Abiogenesis has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 7, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Abiogenesis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Abiogenesis received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on February 2009 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Frequently asked questions Some users have noted that many of these questions should be included in the text of Abiogenesis. The reason for their exclusion is discussed below. The main points of this FAQ ( Talk:Abiogenesis#FAQ) can be summarized as:
More detail is given on each of these points, and other common questions and objections, below. To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Why won't you add criticisms or objections to abiogenesis in the Abiogenesis article?
A1: Our policies on Wikipedia, in particular
WP:WEIGHT and
WP:FRINGE, require us to provide coverage to views based on their prominence within
reliable sources, and we must reflect the opinion of the scientific community as accurately as possible. While there are scientific objections to hypotheses concerning abiogenesis, general objections to the overall concept of abiogenesis are largely found outside of the scientific community, for example, in religious literature and is not necessary to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate, per
WP:NECESSARY. There are articles covering some of those religious views, including
Objections to evolution,
Creationism and
Creation myth, but we cannot provide significant weight to religious opinions within a science article, per our policies.
Q2: Why is abiogenesis described as though it's a fact? Isn't abiogenesis just a theory?
A2: A "theory" in science is different than a "theory" in everyday usage. When scientists call something a theory, they are referring to a
scientific theory, which is an explanation for a phenomenon based on a significant amount of data. Abiogenesis is a phenomenon scientists are trying to explain by developing scientific theories. While there isn't one unifying theory of abiogenesis, there are several principles and competing
hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred, which are detailed in the article. Wikipedia describes the phenomenon of abiogenesis as a fact because the
reliable sources from the
peer-reviewed scientific literature describe it as a fact.
Compare it with the theory of gravity, by Isaac Newton. It explains how gravity works, and it was superseded when Albert Einstein provided a more complete explanation. That doesn't mean that the factual existence of gravity was ever held in doubt. Q3: But isn't abiogenesis unproven?
A3: The scientific evidence is consistent with and supports an origin of life out of abiotic conditions. No chemical, biological or physical law has been discovered that would prevent life from emerging.
Clearly, abiogenesis happened, because life exists. The other option is that life is a product of a supernatural process, but no evidence to support this has been published in
reliable sources. There is plenty of evidence that nearly all the components of a simple cell can and do form naturally, but it has not yet been shown how molecules eventually formed self-replicating
protocells and under what environmental conditions. Q4: Abiogenesis is controversial, so why won't you teach the controversy?
A4: Abiogenesis is not controversial according to the reliable, published sources within the scientific community. Also, see Question 1.
Abiogenesis is, at best, only controversial in social areas like politics and religion. Indeed, numerous respectable scientific societies, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences, have issued statements denouncing creationism and/or ID. [1] In 1987, only about 0.15% of American Earth and life scientists supported creationism. [2] Thus, as a consequence of Wikipedia's policies, it is necessary to treat abiogenesis as mainstream scientific consensus. Besides panspermia, there are no scientifically supported "alternatives" for this view. Q5: Has abiogenesis ever been observed?
A5: No. How this happened is still conjectural, though no longer purely speculative. Q6: How could life arise by chance?
A6: Based on the cited peer-reviewed scientific research, it is thought that once a self-replicating gene emerged as a product of natural chemical processes, life started and gradual evolution of complexity was made possible – in contrast to the sudden appearance of complexity that creationists claim to have been necessary at the beginning of life. Life did not happen just because there were huge intervals of time, but because a planet has a certain range of environments where pre-biotic chemistry took place. The actual nature of the first organisms and the exact pathways to the origin of life may be forever lost to science, but scientific research can at least help us understand what is possible. Past discussions For further information, see the numerous past discussions on these topics in the archives of Talk:Abiogenesis: The article is not neutral. It doesn't mention that abiogenesis is controversial.
The article should mention alternative views prominently, such as in a criticism section. Abiogenesis is just a theory, not a fact. There is scientific evidence against abiogenesis. References
|
This
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
Complaints about the lack of young Earth creationism, intelligent design, or similar points of view are inappropriate content for this talk page. For an overview of how Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy applies to creationism or young Earth-related topics, please see the FAQ at Talk:Evolution. |
Text and/or other creative content from Origin of life was copied or moved into Abiogenesis. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
On 1 July 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Origin of life. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
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)
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)
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)
New studies (2/18/2024) [1] [2] seem to provide support for the notion that panspermia may have been a way that life began on Earth? - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 18:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 18:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Chiswick Chap: (and others) - Thank You *very much* for your comments re this and all related discussions above - they're *all* greatly appreciated - and very worthwhile imo - Yes - *entirely* agree - you may be *completely* right about all this of course - but to rule out such notions fully may not be the better road - viable materials hidden away deep within such cosmic dust particles (or even some particles somewhat larger - or even a lot larger) may continue to be a possible way of distributing such ( LUCA-related?) materials throughout the cosmos I would think - there may be other ways (maybe not yet thought about for one reason or another) as well - I would think a miniscule amount of such material (maybe even a single reproducible molecule?) may be sufficient to start the entire process going if settled in a life-friendly location within the universe - with an estimated 1024 stars and Earthlike planets in the observable universe, [1] [2] [3] there may be an astronomical amount of life-friendly locations available - to and fro so-to-speak - in any case - Thanks again for all your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 21:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
First we should determine with some certainty that Mars, Venus, or perhaps the Moon were habitable and had life in the past. Then we may discuss panspermia, if life migrated from one of those celestial bodies to Earth, or the other way. Otherwise, talking about it is like discussing the sex of angels. Panspermia can not work from one planetary system to the next, simply because of the distances and times involved. Let's assume that there was a planet with life in the Alpha Centauri planetary system, the one closest to us, and a meteorite is ejected from it, with some of its local life on it. And let's assume that it's not just any life, but one of those extremophiles who can survive in really harsh conditions. And let's assume that they survive the planetary ejection. And let's assume that they have enough protection to survive the conditions of outer space. Yes, I know, too many assumptions (and that means, too many factors that may not go as desired). Well, even if by some miracle that meteorite heads in the direction towards us, it would take it tens of thousands of years to arrive... and what kind of life could survive that long? Cambalachero ( talk) 13:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
References
I added multiple sections to the prebiotic synthesis section on protein synthesis as well one on directed protein synthesis with RNA and early functional peptides. I am new to wiki so I wanted to make a space here to for any feedback people may have. Pandas forest ( talk) 02:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Abiogenesis has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 7, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Abiogenesis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Abiogenesis received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on February 2009 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Frequently asked questions Some users have noted that many of these questions should be included in the text of Abiogenesis. The reason for their exclusion is discussed below. The main points of this FAQ ( Talk:Abiogenesis#FAQ) can be summarized as:
More detail is given on each of these points, and other common questions and objections, below. To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Why won't you add criticisms or objections to abiogenesis in the Abiogenesis article?
A1: Our policies on Wikipedia, in particular
WP:WEIGHT and
WP:FRINGE, require us to provide coverage to views based on their prominence within
reliable sources, and we must reflect the opinion of the scientific community as accurately as possible. While there are scientific objections to hypotheses concerning abiogenesis, general objections to the overall concept of abiogenesis are largely found outside of the scientific community, for example, in religious literature and is not necessary to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate, per
WP:NECESSARY. There are articles covering some of those religious views, including
Objections to evolution,
Creationism and
Creation myth, but we cannot provide significant weight to religious opinions within a science article, per our policies.
Q2: Why is abiogenesis described as though it's a fact? Isn't abiogenesis just a theory?
A2: A "theory" in science is different than a "theory" in everyday usage. When scientists call something a theory, they are referring to a
scientific theory, which is an explanation for a phenomenon based on a significant amount of data. Abiogenesis is a phenomenon scientists are trying to explain by developing scientific theories. While there isn't one unifying theory of abiogenesis, there are several principles and competing
hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred, which are detailed in the article. Wikipedia describes the phenomenon of abiogenesis as a fact because the
reliable sources from the
peer-reviewed scientific literature describe it as a fact.
Compare it with the theory of gravity, by Isaac Newton. It explains how gravity works, and it was superseded when Albert Einstein provided a more complete explanation. That doesn't mean that the factual existence of gravity was ever held in doubt. Q3: But isn't abiogenesis unproven?
A3: The scientific evidence is consistent with and supports an origin of life out of abiotic conditions. No chemical, biological or physical law has been discovered that would prevent life from emerging.
Clearly, abiogenesis happened, because life exists. The other option is that life is a product of a supernatural process, but no evidence to support this has been published in
reliable sources. There is plenty of evidence that nearly all the components of a simple cell can and do form naturally, but it has not yet been shown how molecules eventually formed self-replicating
protocells and under what environmental conditions. Q4: Abiogenesis is controversial, so why won't you teach the controversy?
A4: Abiogenesis is not controversial according to the reliable, published sources within the scientific community. Also, see Question 1.
Abiogenesis is, at best, only controversial in social areas like politics and religion. Indeed, numerous respectable scientific societies, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences, have issued statements denouncing creationism and/or ID. [1] In 1987, only about 0.15% of American Earth and life scientists supported creationism. [2] Thus, as a consequence of Wikipedia's policies, it is necessary to treat abiogenesis as mainstream scientific consensus. Besides panspermia, there are no scientifically supported "alternatives" for this view. Q5: Has abiogenesis ever been observed?
A5: No. How this happened is still conjectural, though no longer purely speculative. Q6: How could life arise by chance?
A6: Based on the cited peer-reviewed scientific research, it is thought that once a self-replicating gene emerged as a product of natural chemical processes, life started and gradual evolution of complexity was made possible – in contrast to the sudden appearance of complexity that creationists claim to have been necessary at the beginning of life. Life did not happen just because there were huge intervals of time, but because a planet has a certain range of environments where pre-biotic chemistry took place. The actual nature of the first organisms and the exact pathways to the origin of life may be forever lost to science, but scientific research can at least help us understand what is possible. Past discussions For further information, see the numerous past discussions on these topics in the archives of Talk:Abiogenesis: The article is not neutral. It doesn't mention that abiogenesis is controversial.
The article should mention alternative views prominently, such as in a criticism section. Abiogenesis is just a theory, not a fact. There is scientific evidence against abiogenesis. References
|
This
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
Complaints about the lack of young Earth creationism, intelligent design, or similar points of view are inappropriate content for this talk page. For an overview of how Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy applies to creationism or young Earth-related topics, please see the FAQ at Talk:Evolution. |
Text and/or other creative content from Origin of life was copied or moved into Abiogenesis. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
On 1 July 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Origin of life. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
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)
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)
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)
New studies (2/18/2024) [1] [2] seem to provide support for the notion that panspermia may have been a way that life began on Earth? - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 18:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 18:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Chiswick Chap: (and others) - Thank You *very much* for your comments re this and all related discussions above - they're *all* greatly appreciated - and very worthwhile imo - Yes - *entirely* agree - you may be *completely* right about all this of course - but to rule out such notions fully may not be the better road - viable materials hidden away deep within such cosmic dust particles (or even some particles somewhat larger - or even a lot larger) may continue to be a possible way of distributing such ( LUCA-related?) materials throughout the cosmos I would think - there may be other ways (maybe not yet thought about for one reason or another) as well - I would think a miniscule amount of such material (maybe even a single reproducible molecule?) may be sufficient to start the entire process going if settled in a life-friendly location within the universe - with an estimated 1024 stars and Earthlike planets in the observable universe, [1] [2] [3] there may be an astronomical amount of life-friendly locations available - to and fro so-to-speak - in any case - Thanks again for all your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 21:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
First we should determine with some certainty that Mars, Venus, or perhaps the Moon were habitable and had life in the past. Then we may discuss panspermia, if life migrated from one of those celestial bodies to Earth, or the other way. Otherwise, talking about it is like discussing the sex of angels. Panspermia can not work from one planetary system to the next, simply because of the distances and times involved. Let's assume that there was a planet with life in the Alpha Centauri planetary system, the one closest to us, and a meteorite is ejected from it, with some of its local life on it. And let's assume that it's not just any life, but one of those extremophiles who can survive in really harsh conditions. And let's assume that they survive the planetary ejection. And let's assume that they have enough protection to survive the conditions of outer space. Yes, I know, too many assumptions (and that means, too many factors that may not go as desired). Well, even if by some miracle that meteorite heads in the direction towards us, it would take it tens of thousands of years to arrive... and what kind of life could survive that long? Cambalachero ( talk) 13:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
References
I added multiple sections to the prebiotic synthesis section on protein synthesis as well one on directed protein synthesis with RNA and early functional peptides. I am new to wiki so I wanted to make a space here to for any feedback people may have. Pandas forest ( talk) 02:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)