Talk:Abiogenesis

For old or unrelated discussion: Archive1

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

Bias Warning Header Possible

the whole article and even some stuff on this talk page seems to be sarcastic creationist propaganda. I just read this article and i can barely remember anything about the hypothesis or theory (whichever it is) about abiogenesis, just paragraphs of criticism and the faux fob off onto a panspermia hypothesis to suggest abiogenesis has been declared a failed hypothesis.

81.86.60.118 15:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Grammar and "Smiley Interjection"

I fixed the presentation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics criticism section. Also, I removed the smiley looking phrase under Yockery's criticisms: "(:-Yes, quotes about omitting millions of years/steps in the process are appropriate.-:)" This seemes like something the author should have placed here instead. --Rec Specz 01:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to sign :( --Rec Specz 01:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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.

And tip the balance in favor of evolution, breaking the NPOV policy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.97.37.231 (talk • contribs).

No. Please read WP:NPOV#Undue weight. -- Ec5618 06:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I support evolution and everything, but a page refuting claims made against creation-- even if it uses fallacies-- would seem pretty relevant. ~Kazu 19:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? Answers in genesis is well-known for half-truths and wonky non-science - why on earth would we want to send readers to a site that we know tells porkies? --Charlesknight 19:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

After a very quick glance through (I didn't want to lose too many brain cells) I agree. No reason to have that here. ~Kazu 01:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Plus, in any case, this is about abiogenesis, not evolution. Let's not slip in to the very same confusion AiG makes. Giving them a voice is bad enough.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.92.173.186 (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2007

Merged some material with origin of life article

I think this article should this be merged with origin of life. 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. --Lexor 19:25, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

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 origin of life article, but have left a summary and a Main article: pointer here.

--Lexor 12:05, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Paragraph removed by anonymous IP address (not by me). --Lexor|Talk 10:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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 evolutionists, or not, as claimed by many religions

Proposal to Merge this page into Biopoiesis

I would like to know how you folks feel about merging abiogenesis into biopoiesis. This term carries less historical baggage and seems to be favored over abiogenesis in some situations. --Viriditas 11:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I prefer to leave it abiogenesis where it is (it gets around 18,000 hits: Google), and I think that biopoiesis should be merged with origin of life, it only gets 91 hits on Google: Google. With two sentences I can't really see it being expanded. --Lexor|Talk 11:45, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Google_test. "...the google test checks popular usage, not correctness." For some good links on the history and differences between the two words, see this link and this link. Biopoiesis has been used in place of abiogenesis 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. --Viriditas 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.) — B.Bryant 14:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that aiopoiesis may belong here. However, spontaneous generation is sort of different and might belong in a separate article; abiogenesis is related to origin of life, but spontaneous generation usually (especially historically) means the continual emergence of life from non-life, rather than a one-time or few-times event in the distant past.--ragesoss 23:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is better to keep some distinctions between a general view (abiogenesis) and have references to other theories that are more specific within the general view (like biopoiesis/biopoesis ... which is right?)

I would like to see the article on biopoiesis/biopoesis expanded to discuss the several (successful) experiments on self-replicating molecules that have been done, rather than using the Miller\Urey experiment (that was only amino acids after all), and to include the finding of amino acids on meteors and in space.

That way biopoiesis/biopoesis can focus on the science and abiogenesis can contend with the creationist/ID crowd paul 01:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Im a guest, but these are two completely different things. One from inorganic molecules, and one is an ancient idea explaining decay etc... Dont merge them, it is FAR to innacurate

This is contradicted by the introductory paragraph. Abiogenesis is the name for the idea that life came from non-organic material, and so it also applies to the scientific hypothesis by the same name.

Well, that, and I honestly don't understand what you said.~Kazu 04:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Biopoesis

