Misplaced Pages

Talk:Abiogenesis: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:03, 15 December 2005 editCyde (talk | contribs)28,155 edits →Merge with Biopoesis: SUPPORT← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:58, 15 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,695 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 7) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GA|16:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)|topic= Biology and medicine |page=1|oldid=1086667070}}
For old or unrelated discussion: ]
{{talkheader}}
{{Old peer review|archive=1|date=February 2009}}
{{anchor|FAQ}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Evolutionary biology|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Biology|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Palaeontology|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Geology|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=high}}
}}
{{Canvass warning|short=yes}}
{{Tmbox |image=] |text=Complaints about the lack of ''']''', ''']''', or similar points of view are inappropriate content for this talk page. For an overview of how Misplaced Pages's ] policy applies to creationism or young Earth-related topics, please see the FAQ at ''']'''.}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 7
|minthreadsleft = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Copied|from1=Origin of life|to1=Abiogenesis}}


{{old move|date=1 July 2022|destination=Origin of life|result=no consensus|link=Special:Permalink/1099892342#Requested move 1 July 2022}}


== Over-stated lead sentence ==
==Creationists placing links to "answers in genesis" on the front page==
I have removed the answers in genesis links on the front page, they have no relevance to
the discussion of abiogenesis. Let them place their links in the "creationism" discussion or whatever.


I understand that this page is constantly subject to unscientific vandalism and distortion. However, to refer to "THE natural process by which life ARISES" is an inaccurate summary of scientific knowlege. We do not understand the chemical processes of abiogenesis or whether there can be only one such process, and we have no evidence that it occurred more than once. Perhaps it was inevitable and life exists on many planets, perhaps it was just very good luck and Earth is unique. It overstates our knowledge to say that life naturally arises.
==Merged some material with origin of life article==
I think this article should this be merged with ]. The historical part can easily be part of that article, and the modern stuff overlaps with what is on that page right now in any case. --] 19:25, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


To emphasize the uncertaintly about the chemical processes, I propose:
:Actually, I have modified my position. I think it should probably be left as a separate page, since it is a slightly more general concept and has a history of its own. I have taken the liberty to move most of the "modern abiogenesis" stuff which is almost exclusively about the origin of life and merge it with the ] article, but have left a summary and a ''Main article:'' pointer here.
--] 12:05, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
----
Paragraph removed by anonymous IP address (not by me). --]|] 10:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


: Abiogenesis is <s>the</s> a natural process by which life arises from non-living matter,
:''If abiogenesis is found impossible, this would seem to disprove both evolutionary and religious explanations of the origin of life, and would support the idea that life has always existed. The only remaining point would be whether or not life is modified by nature, as claimed by ], or not, as claimed by many religions''


Or to emphasize the historical question of how it happened on Earth:
==Proposal to Merge this page into Biopoiesis==


: Abiogenesis is the natural process by which life <s>arises</s> arose from non-living matter,
I would like to know how you folks feel about merging abiogenesis into ]. This term carries less historical baggage and seems to be favored over abiogenesis in some situations. --] 11:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:It's not your or my place to temper what we feel to be an overreaching on the part of the reliable sources. To be frank, your revisions only introduce awkwardness to the prose borne from an apparent lack of engagement with said sources. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 14:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
== Quebec data ==


The last paragraph of the introduction of the article states in part "Fossil micro-organisms appear to have lived within hydrothermal vent precipitates dated 3.77 to 4.28 Gya from Quebec..." It seems to me that this statement is based on findings from one group of researchers, concerning the Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt, that are not widely accepted. (In contrast to the data from Australia which are widely accepted.) If so, I would suggest that this statement about the findings in Canada could be changed to indicate that this is not widely agreed upon. For example, it could be changed to say "Some studies have suggested that fossil micro-organisms may have lived within hydrothermal vent precipitates dated 3.77 to 4.28 Gya from Quebec..." ] (]) 04:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:I prefer to leave it abiogenesis where it is (it gets around 18,000 hits: ), and I think that biopoiesis should be merged with ], it only gets 91 hits on Google: . With two sentences I can't really see it being expanded. --]|] 11:45, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
:: See ]. "...the google test checks popular usage, not correctness." For some good links on the history and differences between the two words, see this and this . ] has been used in place of ] by a number of researchers involved in origins related work. OTOH, abiogenesis has connotations of spontaneous generation, and it currently bears the weight of two different definitions, thus leading to ambiguity. I am therefore suggesting that abiogenesis should refer to spontaneous generation while biogenesis should be used to refer to its current definition regarding the origin of life.. IMO, I doubt that a google hit ranking will reflect this difference in any way, as most of the journals, articles, and textbooks that use these definitions are not online. When I have some more time I will try to present some further evidence for the proposed merge. In my proposal, the article for abiogenesis would still exist but it would not refer to the more modern implication of biopoiesis, just spontaneous generation. Thanks in advance for your response. --] 01:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
: Abiogenesis is by far the most common term for this, so I think biopoiesis should be merged here instead. (It's not our job to push new terminology.) &mdash; ] 14:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


:I agree; if it is not generally accepted then it should be qualified. ] (]) 05:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
== scientific view? ==
:do you have any sources that explicitly disagree with the Quebec data? Just because research is singular does not mean it is controversial. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 03:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301926822001723?via%3Dihub 01:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 01:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you! <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 06:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)


== "Habitable" Earth in top figure ==
''Brig Klyce proposes Cosmic ancestry which is a theory that intelligent life, through some natural mechanism, effectively began at the same time as the universe.''
:How is this a scientific view? It seems like a fantastic hypothesis. -- ] 16:12, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
:May we need a section titled "Philosophical Critique of Abiogenesis." -- ] 16:16, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
:: More like "fantasies about the origins of life". Also notice that Klyce proposes an ''idea'', not a ''theory''. At any rate, I removed mention of both Klyce and Crick, since the paragraphs offered their opinions about origins, but didn't actually offer any criticism of the theory (as per the name of that section). &mdash; ] 17:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


In the figure, the "habitable world" picture is today's earth, which has little in common with the habitable earth of 4.x billion years ago. I think it would be better to show a picture that plausibly depicts an initial habitable earth (which, of course, would be deadly to most current life). I'm not able to arrange this myself; sorry. ] (]) 03:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
==Proposal to remove the above section (Creationist Response)==
:The image is similar to the image in the research paper cited in the caption .] (]) 04:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I really do not mean to be rude, and I have to admit I find the above debate rather interesting; but would it be possible to move this debate to some other forum? I will admit I am new to Misplaced Pages in general, but it seems to me this particular page acts as an area to discuss what should and should not be included in the article it is attached to (]). Any debate held here would revolve around content that should be added or removed, or possibly to discuss whether or not a neutral point of view is maintained. In short, it is an area to discuss the reasoning behind revisions or reverts.
:The image is not meant to be "Earth when abiogenesis took place", but rather an "habitable planet" as a concept. Modern Earth gives the idea better than a hellfire ball would. ] (]) 21:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

::Very true. But I get the reason why it was brought up.] (]) 10:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
:: In that case I propose that we add something about the fact that all living organisms consist of homochiralic proteins, while nature has yet to produce any yet (so far as we have observed, of course). We also probably should add something about the fact that Miller's little experiment only produced 13 of the 20 basic amino acids, and that scientists since then have not done any better. Shall I go ahead an add this or wait for a consensus / vote?
::Randy

::: Hey again! I would say the first thing to do is to create an account. Either the one you had prior or another. It is just easier to work with other people if you are registered. You get your own page where you can put a bit of stuff about you and an additional page where people can leave you messages. It is much easier for colaboration. My page is ]. And my talk page is ]. After you are registered, anytime you leave comments on a Talk page like this one, you can add three of these ~ symbols or four of these ~ symbols in a row. That will automaticly sign the doc with a link to your page and the current time. Just like this: ] 03:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have done that, and it is --] 17:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) -- and includes a summary of what I believe and why I believe it.

::: Beyond that, there really isn't any voting per se. The Misplaced Pages works very different than a lot of other things in life. To be involved in Misplaced Pages is to agree to be edited mercilessly. People don't really vote on articles as much as they discuss them and constantly change them. Opinions vary widely, but more often than not some level of agreement is met and a ] is maintained. Once you get an account and sign in, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if you want help creating a section in here proposing changes. Again, you can just go ahead and make any changes you want anywhere in Misplaced Pages at any time, but finding some way to work through and represent the opposing opinions will likely help your revisions to stick. ] 03:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
::: I read once that there are really three general categories of communication. We either:
:::* Communicate to Inform
:::* Communicate to Persuade
:::* Communicate to Entertain
::: The Misplaced Pages needs to be as much about the first as it can. It is hard to write without a slant and to only present facts, but that is the goal. ] 03:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

::: So again, sign up and start outlining some changes. The ] is a great place to try out formatting text. I look forward to hearing about the additional information you think would be relevant for this document, as well as at what point you think it makes sense to link to other documents or data. But you really do not need to wait for me or anyone else to authorize changes, just be cognizant that anything you contribute here can be edited by another at any time. I think that is what fascinates me the most about all this. The Misplaced Pages started in my lifetime, but will likely survive on this Earth much longer than I. At the same time, "The Misplaced Pages" does not really exist at all as it is edited multiple times every minute and is never the same. Here's to hoping that both you and I write an article or two that is useful, interesting and unbiased enough to survive long after we are gone! Cheers to that and welcome to Misplaced Pages! ] 03:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that, while this is a lively and interesting discussion, it might be best to move it to e-mail or some other forum.

Again, I'm glad we've come to a general consensus around the current content, I look forward to further refining the entry, and I don't mean to interrupt what looks to be a lively, interesting, (albeit long running) debate on the theory itself; but I am wondering if it would make sense to collapse the above section, archive it to the history and move the debate to another forum external to the Misplaced Pages.

Just a thought. ] 17:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

:Agreed, Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum. And there should be no troll feeding. ] ] 17:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

:I agree, I have put it in ] along with 2002 material, eventually the section will be deleted/overwritten as future material is archived. This section will be archived shortly as well. Welcome to Misplaced Pages Knoma Tsujmai; you have good instincts. :'D - ]] <sup>]</sup> 19:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

== Critics ==
Two of the three main critics of abiogenesis are deceased, which means they cannot be aware of any recent scientific research. Shouldn't we also mention that ] achieved fame for his contributions to quantum mechanics, while Sir ] was an astronomer? I'm not sure how this should be made clear, without it sounding like criticising the critics, though. -- ] 12:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

:I think a paragraph before the names could read something like:

::It should be noted that despite the success these scientists have had in their fields of study, they do not have expertise in biological systems. Leading biologists point out assumptions in their arguments which have little to no bearing on abiogenesis theories or research.

:Just a draft. - ]] <sup>]</sup> 15:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

::The modern concept of abiogenesis has been criticised by scientists, notably by ], ] and ]. It should be noted that despite the success these scientists have had in their respective fields of study, they do or did not have expertise in biological systems. Leading biologists point to assumptions in their arguments which have little to no bearing on abiogenesis theories or research.
:Another draft -- ] 18:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

:Minor thoughts/tweaks:

::The modern concept of abiogenesis has been criticised by scientists, notably by ], ] and ]. It should be noted that despite the success these scientists have had in their respective fields of study, they do or did not have expertise in ]. Leading ]s point to fundamental assumptions in their arguments which have little to no bearing on abiogenesis theories or research.

:Third draft. - ]] <sup>]</sup> 00:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

::I'm happy with it. Ideally, we would find a few more notable critics, though. Still, let's insert it. -- ] 06:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

:::Coo, inserted. Another win for Misplaced Pages! Huzzah! - ]] <sup>]</sup> 03:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

== Schroedinger ==

Hello.
I would like to see reference to this paragraph :
:"This argument is generally understood to assert false presuppositions, namely that that Earth is in a closed system, which it is not since it receives energy from the Sun."
Unless it's referenced, the claim within it counts as original research.
] 23:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll add that I'm not a religious fanatic and I'm willing to be cooperative.I'm not trying to start an edit war or something...I just want to know which scientists spoke against Schroedinger's book</p>
] 23:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
:You're right in saying it isn't referenced, however, this shows a clear misconception of the nature of the second law of thermodynamics. It's probably not referenced, because most people find it obvious. I'd think we would have a hard time finding a source to state such an obvious thing. -- ] 23:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

::It's obvious that the Earth is not a closed system and Schroedinger didn't presuppose the contrary ;but this isn't relevant.The issue is much more complex than that.I will replace your rebuttal of his work with a more serious one that I've just found.
] 09:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately the piece I found is copyrighted . I asked for permission to copy just a small paragraph ,please be patient.
In the hindsight maybe "what is life?" doesn't belong in Abiogenesis at all. ]

::If you have a source, quote or paraphrase it. We don't need to 'use' any copyrighted material. I'm not sure 'what is life?' should stay, though life, as seen from the perspective of abiogenesis is a viewpoint that should be mentioned. -- ] 16:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Permission was granted.
] 06:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
::Please see ], for a guide to Wiki-markup. Also, you seem to be implying that I had written the line suggesting Schroedinger was wrong because he thought the Earth was closed system. I assumed that the line was correct, and suggested that it was not attributed, because it was obvious. I didn't know Schroedinger hadn't made the claim.
::That said, I don't quite like the wording of the new paragraph. It doesn't fit into the whole of the article, and uses unexplained terminology. It also talks of a 'we', which is against Misplaced Pages policy. Assuming you feel qualified to reword the paragraph, could you please do so? I'm willing to give it a shot, but I'm not quite sure what it is that is being said. -- ] 14:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

:::The paragraph in question is a direct quote from the website linked, I have added indent and itallics to it. Either paraphrase to better explain or add explanatory material to suppliment and tie it in for ''the rest of us''. ] 15:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

<p> Thank you both for the suggestions.I'll try to paraphrase that quote.</p>
] 19:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

<p>I'm far from being satisfied with my section's current state;it's because I know some physics but little about biology.Now I'll go play in the sandbox :) </p>
] 20:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

== Panspermiites ==

Do the pamspermia advocates really fit as critics here. They simply ''pass the buck'' to elsewhere and don't really say much about abiogenesis. Hoyle's specific arguements against chemical evolution and abiogenesis perhaps, but not the panspermia bit. I reorganized the section to put the panspermians together, but really think they should be cut. ] 22:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for grouping the panspermites together. As the article now clearly reflects, panspermia itself doesn't offer anything on abiogenesis, except in locating it far away, so it's less a criticism than a fairly uninterested hypothesis. We know that some of the basic organic chemicals can form in space, but there's little support for the process getting much further than that. We also know that, in principle, it's possible for single-celled life to be transferred to another planet by catastrophic events, but have no reason to think this happened. In short, it's boring. However, Hoyle's version is different. It's basically the same broken idea as Steady State, only applied to life. As such, it's an alternative to abiogenesis, but a really dumb one. ] 00:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

== Merge with Biopoesis ==
I support this. ] 03:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

'''Conditionally Support''' - So long as ''all'' of the information is merged in, the ] article references ] as another term for the same thing, and that the biopoesis article becomes a redirect to abiogenesis.

*If they really do mean the same thing then I support the merge and redirect. --''']''' <sub>]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left: -16px; margin-right: -16px;">]</span></sup> 11:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

== Removed extraneous links ==
I removed some extraneous links from the main article using the ] as a guideline. If you object, please don't simply revert the changes, but rather, comment in here which links should be re-added and give justifications. --] 04:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
:Good Idea:--] 20:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:58, 15 November 2024

Good articlesAbiogenesis 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: 3 months 
Abiogenesis received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which on February 2009 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

? view · edit 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:

  • The occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, and there is ongoing research and competing hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.
  • Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis.
  • It is against Misplaced Pages policy for views without scientific support, such as all known objections to abiogenesis, to be included in a science article like Abiogenesis.

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

To view the response to a question, click the 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. Further information: WP:Neutral point of view § Undue weight 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. Misplaced Pages 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.

See also: WP:Scientific consensus and WP:Scientific point of view 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. In 1987, only about 0.15% of American Earth and life scientists supported creationism.

Thus, as a consequence of Misplaced Pages'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
  1. See List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design.
  2. As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. Earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." See also Public beliefs about evolution and creation, Robinson, B. A. 1995. for a discussion on acceptance of evolution.
This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconEvolutionary biology Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBiology High‑importance
WikiProject iconAbiogenesis is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Misplaced Pages. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPalaeontology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGeology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEnvironment High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
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 Misplaced Pages policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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.

Over-stated lead sentence

I understand that this page is constantly subject to unscientific vandalism and distortion. However, to refer to "THE natural process by which life ARISES" is an inaccurate summary of scientific knowlege. We do not understand the chemical processes of abiogenesis or whether there can be only one such process, and we have no evidence that it occurred more than once. Perhaps it was inevitable and life exists on many planets, perhaps it was just very good luck and Earth is unique. It overstates our knowledge to say that life naturally arises.

To emphasize the uncertaintly about the chemical processes, I propose:

Abiogenesis is the a natural process by which life arises from non-living matter,

Or to emphasize the historical question of how it happened on Earth:

Abiogenesis is the natural process by which life arises arose from non-living matter,
It's not your or my place to temper what we feel to be an overreaching on the part of the reliable sources. To be frank, your revisions only introduce awkwardness to the prose borne from an apparent lack of engagement with said sources. Remsense ‥ 论 14:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Quebec data

The last paragraph of the introduction of the article states in part "Fossil micro-organisms appear to have lived within hydrothermal vent precipitates dated 3.77 to 4.28 Gya from Quebec..." It seems to me that this statement is based on findings from one group of researchers, concerning the Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt, that are not widely accepted. (In contrast to the data from Australia which are widely accepted.) If so, I would suggest that this statement about the findings in Canada could be changed to indicate that this is not widely agreed upon. For example, it could be changed to say "Some studies have suggested that fossil micro-organisms may have lived within hydrothermal vent precipitates dated 3.77 to 4.28 Gya from Quebec..." T g7 (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree; if it is not generally accepted then it should be qualified. Zaslav (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
do you have any sources that explicitly disagree with the Quebec data? Just because research is singular does not mean it is controversial. Remsense ‥ 论 03:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301926822001723?via%3Dihub 01:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC) T g7 (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Remsense ‥ 论 06:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

"Habitable" Earth in top figure

In the figure, the "habitable world" picture is today's earth, which has little in common with the habitable earth of 4.x billion years ago. I think it would be better to show a picture that plausibly depicts an initial habitable earth (which, of course, would be deadly to most current life). I'm not able to arrange this myself; sorry. Zaslav (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The image is similar to the image in the research paper cited in the caption . Ramos1990 (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
The image is not meant to be "Earth when abiogenesis took place", but rather an "habitable planet" as a concept. Modern Earth gives the idea better than a hellfire ball would. Cambalachero (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Very true. But I get the reason why it was brought up. Ramos1990 (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Categories: