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 21:31, 29 March 2015 editApokryltaros (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers79,958 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 66.190.249.214 (talk) to last revision by Apokryltaros. (TW)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:58, 15 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 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}}
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Science|class=B}}
{{talkheader}}
{{Old peer review|archive=1}} {{Old peer review|archive=1|date=February 2009}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{anchor|FAQ}}
⚫ {{WikiProject Evolutionary biology|class=B|importance=high}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
⚫ {{WikiProject Biology|class=B|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Palaeontology|class=B|importance=high}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Geology|class=B|importance=high}} {{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 ''']'''.}}
{{recruiting}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 5 |counter = 7
|minthreadsleft = 1 |minthreadsleft = 1
|algo = old(90d) |algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Copied|from1=Origin of life|to1=Abiogenesis}}
<!---

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

{{Archive box|auto=long|search=yes}}
== Over-stated lead sentence ==
__TOC__

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:
== Text in Lede OK - or not? ==
The in the lede of the ] article seems well supported by ] - however - should the text and related references remain in the article lede - moved elsewhere in the article - or not be presented at all for one reason or another?
<blockquote class="toccolours" style="float:none; padding: 10px 15px 10px 15px; display:table;">
from the lede of the ] article as :


: Abiogenesis is <s>the</s> a natural process by which life arises from non-living matter,
The ] may have begun shortly after the ], ], during a habitable epoch when the ] was only 10–17 million years old.<ref name="IJA-2014October">{{cite journal |last=Loeb |first=Abraham |authorlink=Abraham Loeb |title=The Habitable Epoch of the Early Universe |url=http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9371049&fileId=S1473550414000196 |date=October 2014 |journal=] |volume=13 |issue=04 |pages=337-339 |doi=10.1017/S1473550414000196 |accessdate=15 December 2014 }}</ref><ref name="ARXIV-20131202">{{cite journal |last=Loeb |first=Abraham |authorlink=Abraham Loeb |title=The Habitable Epoch of the Early Universe |url=http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.0613v3.pdf |date=2 December 2013 |journal=] |arxiv=1312.0613v3 |format=] |accessdate=15 December 2014 }}</ref><ref name="NYT-20141202">{{cite news |last=Dreifus |first=Claudia |authorlink=Claudia Dreifus |title=Much-Discussed Views That Go Way Back - Avi Loeb Ponders the Early Universe, Nature and Life |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/science/avi-loeb-ponders-the-early-universe-nature-and-life.html |date=2 December 2014 |work=] |accessdate=3 December 2014 }}</ref> According to the ] hypothesis, microscopic life—distributed by ], ]s and other ]—may exist throughout the universe.<ref name="USRA-2010">{{cite web |last=Rampelotto |first=P.H. |title=Panspermia: A Promising Field Of Research |url=http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/abscicon2010/pdf/5224.pdf |format=PDF |date=2010 |work= |accessdate=3 December 2014 }}</ref> Nonetheless, Earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life.<ref name="NASA-1990">{{Cite journal |last=Graham |first=Robert W. |title=NASA Technical Memorandum 102363 - Extraterrestrial Life in the Universe |url= http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900013148_1990013148.pdf |work=] |place= Lewis Research Center, Ohio |date= February 1990 |id= |format=PDF |accessdate=7 July 2014 }}</ref><ref name="Astrobiology-2008">{{cite book |last=Altermann |first=Wladyslaw |editors=Seckbach, Joseph; Walsh, Maud |title=From Fossils to Astrobiology: Records of Life on Earth and the Search for Extraterrestrial Biosignatures |chapter=From Fossils to Astrobiology - A Roadmap to Fata Morgana? |year= 2008 |volume=12 |isbn=1-4020-8836-1 |page=xvii }}</ref>
</blockquote>
{{reflist}}
Comments welcome - Enjoy! :) ] (]) 17:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


Or to emphasize the historical question of how it happened on Earth:
:I would say it's overemphasis, especially the first sentence - cited to a primary source from arXiv and a NYT piece. More generally, my reading of the literature is that people who seriously consider panspermia (in the sense of being descended from life that first evolved elsewhere, as opposed to the undisputed observations like the seeding of organic molecules through space) are certainly in the minority. ''''']''''' ''<font size="1.8">(])</font>'' 19:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
::Thank you for your comments - they're appreciated - fwiw, several responses are below:
::* Response re "First Sentence" => "chemistry of life" mainly refers to ''"chemicals"'' - particularly "]s," "]" and/or related - that may have arisen during a habitable epoch in the early universe - "life" itself may have been much less likely to have arisen during this time I would think.
::* Response re "]" => seems, at least, humankind itself may already be a part of the panspermia process - one possible example => seems there's ], like ],<ref name="NASA-20131106">{{cite news |url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-319 |title=Rare New Microbe Found in Two Distant Clean Rooms |work=].gov |first=Guy |last=Webster |date=6 November 2013 |accessdate=6 November 2013}}</ref> that have been well demonstrated to be ''resistant'' to being "cleaned" in ] - and may be aboard numerous spacecraft in ] at the moment - such microoganisms may have already been introduced to ], the ] and other solar system bodies - after all - microorganisms, at least under certain test conditions, have been observed to ]<ref name=Dose>{{cite journal | title = ERA-experiment "space biochemistry" | journal = Advances in Space Research | first1 = K. Dose |author2= A. Bieger-Dose, R. Dillmann, M. Gill, O. Kerz, A. Klein, H. Meinert, T. Nawroth, S. Risi, C. Stride | volume = 16 | issue = 8 | year= 1995 |pages = 119–129 |doi = 10.1016/0273-1177(95)00280-R | last1 = Zhang | pmid = 11542696}}</ref><ref name='Horneck'>{{cite journal | title = Biological responses to space: results of the experiment "Exobiological Unit" of ERA on EURECA I | journal = Adv Space Res. | year = 1995 | first1 = Horneck G |last1=Vaisberg |author2= Eschweiler U, Reitz G, Wehner J, Willimek R, Strauch K. | volume = 16 | issue = 8 | pages = 105–18| pmid = 11542695 | bibcode = 1995AdSpR..16..105V |doi = 10.1016/0273-1177(95)00279-N}}</ref> - Further - is there any real, and complete, assurance that there is not a single (at least potentially viable) microorganism at the moment inside the ] that have left, or are leaving, the ]? - at the very least - the possible related implications may be interesting to consider re ] I would think.
::* Response re "Minority" views in Science - seems that, at one time, many, maybe most, thought the Sun went around the Earth - seems only a "minority" thought otherwise - at least at the time.
::In any case - hope the above helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) ] (]) 21:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
{{reflist}}


: Abiogenesis is the natural process by which life <s>arises</s> arose from non-living matter,
:::Yeah, I agree with pretty much everything you've said, and I definitely agree that panspermia is plausible. Just making the point that in the literature on the topic, the typical approach is to consider the topic in the context of us being descended from life that first arose on Earth.
: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)
:::One of the best WP essays I've ever read (the name escapes me right now) observed that if Misplaced Pages was around before Copernicus, then we would have had to reflect the prevailing view even if we knew it was wrong, because otherwise we would be doing original research. ;-) It's both a strength and a weakness of our model I guess. ''''']''''' ''<font size="1.8">(])</font>'' 17:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
== Quebec data ==
::::{{reply|Sunrise}} - Brief followup - if interested, seems this ] refers to ] - and ] (ie, "JDobrzycki J Editor (1973) The reception of Copernicus' heliocentric theory pg 311") - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) ] (]) 14:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
{{reply|Sunrise}} - Thanks again for your comments - my present understanding of the word "]" (and the "]" article) seems consistent with the definition of "abiogenesis" presented in the first sentence in the lede: ie, ''"the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple ]"'' - clearly, ] began somewhere in the ] - less clearly, life began solely on ] - restricting the "]" article to life arising on Earth alone seems an overemphasis on the ] that the ] occurred on Earth only - which may not be entirely consistent with the given definition of "abiogenesis" in the first sentence in the lede of the "abiogenesis" article - (aside: if interested, the definition of "abiogenesis" in the lede of the article seems somewhat consistent with my own ] 2012 comment<ref name="NYT-20121202">{{cite news |last=Bogdan |first=Dennis |authorlink=User:Drbogdan |title=Comment - Life Thrives Throughout Universe? |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/magazine/can-a-jellyfish-unlock-the-secret-of-immortality.html#permid=105 |date=2 December 2012 |work=] |accessdate=14 December 2014 }}</ref>) - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) ] (]) 19:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
::I'm still agreeing with you on almost everything - I'm only disagreeing on the ] issue based on the the approach I've seen in the literature. :-) ''''']''''' ''<font size="1.8">(])</font>'' 20:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
:::That paper at arxiv (an archive, not a scientific journal) has not been reviewed and it may never be published. I would not quote it in the lede section. I would consider using it as an additional reference to a non-controversial statement. Cheers, ] (]) 22:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
{{reply|User:BatteryIncluded}} & {{reply|Sunrise}} - Thanks for your comments - AFAIK - seems the paper was published in the "]", a "peer-reviewed scientific journal"<ref name="IJA-2014October">{{cite journal |last=Loeb |first=Abraham |authorlink=Abraham Loeb |title=The Habitable Epoch of the Early Universe |url=http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9371049&fileId=S1473550414000196 |date=October 2014 |journal=] |volume=13 |issue=04 |pages=337-339 |doi=10.1017/S1473550414000196 |accessdate=15 December 2014 }}</ref> - with this new information in mind - suggested change(s) welcome => "no text/location change" OR "text change" OR "location change" OR "omit text" OR "some other change"? - Thanks in advance for your suggestion(s) - Enjoy! :) ] (]) 22:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
::It is good it was actually published, thank you. The state of current scientific understanding is that life may have started on Earth or elsewhere (and then brought here though panspermia), so I suggest we present those 2 possibilities with equal emphasis. I say equal emphasis because recent experiments in LEO designed to test some aspects of panspermia, have demonstrated that many microorganisms can withstand interplanetary travel and atmospheric entry when protected inside a rock. Cheers, ] (]) 01:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


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)
==Defined as==
Would it be more clear if the first sentence started out with, "Abiogenesis is DEFINED AS the natural process..." instead of "Abiogenesis is the natural process..." since there's still no "standard model" and the one that does become standard may come to have a different name than abiogenesis?] (]) 13:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


:I am OK with using "Abiogenesis is DEFINED AS the natural process..." Cheers, ] (]) 15:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC) :I agree; if it is not generally accepted then it should be qualified. ] (]) 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. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 03:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::{{done}} - Yes - *entirely* agree - text has been updated as suggested - Enjoy! :) ] (]) 18:52, 13 March 2015 (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 ==
::::Didn't this come up before and get rejected at some point? The style convention is not to use "defined as" on Misplaced Pages - by that reasoning, we could use it in the lead sentence for any article where there's multiple or disputed definitions, like ]. I would tend to call it ] since it reduces straightforwardness and begs the question "defined by whom?" ''''']''''' ''<font size="1.8">(])</font>'' 19:26, 13 March 2015 (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)
:::::{{undone}} - Yes - Thank you *very much* for your comment - seems the issue was discussed earlier after all - at the following => "]" - ''undoing'' my own earlier edit - at least until we've developed a better consensus - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) ] (]) 20:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
:The image is similar to the image in the research paper cited in the caption .] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
::Very true. But I get the reason why it was brought up.] (]) 10:20, 18 August 2024 (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: