Misplaced Pages

Talk:Abiogenesis

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.190.249.214 (talk) at 21:30, 29 March 2015 (Undid revision 654088239 by Apokryltaros (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:30, 29 March 2015 by 66.190.249.214 (talk) (Undid revision 654088239 by Apokryltaros (talk))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Vital article

Abiogenesis received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEvolutionary biology High‑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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.


Archives

Much of the content of Abiogenesis was merged from Origin of life. For discussion of that page preceding that merge, see here.


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Text in Lede OK - or not?

The following text in the lede of the Abiogenesis article seems well supported by reliable references - 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?

Copied from the lede of the Abiogenesis article as follows:

The chemistry of life may have begun shortly after the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago, during a habitable epoch when the Universe was only 10–17 million years old. According to the panspermia hypothesis, microscopic life—distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and other small Solar System bodies—may exist throughout the universe. Nonetheless, Earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life.

  1. Loeb, Abraham (October 2014). "The Habitable Epoch of the Early Universe". International Journal of Astrobiology. 13 (04): 337–339. doi:10.1017/S1473550414000196. Retrieved 15 December 2014.
  2. Loeb, Abraham (2 December 2013). "The Habitable Epoch of the Early Universe" (PDF). Arxiv. arXiv:1312.0613v3. Retrieved 15 December 2014.
  3. Dreifus, Claudia (2 December 2014). "Much-Discussed Views That Go Way Back - Avi Loeb Ponders the Early Universe, Nature and Life". New York Times. Retrieved 3 December 2014.
  4. Rampelotto, P.H. (2010). "Panspermia: A Promising Field Of Research" (PDF). Astrobiology Science Conference. Retrieved 3 December 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |work= (help)
  5. Graham, Robert W. (February 1990). "NASA Technical Memorandum 102363 - Extraterrestrial Life in the Universe" (PDF). NASA. Lewis Research Center, Ohio. Retrieved 7 July 2014.
  6. Altermann, Wladyslaw (2008). "From Fossils to Astrobiology - A Roadmap to Fata Morgana?". From Fossils to Astrobiology: Records of Life on Earth and the Search for Extraterrestrial Biosignatures. Vol. 12. p. xvii. ISBN 1-4020-8836-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

Comments welcome - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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. Sunrise (talk) 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 "organic compounds," "biochemicals" 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 "Panspermia" => seems, at least, humankind itself may already be a part of the panspermia process - one possible example => seems there's microorganisms, like Tersicoccus phoenicis, that have been well demonstrated to be resistant to being "cleaned" in spacecraft assembly clean room facilities - and may be aboard numerous spacecraft in outer space at the moment - such microoganisms may have already been introduced to Mars, the Moon and other solar system bodies - after all - microorganisms, at least under certain test conditions, have been observed to thrive in the vacuum of outer space - Further - is there any real, and complete, assurance that there is not a single (at least potentially viable) microorganism at the moment inside the Voyager spacecraft that have left, or are leaving, the Solar System? - at the very least - the possible related implications may be interesting to consider re panspermia 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! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Webster, Guy (6 November 2013). "Rare New Microbe Found in Two Distant Clean Rooms". NASA.gov. Retrieved 6 November 2013.
  2. Zhang, K. Dose; A. Bieger-Dose, R. Dillmann, M. Gill, O. Kerz, A. Klein, H. Meinert, T. Nawroth, S. Risi, C. Stride (1995). "ERA-experiment "space biochemistry"". Advances in Space Research. 16 (8): 119–129. doi:10.1016/0273-1177(95)00280-R. PMID 11542696.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. Vaisberg, Horneck G; Eschweiler U, Reitz G, Wehner J, Willimek R, Strauch K. (1995). "Biological responses to space: results of the experiment "Exobiological Unit" of ERA on EURECA I". Adv Space Res. 16 (8): 105–18. Bibcode:1995AdSpR..16..105V. doi:10.1016/0273-1177(95)00279-N. PMID 11542695.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
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.
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. Sunrise (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
@Sunrise: - Brief followup - if interested, seems this WP essay section refers to heliocentrism - and Copernicus (ie, "JDobrzycki J Editor (1973) The reception of Copernicus' heliocentric theory pg 311") - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sunrise: - Thanks again for your comments - my present understanding of the word "abiogenesis" (and the "abiogenesis" 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 organic compounds" - clearly, life began somewhere in the universe - less clearly, life began solely on Earth - restricting the "abiogenesis" article to life arising on Earth alone seems an overemphasis on the WP:POV that the origin of life 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 NYT 2012 comment) - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. Bogdan, Dennis (2 December 2012). "Comment - Life Thrives Throughout Universe?". New York Times. Retrieved 14 December 2014.
I'm still agreeing with you on almost everything - I'm only disagreeing on the WP:WEIGHT issue based on the the approach I've seen in the literature. :-) Sunrise (talk) 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, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: & @Sunrise: - Thanks for your comments - AFAIK - seems the paper was published in the "International Journal of Astrobiology", a "peer-reviewed scientific journal" - 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! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. Loeb, Abraham (October 2014). "The Habitable Epoch of the Early Universe". International Journal of Astrobiology. 13 (04): 337–339. doi:10.1017/S1473550414000196. Retrieved 15 December 2014.
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, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2014 (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?SocraticOath (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I am OK with using "Abiogenesis is DEFINED AS the natural process..." Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 Done - Yes - *entirely* agree - text has been updated as suggested - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
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 Physics. I would tend to call it WP:WEASEL since it reduces straightforwardness and begs the question "defined by whom?" Sunrise (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
eraser Undone - Yes - Thank you *very much* for your comment - seems the issue was discussed earlier after all - at the following => "Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 4#The article's first sentence is perhaps incorrect" - undoing my own earlier edit - at least until we've developed a better consensus - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence does not meet the standards of Misplaced Pages core content policies

Misplaced Pages was founded on the fundamental principle that its content must fall under certain criteria to be admissible. One criterion is that it must submit to a neutral point of view ( see WP:NPOV ), another is that it must be verifiable. (See WP:VER ) "Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds" does not meet these standards, whereas "abiogenesis is the hypothetical natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds' does. Since it is not verifiable that life arose through natural processes, saying so is not a neutral point of view and therefore not acceptable.66.190.249.214 (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Categories: