases It As "matter that can reproduce itself and evolve as survival dictates" [1] (also, PDF-1 [2] and PDF-2); [3] Another Scientist As "a molecule that can reproduce itself" - I Have No Particular Investment In Such Definitions For Purposes Of The Main " Life" Article But Perhaps Such Thinking Might Be Considered To Some Extent? - In Any Regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 14:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC) - UPDATE -> Added A Brief Line Of Related Text (And Several References) To The Main Article. Drbogdan ( talk) 13:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
References
The concept of abiogenesis is clearly only at the rank of scientific hypothesis. It has never been empirically observed: no experiment or natural observation has demonstrated it. Because it has not been proven to be an existing or producible phenomenon, other, non/supernatural origins of life are logical candidates; the scientific process has been incapable of a demonstrable natural explanation. To exclude such non/supernatural origins of life is therefore scientifically illogical, and evidences not logic but emotional (pre-rational) judgment that another explanation is erroneous; this illogical judgment is contrary to scientific practice and an affront to science itself. It is belief/conjecture, or what is commonly called 'closemindedness'. Therefore, scientific inquiry necessarily mandates that abiogenesis be qualified as a hypothesis, which it clearly is. Being a hypothesis does not diminish its significance, but rather acknowledges the degree of scientific significance appropriate to it. Prestinius ( talk) 14:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
From a purely grammatical perspective, what is this jargon abbreviation doing in the lede? It's not used anywhere else in the article, except in one citation where it's also in parenthesis after the full term. It adds nothing to the understanding of abiogenesis, which is the purpose of an encyclopedia; it's superfluous jargon that should be avoided. I would have removed it, if not for the message to discuss changes the first sentence.
Ira
Ira Leviton ( talk) 16:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is not to change citation format without broad consensus, which there isn't. The article was written with "Smith, John" format for its entire history until this week, though some chemists had (probably accidentally) smuggled in six Vancouver citations. We should immediately revert to a last, first author format and convert the few v-refs to comply with that, not the other way around. I've noticed that same thing in other biology articles: it is an unacceptable breach of policy. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 12:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
This article is now well over 300,000 bytes, far longer even than behemoth articles like Napoleon; it is certainly one of the longest biology articles. The topic may be complex but we are not obliged to try to cover the whole thing in one article; complex subjects like Evolution are at the head of substantial trees of subsidiary articles.
The normal thing to do in such a situation is to provide {{main|...}} links to a set of subsidiary articles, covering the key subtopics, and then to summarize each of those "main" articles with a concise paragraph (or maybe two) and the key citations from those articles, so that the reader of the top-level article – this one – gets an acceptably short, clear overview of the whole topic, with equally clear guidance as to where to read more.
Instead, this article actually already contains 14 "main" links (a good start), but each of them is then accompanied by a long, rambling, and often highly technical discussion, complete with multiple competing theories cited (ahem) to primary sources, i.e. a wholly un-summarized, undigested Wiki-ramble accreted, if I may use the metaphor, by an evolutionary process which randomly proceeds at each step by modifying whatever was already there, opportunistically ... in other words, there is no discernible plan, and the top-level text randomly repeats and overlaps with a large number of other articles.
I suggest that we cut each section that has a "main" link down to a summary, in accordance with policy on "summary style", to create a shorter, more readable article that acknowledges it is part of a family of articles, rather than a stand-alone monster.
I'd also suggest that we make some effort to make the article easier to read. For example:
Despite the likely increased volcanism and existence of many smaller tectonic "platelets," it has been suggested that between 4.4 and 4.3 Gya, the Earth was a water world, with little if any continental crust, an extremely turbulent atmosphere and a hydrosphere subject to intense ultraviolet (UV) light, from a T Tauri stage Sun, cosmic radiation and continued bolide impacts.
runs to about 51 words (are numbers and acronyms words I wonder) with an elaborate clause structure, asides, and lists. It is only one of hundreds, picked at random. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Anomalocaris, Apokryltaros, Boghog, Chiswick Chap, Habil zare, Headbomb, Hemiauchenia, Jonesey95, McSly, Sunrise, Tgeorgescu, and Viriditas: - As before, please understand that I have no problem whatsoever improving the " Abiogenesis" article - including trimming the length - but perhaps the better way of improving the article may be by appropriate agreements with other editors rather than otherwise - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 04:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Cutting this in a subsection since the above seems more general. My impression is that pansperma could have a mention but if so, should remain contextualized as a minor speculative hypothesis in a single sentence at the end of the lead (that is already quite long, admitedly). — Paleo Neonate – 05:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I forgot to mention it but it's important: if it's mentioned, it should also be specified that diversification still happened on earth from unicellular life. — Paleo Neonate – 12:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
AFAIK atm - seems there was no " life" in the " very early universe" - and then there was life - on " planet Earth" at least - life may (or may not) have begun uniquely on Earth (" Terrestrial abiogenesis") - or elsewhere (" Extraterrestrial abiogenesis") and related to " Panspermia" - the notion of panspermia has been discussed numerous times in the archives of this " Abiogenesis" article - even somewhat recently (2018), there's been many authors (over 30) in a peer-reviewed study published in a reputable science journal (" WP:RS") [1] [2] who have presented the notion that life forms in the " Cambrian explosion" may have come from outer space - and not otherwise - this particular study seems fringe (" WP:Fringe") imo atm - nonetheless, perhaps panspermia itself - with many other even better " WP:RS" mentions in the responsible scientific literature [3] [4] [5] [6] - is worth an appropriate mention (at least) in the abiogenesis article? - including in the lead? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 11:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
References
"In addition, some scientists contend that abiogenesis was unnecessary, suggesting instead that life was introduced on Earth via collision with an extraterrestrial object harbouring living organisms, such as a meteorite carrying single-celled organisms; the hypothetical migration of life to Earth is known as panspermia."- and links the related "panspermism", not only to the "abiogenesis" article, but also to the "Svante-Arrhenius" article - an 18th century Swedish chemist who, according to the Britannica, "launched the hypothesis of panspermism" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 03:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
a valid argument to have this in the lead. If anything, the lack of emphasis given the topic rather argues the opposite. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
RECENTLY REVERTED TEXT IN LEAD
NOTE: " Panspermia" has been in the LEAD of the " Abiogenesis" article for at least the last eight years - from " at least 2014" to the most recent revert " 29 January 2022" - and has most recently been presented in the following way (see copy below): [ which seems *entirely* ok to be in the lead to me - added by Drbogdan ( talk) 19:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC) ]
Copied from " Abiogenesis version at 07:06, 29 January 2022"
"The alternative panspermia hypothesis [1] speculates that microscopic life arose outside Earth and spread to the early Earth on space dust [2] and meteoroids. [3] It is known that complex organic molecules occur in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth. [4] [5] [6] [7]"
References
- ^ Rampelotto, Pabulo Henrique (26 April 2010). Panspermia: A Promising Field of Research (PDF). Astrobiology Science Conference 2010. Houston, Texas: Lunar and Planetary Institute. p. 5224. Bibcode: 2010LPICo1538.5224R. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 March 2016. Retrieved 3 December 2014. Conference held at League City, TX
- ^ Berera, Arjun (6 November 2017). "Space dust collisions as a planetary escape mechanism". Astrobiology. 17 (12): 1274–1282. arXiv: 1711.01895. Bibcode: 2017AsBio..17.1274B. doi: 10.1089/ast.2017.1662. PMID 29148823. S2CID 126012488.
- ^ Chan, Queenie H.S. (10 January 2018). "Organic matter in extraterrestrial water-bearing salt crystals". Science Advances. 4 (1, eaao3521): eaao3521. Bibcode: 2018SciA....4.3521C. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aao3521. PMC 5770164. PMID 29349297.
- ^ Ehrenfreund, Pascale; Cami, Jan (December 2010). "Cosmic carbon chemistry: from the interstellar medium to the early Earth". Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology. 2 (12): a002097. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a002097. PMC 2982172. PMID 20554702.
- ^ Perkins, Sid (8 April 2015). "Organic molecules found circling nearby star". Science (News). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved 2 June 2015.
- ^ King, Anthony (14 April 2015). "Chemicals formed on meteorites may have started life on Earth". Chemistry World (News). London: Royal Society of Chemistry. Archived from the original on 17 April 2015. Retrieved 17 April 2015.
- ^ Saladino, Raffaele; Carota, Eleonora; Botta, Giorgia; et al. (13 April 2015). "Meteorite-catalyzed syntheses of nucleosides and of other prebiotic compounds from formamide under proton irradiation". PNAS. 112 (21): E2746–E2755. Bibcode: 2015PNAS..112E2746S. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1422225112. PMC 4450408. PMID 25870268.
Andrew J.; Fletcher, Stephen P. (2 December 2013). "Mechanisms of Autocatalysis cites Wikipedia which cites Fletcher. This is circular reasoning. For more see Stephen Meyer The Return of the God Hypothesis page 307 second paragraph. ScientistBuilder ( talk) 22:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
In the talk page it is stated that: "The occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, and there is ongoing research and competing hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred." >>>That alone is a statement that is very diffuse. Which scientists agree? Are there surveys and data that support this hypothesis?
Then it is stated that: "Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis. It is against Wikipedia policy for views without scientific support, such as all known objections to abiogenesis, to be included in a science article like Abiogenesis."
>>>My question is: In view of this statement, why is it okay to delete a section on a critical reception of the chemical evolution theories, based mainly on the scientific contribution of a professor of polymer chemistry and published in a highly recognised scientific publisher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Sloppy ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Copied below from the following => https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Abiogenesis&diff=1020675249&oldid=1020656503
My edit summary comments => "Rv edits - added text does not seem to be clearly supported by cited ref - please discuss on the talk-page for WP:CONSENSUS - per WP:BRD, WP:CITE, WP:NOR & related - thanks"
-- Criticism --The hypotheses on chemical evolution and especially their optimistic interpretation with regard to the clarification of the origin of life are partly viewed critically. For example, the german expert for polymer chemistry Prof. Hans R. Kricheldorf, after analyzing the current hypotheses on chemical evolution, comes to the following conclusion: "The numerous gaps in knowledge, negative results and counter-arguments, [...], make it difficult with the current state of knowledge to accept from a distanced, scientific point of view the former existence of a chemical evolution leading to life. Despite numerous advances, especially within the framework of the RNA-world hypothesis, the results available so far are by far not sufficient to sufficiently substantiate a chemical evolution up to living organisms." [1]
References
- ^ Kricheldorf, Hans R. (2019). Leben durch chemische Evolution?: Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme von Experimenten und Hypothesen (in German). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-57978-7. ISBN 978-3-662-57977-0.
My main concern at the moment is that the added text does not seem to be clearly supported by the cited reference - there may be other concerns as well (wording, balance, more?) that may also need to be considered before adding the text to the article - in any case - Comments Welcome from other editors (esp those familiar with German) - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 13:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, okay @Hob Gadling. I didn't know you had to have a certain status to contribute to Wikipedia. Can you perhaps give me a hint on how to achieve this? Is there anyone else who would like to discuss the content of the topic instead of discrediting the author or the scientific reference without knowing it? @Drbogdan: I appreciate your effort to prevent any unsubstantiated claims and unscientific assumptions about abiogenesis from appearing in this wiki article. However, you yourself write that you cannot judge the German source. This means to me that your main concern: "that the added text does not seem to be clearly supported by the cited reference", is merely that you cannot assess the source because of the language barrier. So I think your suggestion is great that other (German-speaking) editors take another look at the source. Until then, however, I would ask for impartiality, as this is a publication in a renowned scientific publishing house, which should contribute to critically questioning previous hypotheses and thus enable scientific progress in the field of abiogenesis (this goal is also formulated in the corresponding publication). From my point of view, this is exactly what science is all about: critically questioning and falsifying hypotheses. General rejections of such contributions and persons, such as in Hob Gadling's answer, I therefore find rather counterproductive at this point. Best regards, Joe Joe Sloppy ( talk) 12:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
a magic man done itisn't a scientific theory. And because panspermia simply means
abiogenesis elsewhere. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I *entirely* agree with all the editors above presenting concerns, as I have as well originally, about this material and reference(s) - seems the " WP:CONSENSUS" is clear => the proposed edit material (and related references) are not to be added to the main article - and for reasons that are very well described above by the editors challenging the proposed edit - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 06:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
It's nice to see that after so much back and forth, it's actually possible to discuss the content and the form on a factual level. Even if I'm a bit skeptical about statements like: "actually it's quite simple".
I understand TheBartgry's argument. However, what has also happened in the discussion so far reflects a general problem of this branch of research. If criticism is formulated, one is put into a religious or pseudo-scientific corner and no discussion comes about at all. In my opinion, however, such mechanisms are a major problem because they prevent critical thinking.
That's why I think it would be important, especially for a medium like Wikipedia with a large reach, to let critical voices have their say (as in most other Wikipedia articles, by the way).
If the editors are of the opinion (and I can understand this to a certain extent) that this rediscovery of a critical way of thinking in the field of abiogenesis must first reach the broad scientific community, this is ultimately a pity, but it is to be accepted.
However, I hope that at least those who have followed this discussion get a somewhat critical view and do not directly cover their eyes and ears with an automatism.
Best regards and thank you for an in the end still somewhat constructive discussion
Joe Sloppy (
talk)
21:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged.
Why does the section at the to with links to the archives only list Archives 1-3? (Which only contain discussions from 10 years ago and earlier)? It seems there are at least 7 pages of archives. I have no idea how to fix this..and sorry if this isn't the right place for posting this. Thanks 20:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirTramtryst ( talk • contribs)
The notion of life arising before the formation of Earh [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] may be worh considering for several reasons: a possible fully-biofunctional complex LUCA to have arisen de novo on the very early Earth [6] may simply be too complicated to have quickly occurred spontaneously, especially given the presumed timing (so quick after ocean formation [7] - according to biologist Stephen Blair Hedges, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth ... then it could be common in the universe". [8]), chemistry and terrestrial conditions/circumstances of the very early Earth - and may have arisen instead via of pseudo-panspermia, seemingly plausible on the basis of current findings and evidences, and/or via of the panspermia process (albeit currently considered a fringe notion, since there is lacking sufficient evidences at the moment) but, nonetheless, possibly originating on Mars, [9] for example, and involving a much more complex (and fully functional) bioentity (or even an actual microorganism) to start the evolutionary process later on Earth - in any case - Comments Welcome - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 02:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
References
@ Chiswick Chap: (and others): Of possible interest - Laurence A. Moran (Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto) commented recently (5/9/2022) on my Facebook Page regarding the new Wikipedia " Good Article" version of " Abiogenesis" (afaik) as follows:
"That's a pretty good article but I'd quibble with the simplistic view of
eukaryotes as a sister group of
archaea. The current consensus is that eukaryotes arose from a fusion of an
alphaproteobacterium and a relative of the
Asgard group of archaea. Both of these ancestors arose WITHIN their respective domains. Modern eukaryotes contain genes derived from both Eubacteria and Archaea with a slight majority tracing descent from the Eubacteria ancestor. This give rise to a "Ring of Life" phylogeny and represents the end of the
Three Domain Hypothesis. (
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-three-domain-hypothesis-rip.html )
"
Perhaps worth noting for those more knowledgeable about this than I am at the moment - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 12:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
There is some edit-warring about to happen over the inclusion of this article in Category:Events in biological evolution. Maxaxax and Chiswick Chap, please discuss this here, nobody would like things to go wrong so soon after this level-3 vital article became a GA. Please explain in a bit of detail your reasons for and against the inclusion in the category, and let's hope we can reach an agreement. Cambalachero ( talk) 17:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Since by definition abiogenesis is the pre-biological process that led to life, it is rather clear that it cannot properly be categorised as "biological evolution". Its name, indeed, means from not-life, not-bio. I do hope there will be no more attempts to miscategorise this article in this way. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Let's give a big hand to Chiswick Chap's dedicated efforts to tame this monstrosity. The current version has neat coherence and solid prioritization. A tremendous improvement on the previous situation. Full marks! TheBartgry ( talk) 21:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
While improving, two refs were deleted in the summary. The missing point tells me that the modifier did not see that these are TWO refs, and deleted the words between them. I restored these words, apparently omitted unintentionally: "and implosion of bubbles in sea and ocean waves." Netsivi ( talk) 23:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
May I suggest to reflect changes described in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrRxI_9cRM0&ab_channel=AntonPetrov and found in associated links to papers from its description, including https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/apr/diverse-life-forms-may-have-evolved-earlier-previously-thought ? Sleeditor ( talk) 15:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
FWIW - (For being aware only of newly published relevant studies - not necessarily to incorporate into the main article) - On 8 July 2022, astronomers reported the discovery of massive amounts of prebiotic molecules, including for RNA, in the galactic center of the Milky Way Galaxy. [1] [2]
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 22:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Supporters cite common name and primary topic, but the data proportions have come under fire for being likely to include irrelevant results. The opposers make strong points on WP:PRECISE, namely that the current title fits the article's scope (a specific theory of the origin of life) far better than the proposed title (a general concept with multiple pondered explanations). ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 04:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Abiogenesis → Origin of life – The term "Origin of life" is close to 100 times more commonly used than "Abiogenesis". "Origin of life" gets 176 million ghits, against 1.78 million for "Abiogenesis". Similarly, the Google books Ngram shows that "Origin of life" has always been far more widely used in printed sources; it is considerably older, starting in 1800 rather than around 1870, and its usage has resurged since 1995. In contrast, "Abiogenesis" was most popular around 1891, though still only at about 23% of "Origin of life", and most the time much less than that, for instance in 1980 it was at about 5% of "Origin of life". Google Scholar gives "Origin of life" some 116,000 hits, and "Abiogenesis" some 6,400. Thus both scientists and other authors concur in using "Origin of life" as their preferred term.
I therefore propose, per WP:COMMONNAME, that we move the article to "Origin of life". Chiswick Chap ( talk) 10:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 17:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc. talk 11:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I came across this today & thought it might be useful for someone to weave into the article.
Peaceray ( talk) 19:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
It would be helpful to include the origin of the word 'abiogenesis', namely "from a-‘not’ + Greek bios ‘life’ + genesis 'origin'" (see here). This would be naturally placed in the first sentence, but there is a warning not to change that without consulting on the talk page, so I am. Chris55 ( talk) 21:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if a dictionary can be used as a source. Cambalachero ( talk) 01:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
[... with: "Prebiotic synthesis of α-amino acids and orotate from α-ketoacids potentiates transition to extant metabolic pathways" & a section/article structured sequentially for integration of notable study results]
I think it may be good to add at least very brief info from/about this study and/or similar articles to the article. It's currently featured in 2022 in science like so:
Scientists report the discovery of chemical reactions by potential primordial soup components that produced amino acids and may be part of the origin of life on Earth. [1] [2]
Moreover, info about abiogenesis is missing over at amino acid.
Maybe it would be good to add such studies (and you can search the year in science articles for abiogenesis-related items; examples below) to a timeline at History of research into the origin of life which is missing newer info (but also didn't get many reads so far).
Alternatively, maybe it would be possible to structure an article or section so that such studies can be integrated in a sequential/chronological order that shows which potential steps of abiogenesis have e.g. been demonstrated in the lab, basically like emergence of first suitable conditions->amino acids->RNA world->proteins->simple life->complex life (when things may have occurred in parallel or other theories suggest another step, there can be subsections).
Two more examples of relevant studies that could be included there from "2022 in science":
Scientists report evolution experiments of self-replicating RNA showing a segment of how life may have emerged on Earth ( abiogenesis) e.g. from RNA world conditions – from the long self-replicating RNA chemicals to diverse complex molecules. [3] [4]
Scientists close a missing link in the potential origin of life from a RNA world – synergistic formation of peptides and ever-longer RNAs or peptide-decorated RNA, leading to a protein world. [5] [6]
References
Prototyperspective ( talk) 17:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Hemolithin (newly named Hemoglycin) - first polymer of amino acids found in meteorites - somewhat newly studied, and presented as a well-sourced Wikipedia article - and - which may (or may not) be relevant to the abiogenesis article - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 13:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I think that for the Greek a a better translation would be "without" as opposed to "not" the reason being is that we are looking at the origin of life without life, i.e. from the physical, chemical world. Halfcreek ( talk) 22:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Under Q2 section, of this talk page, in actual question, change the word "theory" to "hypothesys by itself" then answer it. 89.249.108.117 ( talk) 13:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I think the article makes it clear that abiogenesis is the general description of how life arises in any circumstance. Not just the single event that created our particular strain of life on our planet. I.e. if life starts on the moon, or in a petri-dish, or on a planet far far away, it will still be 'abiogenesis' so past tense in the lead is not appropriate. Past tense to refer to life arising on earth makes sense, but not in the definition in the lead sentence.
Propose change:
In
biology, abiogenesis (from a- 'not' + Greek bios 'life' + genesis 'origin') or the origin of life is the
natural process by which
life has arisenarises from non-living matter, such as simple
organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event
User:Chiswick_Chap you reverted this but it was intentional!
JeffUK ( talk) 09:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
FWIW - seems this discussion may be similar in some ways to an earlier one (ie," Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 7#Panspermia in the lead" re " Panspermia" - incidentally - and possibly relevant to this current discussion - the notion of [" Terrestrial abiogenesis"] - or - origin of life elsewhere [" Extraterrestrial abiogenesis"] has been noted in the " earlier discussion") - nonetheless - the concern seems to be => is the " Abiogenesis" article about abiogenesis in general (perhaps to include panspermia?) or specific only to the " origin of life" on planet Earth - I would think in general, but understand that panspermia (and other possible forms of abiogenesis not related to life on Earth) may be considered " WP:FRINGE" (see earlier discussions in the abiogenesis archives) and perhaps may limit the scope of the Abiogenesis article for that reason - perhaps worth a further consideration? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 14:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
For FYI only - not for serious consideration to be included in the main " Abiogenesis" article - an updated article, " Hemoglycin" [1] [2] [3] [4] (formerly, " Hemolithin"), a space polymer that is the first polymer of amino acids found in meteorites, has been created - the newly created article contains recent references from " WP:RS" - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !!
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 18:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
FWIW - recent worthy article [1] about " protoribosomes" from the Journal " Nature" of possible consideration? - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 22:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 22:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Life Before Earth has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26 § Life Before Earth until a consensus is reached.
An anonymous username, not my real name
01:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Abiogenesis has never been observed and while competing theories are highly questionable, this entry would benefit from a section clearly discussing the current shortfalls in abiogenetic theories of life's origin (of which there are many). 128.40.96.125 ( talk) 14:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Is the following edit (or related) worth adding to the main Abiogenesis article?
Another strategy to understand abiogenesis may involve
electron transport chains in "bottom-up" (based on chemistries related to the prebiotic Earth) and "top-down" (based on chemistries related to current lifeforms) studies, according to biologists.
[1]
In any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 17:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
References
An editor has inserted a chapter on this aspect of life, but Abiogenesis is a process, and the question of what life is defined as is no part of this article. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 22:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Currently, the total number of living cells on the Earth is estimated to be 1030; the total number since the beginning of Earth, as 1040, and the total number for the entire time of a habitable planet Earth as 1041. [1] [2] This is much larger than the total number of estimated stars (and Earth-like planets) in the observable universe as 1024, a number which is more than all the grains of beach sand on planet Earth; [3] [4] [5] [6] but less than the total number of atoms estimated in the observable universe as 1082; [7] and the estimated total number of stars in an inflationary universe (observed and unobserved), as 10100. [8]
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 15:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 September 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Brinaluvsrocks (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
HaskelleTW.
— Assignment last updated by HaskelleTW ( talk) 22:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
A student has today inserted a large amount of material and cut a substantial amount of existing stuff, for a total change of +20,000 bytes or around 10%. Students are likely to be correct about recent facts and scientific papers; they are less likely to be right about balance, formatting, repetition, and the appropriate home for different sorts of information. This article is at the top of a tree of articles on origin of life topics, so it should only contain a brief summary of each subtopic; any sizeable additions should be scanned to identify what should remain up here and what should be hived off to new or existing "main" or "further" articles, many of which are already linked in the article. Any suitably informed and skilled help filtering the "new" material, and indeed checking that the deleted materials were appropriately removed, would be much appreciated. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 21:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
NOTE: May not be worth addng to the main abiogensis article, but perhaps worth being aware of the latest related news about life chemicals found in other parts of the solar system?
On 14 December 2023, astronomers reported the first time discovery, in the plumes of Enceladus, moon of the planet Saturn, of hydrogen cyanide, a possible chemical essential for life [1] as we know it, as well as other organic molecules, some of which are yet to be better identified and understood. According to the researchers, "these [newly discovered] compounds could potentially support extant microbial communities or drive complex organic synthesis leading to the origin of life." [2] [3]
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 16:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
If organic compounds thrown together and organizing themselves into living systems is the hypothesis, then where does the instinct of Self-preservation come from? The first living thing cannot have been indifferent toward returning to a non-living state, otherwise none of the marvelous later developments in the complexity and diversity of life could ever have been made. There is a preference for being alive which seems key to abiogenesis just as it pervades all of biology. How would organic compounds awaken to the fact that they are now alive and form an opinion that death is to be avoided? See the hard problem of consciousness I guess. 73.51.218.241 ( talk) 10:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Possibly worthy studies? => On 10 January 2024, chemists reported studies finding that long-chain fatty acids were produced in ancient hydrothermal vents. Such fatty acids may have contributed to the formation of the first cell membranes that are fundamental to protocells and the origin of life. [1]
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 01:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not trying to help the creationist vandals of this article, but this article opens with a statement about how abiogenesis occured. Andndoes so as if the explanation given is a statement of fact and not just a statement of one of any different theories of abiogenesis. That's all I wanted to add. Even abiogensis is theoretical, but it's being treated as observed fact. 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:67 ( talk) 17:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
As this is a usual thing to clarify, I started the essay Wikipedia:Theory, to define in a few words concepts like "theory", "hypothesis", "fact", "law", etc, how they relate to each other and the differences between each of them. The Wikipedia article is fine, but it may be a bit too complex for that, and the comparison of scientific ideas would be a bit out of place. Cambalachero ( talk) 19:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
A review by scientist Denis Noble of a new book entitled " How Life Works: A User’s Guide to the New Biology" (2023) by Philip Ball (editor of the journal Nature) may be worth considering? [1] - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 04:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 04:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Recent studies [1] [2] seem to support the hypothesis that life may have begun in a shallow lake rather than otherwise - perhaps somewhat like a " warm little pond" originally proposed by Charles Darwin? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 20:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 20:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)