Moved the following discussion up under Proposal to merge with biopoesis to keep these discussions together.DLH 12:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose The fact that abiogenesis wins the Google test by a landslide should speak for itself. Biopoesis, as I gather, is a different term. I won't bother reiterating what's already been said a bunch of times in the "oppose" votes below.~Kazu 04:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I support this. Alienus 03:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Conditionally Support - So long as all of the information is merged in, the abiogenesis article references Abiogenesis 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. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 11:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• support.--Deglr6328 08:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• oppose Abiogenesis is not the same as biopoiesis. But merging it with chemical evolution might be a good idea. 62.245.210.87 05:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• oppose Abiogenesis and biogeneis were originally used to describe the division that existed in the Spontaneous Generation era. Biogeneis held that life would arise from life or materials derived from life, independent of parents e.g. internal parasites (how else did they get there?). Life was thought to contain a life force and this magical force could make more of itself e.g. the electricity used to boot-up Frankenstein’s Monster. Whereas, abiogenesis was opposed to biogeneis and offered a mechanistic view of life. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) was one of the first to propose abiogenesis. Biopoiesis began with Oparin and Haldane in the early 20th century, it is modern study of life’s origin Diamond Dave 23/02/2006 19:14

• oppose The two are close but not identical. Biopoiesis has an emphasis on theories of self-organization that are either merely implicit or unexplored in Abiogenesis work. We have no diskspace shortage here and it hurts nothing to include separate writeups on closely allied terms. Jim Tour 00:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• more or less I was not even aware of the article "chemical evolution". I think that a series of articles on the topic of origin of life need some sort of management and better planning. I think that part of that would include the merging of biopoiesis in something about chemical evolution, but I think that it could be in the "origin of life" article, and the chem evo article would focus more on the other sense of the term, and have something in the sense of a disambiguation linking to "origin of life". I think that biopoiesis still fits on abiogenesis well, even if it refers more specificaly to self-organization, since abiogenesis means origin of life, and thus whatever is under the label of biopoiesis meaning origin of life by means of self organization, is still under the abiogenesis umbrella. However, I think that still could be a larger biopoesis article making clarifications on its specifics; the same way that there is a "origin of life" article, and various articles for different theories of origin of life (RNA world, iron sulfid world, Oparin hypotheis, etc). But the last time I checked, biopoiesis was nearly a stub that made it look like a synonym with abiogenesis. (Semantically, I guess it is, despite of some difference that may exist to what actually is referred by the term). --Extremophile 00:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• oppose - keep abiogegnesis

Keep the primary discussion under abiogenesis as almost all people search for that term. Only a few specialists would know to distinguish the other terms. Propose subsections detailing the biopoiesis and its differences etc. If these become large enough, then give them their own breakout page with a summary here.DLH 12:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Umm, what's this discussion about? I merged (as requested by someon else, don't know whom but this can be checked) biopoesis (and biopoiesis) into abiogenesis on June 6th, 2006. Currently, biopoesis is a redirect to abiogenesis. How are we supposed to merge an article into its redirect? Basically, there is nothing to merge: either we switch (abiogenesis redirects to biopoesis instead of the current reverse), or we split the articles again (which I oppose, as there is no clear difference). Fram 13:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

scientific view?

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. -- Temtem 16:12, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

May we need a section titled "Philosophical Critique of Abiogenesis." -- Temtem 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). — B.Bryant 17:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the above section (Creationist Response)

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 Wikipedia 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 (abiogenesis). 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.

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 here. And my talk page is here. 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: Knoma Tsujmai 03:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have done that, and it is --Truthteller 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 Wikipedia works very different than a lot of other things in life. To be involved in Wikipedia 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 neutral point of view 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 Wikipedia at any time, but finding some way to work through and represent the opposing opinions will likely help your revisions to stick. Knoma Tsujmai 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 Wikipedia 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. Knoma Tsujmai 03:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

So again, sign up and start outlining some changes. The Sandbox 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 Wikipedia started in my lifetime, but will likely survive on this Earth much longer than I. At the same time, "The Wikipedia" 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 Wikipedia! Knoma Tsujmai 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 Wikipedia.

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

Agreed, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. And there should be no troll feeding. Joe D (t) 17:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I have put it in Archive1 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 Wikipedia Knoma Tsujmai; you have good instincts. :'D - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 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 Erwin Schrödinger achieved fame for his contributions to quantum mechanics, while Sir Fred Hoyle was an astronomer? I'm not sure how this should be made clear, without it sounding like criticising the critics, though. -- Ec5618 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. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The modern concept of abiogenesis has been criticised by scientists, notably by Sir Fred Hoyle, Erwin Schrödinger and Hubert Yockey. 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 -- Ec5618 18:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Minor thoughts/tweaks:

The modern concept of abiogenesis has been criticised by scientists, notably by Sir Fred Hoyle, Erwin Schrödinger and Hubert Yockey. 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 biology. Leading biologists point to fundamental assumptions in their arguments which have little to no bearing on abiogenesis theories or research.

Third draft. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 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. -- Ec5618 06:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Coo, inserted. Another win for Wikipedia! Huzzah! - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 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. Stefan Udrea 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

Stefan Udrea 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. -- Ec5618 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.

Stefan Udrea 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. Stefan Udrea

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. -- Ec5618 16:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Permission was granted. Stefan Udrea 06:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:How to edit a page, 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 Wikipedia 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. -- Ec5618 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. Vsmith 15:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you both for the suggestions.I'll try to paraphrase that quote.

Stefan Udrea 19:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

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 :)

Stefan Udrea 20:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

This section sound embarassingly wrong. Anything I found on the web on "what is life" gives a different account of the book including the link at the end of the section.

I will check out the book at my university tomorrow and will talk to a friend of mine, who just passed an exam on biophysics. 62.245.210.87 05:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the definition of life disputed too? It might be better to say something along the lines of "life can be defined as x" and provide a citation, then maybe add a contradictory definition (with citation) after that. ~Kazu 19:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Panspermiites

Do the panspermia 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. Vsmith 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. Alienus 00:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I was thinking of expanding the panspermia section to include some of the recent findings of organic molecules in space -- so the seeding may not be from life but from the building blocks of life. Thus the "Primodial Soup" doesn't need to generate amino acids so much as assemble them.

Meteors may also have played an important role in making rare atoms available on the surface, and the ices may have helped form the first protocell structures.

The other alternative is to put this information in the biopoesis article and expand on the specific scientific discoveries there.

Merge with Biopoesis

I support this. Alienus 03:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Conditionally Support - So long as all of the information is merged in, the abiogenesis article references Abiogenesis 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. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 11:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• support.--Deglr6328 08:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• oppose Abiogenesis is not the same as biopoiesis. But merging it with chemical evolution might be a good idea. 62.245.210.87 05:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• oppose Abiogenesis and biogeneis were originally used to describe the division that existed in the Spontaneous Generation era. Biogeneis held that life would arise from life or materials derived from life, independent of parents e.g. internal parasites (how else did they get there?). Life was thought to contain a life force and this magical force could make more of itself e.g. the electricity used to boot-up Frankenstein’s Monster. Whereas, abiogenesis was opposed to biogeneis and offered a mechanistic view of life. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) was one of the first to propose abiogenesis. Biopoiesis began with Oparin and Haldane in the early 20th century, it is modern study of life’s origin Diamond Dave 23/02/2006 19:14

• oppose The two are close but not identical. Biopoiesis has an emphasis on theories of self-organization that are either merely implicit or unexplored in Abiogenesis work. We have no diskspace shortage here and it hurts nothing to include separate writeups on closely allied terms. Jim Tour 00:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• more or less I was not even aware of the article "chemical evolution". I think that a series of articles on the topic of origin of life need some sort of management and better planning. I think that part of that would include the merging of biopoiesis in something about chemical evolution, but I think that it could be in the "origin of life" article, and the chem evo article would focus more on the other sense of the term, and have something in the sense of a disambiguation linking to "origin of life". I think that biopoiesis still fits on abiogenesis well, even if it refers more specificaly to self-organization, since abiogenesis means origin of life, and thus whatever is under the label of biopoiesis meaning origin of life by means of self organization, is still under the abiogenesis umbrella. However, I think that still could be a larger biopoesis article making clarifications on its specifics; the same way that there is a "origin of life" article, and various articles for different theories of origin of life (RNA world, iron sulfid world, Oparin hypotheis, etc). But the last time I checked, biopoiesis was nearly a stub that made it look like a synonym with abiogenesis. (Semantically, I guess it is, despite of some difference that may exist to what actually is referred by the term). --Extremophile 00:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Part, Keep part I argue in an entry at the bottom of this discussion page that the term abiogenesis is incorectly used in this article. The combining several sources, the correct definition is the one closest to its original use. It is "the discredited theory that some relatively complex organisms can spontaneously form from inanimate matter". Of course, this is not at all what evolutionary biology says occurs since it never claims that fully formed "organisms" form in a single generation. In the sense of the correct definition of abiogenesis, it is distinct. In the (incorrect) broader sense that this article proposes, it IS identical to origin of life or biopoiesis, etc. I would say move all the material that is identical to origin of life to origin of life and keep the material that relates only to the (correct) narrow definition under abiogenesis.Hubbardaie 14:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed extraneous links

I removed some extraneous links from the main article using the Wikipedia Manual of Style 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. --Cyde 04:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Good Idea:--Wavesmikey 20:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hoyle and abiogenesis

Wouldn't be interesting to mention that Hoyle had his own idea of natural abiogenesis too, that it would occur in space?

His idea is briefly described here.

The article and what is gerenally said (and quotes) of Hoyle on the subject always gives the idea that he either supported a supernatural explanation or that life existed forever ago, without ever having an origin. As he defended steady-state it would be partly true anyway, life would have existed forever; but it would have had multiple, infinite, natural origins along the eternity.

_{Sorry if I made some sort of mess, I'm not familiar with participating in wikipedia discussions/editing....}

"proved" is not NPOV

This article frequently uses the word "proved" with respect to the history of the abiogenesis/spontaneous generation issue; this is somewhat problematic. For example, while Pasteur's arguments did indeed carry the day and convince the majority of the scientific community (and won him the prize set for the issue), there were some scientists who didn't consider it settled. In general, saying "proved" with regard to science is basically always somewhat of an exageration. Established or some other more neutral word should be substituted.--ragesoss 23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What about linking the word "proved" to an article that explain what is (and how it was, in earlier times) considered a scientific proof? I think that totally avoiding (except in math) this word wouldn't be NPOV, but a "extremely relativistic" POV. I think that a neutral point of view shouldn't try to make appear that the dispute is matched, by omission or extreme care in the expositon of facts, to not make seem that any side is the "loser". Other possibility (not mutually exclusive) is, in this case, add that there were some scientists who didn't consider it settled, along with their reasonings.--Extremophile 14:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I think this article is somewhat problematic. I've improving the version of the article in portuguese, and, during the research, I'm founding very interesting points that I think that should be in this article. I'm describing much more detailed the history of the debate about spontaneous generation, and to my surprise, the version I knew, which I think is the "classic", stereotypic version, is very simplistic, painting all in black and white whilst in the true history there was shades of grey. I've written a sketch and translated it to english, so it's there, just in case someone wants to add something to the article, it can give some ideas about what could be added, and even serve as a sketch to detail a bit more the historic part. --Extremophile 01:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Critics section

Schrödinger in fact said the complete opposite of what is claimed in this section. In fact he showed how life is compatible with the second law of thermodynamics. A quick look on http://www.hubertpyockey.com/ raised suspition that this may also be the case with Yockey. I therefore removed this section for now from the article. I will write up what Schrödinger says in What is life? tomorrow and I will also research the claims on Yockey. 82.135.0.9 02:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The claims on Yocky seem in general to be ok. So I will put them back on the article. 82.135.0.9 09:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Schrödinger

In 1944, physicist Erwin Schrödinger, in his book What is life?, asserted that the mechanism of genetics defies the laws of thermodynamics, since a relatively small number of molecules, which form the genetic material, have such a huge influence on so many other molecules. Although not direct criticism of abiogenesis, Schrödinger's book asserts that life can't be explained by the laws of physics, thus implying that it can't be created from lifeless matter.

Today, scientists believe that the distinction between large numbers and small numbers is eminently important to understand biological systems, because they are small number systems rather than the convenient large number systems that physicists prefer. What thermodynamics (which Schrödinger based his book on) describes as a random fluctuation is a signaling process to cell biology. Hormonal signals depend on the behavior of small systems, where fluctuations can push a system beyond a threshold level where a chemical reaction suddenly becomes spontaneous; as opposed to, say, a balloon filled with gas, where a fluctuation (for example, a change of speed) of a few hundreds of molecules will not change the state of the gas in the balloon as a whole (for example, it will not change its temperature). [1]

Yockey

Yockey's given a great deal of prominence here. But I've never heard of him. Is he really such a world-recognised authority? PiCo 13:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that he's notable only for being one of those people that Creatonists like to reference. Frankly, his ideas aren't particularly sound, and I've seen no evidence that they're taken seriously by others in his field. Alienus 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably because most people don't welcome holes being poked in their favorite theories. His work is sound enough for Cambridge University Press to publish his book. Suggest you read it. Yockey actually opposes Intelligent Design (but missunderstands it).DLH 13:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

To give some substance to Yockey, propose referring to his most important publication and citing his actual summary statements:

"Yockey extensively reviewed the scientific literature on the origin of life and concluded: “the status of research on the origin of life is still, Omne vivum ex vivo.” Yockey, Hubert P. (2005). Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-80293-8. {{cite book}}: Text "p148" ignored (help) "No code exists to send informtion from protein sequences to sequences in mRNA or DNA. Therefore, it is impossible that the origin of life was "proteins first" from Haeckel's Urschleim." From mathematics and information theory, Yockey holds that “the origin of the genetic code is unknowable” and “the process of the origin of life is possible but unknowable.”

---

DLH 13:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Where does this come from "The principles of Yockey's argument seem to be effective for a variety of creative disciplines, such as the writing of computer software, where FOSS seems to play the social role of an Intelligent Designer while traditional computer programming methods seem to take the role of traditional chemical evolution." (last in the Yockey section). I find it really wierd to write that. The only source I know of that refers to ID and evolution re FOSS is Linus Torvalds: "Linux is evolution, not intelligent design", a quote that has stuck. While some people disagree with this I don't. Either way I don't think that a comparison to FOSS should be done at all in this article. I removed it, it's not NPOV. -- JohanViklund 14:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Re-structuring article

I've tried to give the article more of a structure by concenrating on the science history acpect - the origin of life article doesn't need to be re-hashed here, and if this article is to justify its existence it needs a theme. I'll continue of otbher editors think this is going in the right direction (at the moemnt I've gotten as far as the Urey-Miller experiment in 1953, but a lot has happened since then). Any comments ? PiCo 11:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw that, but I've made a huge sketch that may be a source of information for the improvement of the article in this sense. I want to eventually add something about Spiegelman and the RNA monster, I think it hasn't yet, but I don't remember, it has some time since the last time I saw it. But one point I think that would be interesting to made was to deiconize Pasteur as the ultimate debunker of spontaneous generation, mentioning the oposition of Pouchet, and the works of Tyndall and maybe of Cohn too. I also think that the critics section may be almost entirely go away, part to the origin of life article, and part to panspermia article, or even articles of the respective persons mentioned, since the oposition made by proponents of panspermia could also be inserted in a hystorical context (as it is in the sketch). --Extremophile 17:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't find your sketch. I agree that this article has huge problems. The biggest is deciding what it's trying to be. I'm inclined at the moment to think it should be about the philosophical side of the question of abiogenesis - Aristotle said it was a self-evident truth, then Pasteur showed it wasn't, but he simultaneously showed that Darwin must be be wrong on theoretical grounds. Kelvin drew attention to a second theoretical obstacle to Darwin, the 2nd law. Miller and Urey (drawing on Oparin and Haldane) then demonstrated that the 2nd law is not an obstacle to the spontaneous emergence of complex from less complex systems. But I'm not sure where to go from there. Some mention should be made of information theory, which is simply a restatement of the 2nd law. I agree that the critics section should go - it's peurile. Not go to any other article, just go. Panspermia in this article I'm not sure about - it's an argument about the details of where life mayn have originated, not whether it could originate spontaneously from non-living matter, which is what I currently see this article as being about. Interesting that Kelvin believed in panspermia, as a possibility. Funny man, Kelvin - no great scientist has ever been so wrong so often. About Pasteur, I think we need to keep this article simple; the nuances of Pouchet et al should be kept for some other article. (Or am I oversimplifying this article?) I'm leaving Wiki now, won't be back, so up to you to do as you wish. PiCo 10:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Humm... sad that wiki losts collaborators... my sketch was here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Extremophile/Abiogenesis), anyway. I´m not so assured of my english writing abilities, so I will still just let it there as a reference or source for anyone who would be interested in doing that.

About what the article could be, I think that would be better to this one to be mainly hystorical, with the phylosophical/scientific details being dealt in more specific articles, with the hystorical part, if needed, in a more summarized way; I think that something in the way you´re saying could be in the history section of "origin of life", though. Then the Pasteur vs. Pouchet part of the history would be mentioned here in some extent, but I think it doesn´t even need to be mentioned somewhere else, for example, in the "origin of life" article. I also can´t think of somewhere else it would fit, nor where else it would be more appropriate, since I think it paints a less simplistic version of the history, without distortions such as Pasteur being the ultimate debunker of the idea of spontaneous generation, "the clear won of the hero, the platonically perfect icon of the scientific method against the pseudo-scientific crackpots with tendentious experiments".

I think that panspermia could be mentioned, but very briefly. In my sketch it is mentioned just twice, first at the "british debate" section:

William Thomson (later, Lord Kelvin), around 1871 theorized that the Earth was only about 100 000 000 years old (what later was shown to be wrong), and believed that it didn't left time enough for natural selection guided evolution. To avoid the problem of the origin of life, he suggested one theory of panspermia - the ida that the life was originally from space. Wilhelm Preyer, professor of University of Jena, also defended panspermia. To him, there was no logical problem with spontaneous generation happening in the present day, supposing it had happened once in the distant past; he thought that if that ever happened, would abound evidences of its occurrence, since it would still occur in the present day. He objected the idea that life could have arisen only under a highly different environment in the remote past, reasoning that life wouldn't survive such radical changes from the environment that originated it. He supposed then that the universe and life were eternal.

And later, when is stated that nowadays is known that the some of the chemistry needed for life somehow forms in space, then it increases the likelyhood of extraterrestrial life, and of panspermia, to Hoyle and others. For while this is on the last paragraph, and I don´t think it´s a very good ending of the article, but as I said, it´s just a sketch/second hand source.

I think that it´s interesting in the hystorical point of view, since it shows that various ideas were being presented, rather than the overtly simplified version of "spontaneous generation; spontaneous generation refuted; Oparin-Haldane abiogenesis stabilished". In fact there were some sort degree of overlap between the acception of the hypotheses, the changing of ideas were more gradual than how it´s usually depicted. And the hypotheses themselves were not always clear-cut distinguishable from each other. For example, without the present knowledge of microbiology, was not so easy to see how the primordial chemical origin of life could be so different than spontaneous generation happening in the present day. If the first ever happened, the latter probably could happen even today. Haeckel, and/or others, thought cells were just simple "protoplasm" inside a cellular wall, without something much complex within it, that took long to evolve. Also there were lesser known distinctions such as from life originating from organic matter and inorganic matter.

Perhaps the most interesting example of the oversimplification of the history as generally presented is that, second the historian John Farley, Pasteur believed that parasitical worms originated spontaneously, and also, that microbial life itself could be spontaneously generated, but he engaged against the defenses of that for political reasons and scientifical bias - his patrons were "pro-biogenesis", and he thought that only he was in the right track of discovering how life originated because of clues in his works with crystals.

--Extremophile 20:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the current Origins of Life article should be rehashed here. The Origins of Life article deals with the "current scientific thought," which is, as of now, abiogenesis. That could (theoretically) change, though; and if it does, the Origins of Life article would change to follow it. This page wouldn't change, though; being that it's not tied to "current scientific thought" -- and therin lies the difference between the articles. --DominionSeraph 01:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It makes some sense. However, "abiogenesis" is not a "absolute" synonym of how the origin of life is seen today, but the distinction with spontaneous generation was a blurred in the past. And etymologically, spontaneous generation is abiogenesis. I´m not arguing against it, anyway, as long as each article has some short introduction with links or even a real disambiguation, that should be okay in either way. --Extremophile 17:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems abound

"Pasteur had demonstrated that Aristotle was wrong. And he seemed to have demonstrated simultaneously that Charles Darwin was also wrong."

To whom did it seem that way?

I guess it all has to do with creationist sources on the reccent additions to this text. Aristotle was no longer the point, as there were more "recent" proponents of spontaneous generation; if Pasteur did demonstrated that Darwin was wrong, he did it in a very specific way, since it refers just to spontaneous generation, not to common ancestry or natural selection. And as far as I've read, Darwin did not said much on the subject, on contrary, he said something in the sense that was a field prolific to the obscurity of thought. --Extremophile 14:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Lord Kelvin was quite right: the second law prohibited the spontaneous emergence of life.

Or so, on theoretical principles, it would seem."

Again, seemed that way to whom?

Also, we have a categorical assertion that Kelvin was right; followed by a qualification; followed by another that puts it in the realm of mere perception.

Again, as far as I´ve read, Kelvin did not opposed a primordial abiogenesis per se, but rather that it occurred on Earth. He was an early proponent of a form of panspermia, in which life does not necessarily existed since forever ago. I do not know if that was his opinion, however, but as he asserted that there was no time for life arising on Earth, seems that he thought that it would be possible to happen in different conditions. I also think it had not much to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the sense that creationists (mis)use it today, but by reasoning that the planet was supposedly too hot nearby its formation, and that life appeared short after, or something in these lines. --Extremophile 14:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"The second law had been breached, or so it appeared."

Appeared that way to whom? --DominionSeraph 00:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes this article seems to have become a (more of a) mess due to recent additions - it needs a significant rewrite (by the way useful if you sign your comments). --Charlesknight 12:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have wondered if a previous version of the primordial soup section was not copied verbatim from some unnamed source. Dan Watts 18:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that a more or less recent version of this article incorporated much of an old article from Britannica, which was already in public domain. --Extremophile 18:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to step up to the plate to fix this article. --Percy

Improving the abiogenesis article

We're trying to coordinate improvements to the abiogenesis article at Wikipedia, I'm trying to gather interested parties at:

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1358&m=1

--Percy

On the "racemized" comment

I found two places in the "primordial soup" hypothesis where the wording made it look like "racemized" somehow meant that a racemic mix is somehow not really a precursor of life. A completely racemized mixture can definitely be said to have an abiotic origin. The experiment was designed with abiotic origin, so this is expected. However, the racemic character has no bearing on what the mixture could become. "Racemic" means only that both L and R isomers are present in the mixture. Most known proteins are L isomers, thus, the necessary precursors were present.[2] Therefore, the "but racemized" doesn't really illuminate anything. So I worded it in a way that made it not sound like a contradictory outcome.

Primordial Soup

One of the changes I made while cleaning this section up I'm not entirely sure about the consistency from before and after the chances.

I changed: "These droplets could then "grow" by fusion with other droplets, "reproduce" through fission into daughter droplets, and so have a primitive metabolism in which those factors which promote "cell integrity" survive, and those that don't become extinct."

To the current text: "These droplets could then fuse with other droplets and break apart into two replicas of the original. This could be viewed as a primitive form of reproduction and metabolism. Favorable attributes such as increased durability in the structure would survive more often than nonfavorable attributes."

Is the modification at least as accurate as the original? I think it is, but can't say for sure. GromXXVII 01:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

bringing up justification for article's existance again

I see that there has been discussion before about just why this article needs to exist, but discussion seems to have died out without reaching a conclusion. Whatever the philosophical justification for this article existing, in practice it looks to me like every part of it duplicates some other Wikipedia article except the part about spontaneous generation. I suggest we rename this article "spontaneous generation" (which already redirects to here), and remove all the other parts of the article. --Allen 02:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and then I suggest we redirect "Abiogenesis" to Origin of life. --Allen 02:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough, but as a historica philosohical belieft it should stay. Enlil Ninlil 05:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Enlil Ninlil, but could you elaborate? Are you saying no action should be taken, or some of the article should be removed? --Allen 18:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Origin of life is a broader term: I'd think it a bad idea to load that article with the task of throughly handling abiogenesis as well. Spontaneous generation is even more specific. This article is small enough right now that it can have an entire section on Spontaneous generation. I'd say the pieces about the actual theories of it; as well as an intro piece about what it is conceptually should be expanded: but not removing the article completely. GromXXVII 10:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

But exactly how is "origin of life" broader? It seems to me that "origin of life" potentially encompasses three areas: religious explanations, abiogenesis, and scientific hypotheses involving life having always existed. The origin of life article specifically excludes religious explanations (per the disambig line at the top), and I'm not aware of any scientific hypotheses involving life having always existed. So what is the task of origin of life, if not to thoroughly handle abiogenesis? --Allen 18:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Origin of life page is better than this one. I can't see much which is worthwhile in this article. Redirect to Origin of life looks like a good plan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.24.144 (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Spontaneous Generation

The section states "Pasteur's experiments were limited to a closed sterile system." Is the pre-biotic earth also defined to be sterile? Dan Watts 20:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Does sterile also mean free from materials needed? Perhaps sterile might not be the best word choice since it usually means free from microbes, but limited may be better defined since it's such a small system and pre-biotic earth would have the whole planet or resources even if it just needs the right conditions. If life needed just the right settings,

I'm finding the sentence as inaccurate:

Pasteur had demonstrated that Spontaneous Generation was wrong, and he also seemed to have demonstrated that any concept involving the generation of living matter from non-living matter was also wrong.

Pasteur showed that in a contained material not even microbes, they could detect at the time were undetected. This isn't conclusive that any form of spontaneous generation. Is it just me or is this whole page one of those POV forks? --Tsinoyboi 07:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Correction to the second law of thermodynamics section

I corrected some physically incorrect statements in that section. For details, see the articles about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. Dan Gluck 21:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the statement that work consumes energy.--RobinGrant 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Information entropy

Removed the following unsourced bit from article:

However what the law does imply is that the information (in a sense the opposite of entropy) contained in life had to exist from the very beginning of the universe, since the information content of an isolated system only decreases over time.

Seems it needs sourcing at the very least. Vsmith 01:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

hypothesis rather than theory

How can we expect non-scientists to understand what the word 'theory' means, if we misuse it in an encyclopedia article?

I am replacing "theory" with something else, usually "hypothesis". If I am completely wrong and abiogenesis is indeed well-proven and accepted, feel free to revert.

Trishm 03:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Clay Hypothesis

"Clays can also include other atoms and molecules in their structures, and would have evolved including more and more complex structures..." Is this what Cairns-Smith meant? Dan Watts 14:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove clay hypothesis?

What's the division of labour between this article and Origin of life? If it is as I understand it, then it's appropriate that clay hypothesis is covered there (as it is) but it doesn't have a place here any more than any of the other theories over on the other page. — ciphergoth 11:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization and creationist bias

In a scientific context, I would consider origin of life and abiogenesis to be synonymous. On wikipedia, what is the intended distinction between the two?

Relatedly, much of the content of this particular article is in gross violation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Most egregiously, the external "criticism" links to trueorigin.org fail the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources criteria, so I have removed them.

Perhaps we should consider a cross-topic reorganization:

• what topics do we want to cover?
• what are the current related terms?
• how do we want to associate the covered topics with those terms?

--manifolds 09:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I also believed that abiogenesis is a creationist POV since it is usually the strawman argument used by creationists. However, I can see how the article would be valid if, as the article claims, the word "abiogenesis" is now used in a broaders sense (the eventual spontaneous generation of any life) than it was originally used (the spontaneous generation of relatively evolved, complex life, even mice). If this is really not true (I did not investigate it, myself) then the entire article is flawed. If so, then the article about abiogenesis should just be about 1) the orginal use of the term and 2) the use of it as a strawman argument in creationism. Its a strawman argument because a creationist will often say that "abiogenesis has been disproven, therefore evolutionary theory has been disproven" when, actually, the original concept of abiogenesis was absolutely nothing like the modern theory of evolution.Hubbardaie 12:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Theory vs. Hypothesis

The issue of theory vs. hypothesis is characterized incorrectly in the lead. A theory need not be "accepted" to become a theory. If we don't want to characterize abiogenesis as a theory, it should be because the loose collection of hypotheses are not sufficiently structured to deserve "theory." For reference, here is the Merriam Webster definition: "5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>." Gnixon 14:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

fixed this. Gnixon 22:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

The "2nd law" section could use some work on NPOV tone. Currently the article presents the (flawed, weak, etc.) 2nd law argument against abiogenesis, then explains how it is "refuted." Instead of giving the refutation directly, we should quote it from a reliable source and say something like "Joe Bob has countered that [... (quote)]" or "However, the argument seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the 2nd law. Joe Bob, a [biologist/physicist/other qualification], has pointed out that [... (quote)]." Gnixon 15:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

fixed this. Gnixon 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thermo

User:Hubbardaie objected to me cutting the following from a section on "2nd law" challenges to theories of abiogenesis:

Furthermore, the concept of entropy in thermodynamics is not identical to the common notion of "disorder". For example, a thermodynamically closed system of certain solutions will eventually transform from a cloudy liquid to a clear solution containing large "orderly" crystals. Most people would characterize the former state as having "more disorder" than the latter state. However, in a purely thermodynamic sense, the entropy has increased in this system, not decreased. The units of measure of entropy in thermodynamics are "units of energy per unit of temperature". Whether a human perceives one state of a system as "more orderly" than another has no bearing on the calculation of this quantity. The common notion that entropy in thermodynamics is equivalent to a popular conception of "disorder" has caused many non-physicists to completely misinterpret what the second law of thermodynamics is really about.

There are two problems with the material:

• (1) It doesn't obviously pertain to Pullen's "challenge" since he is never described as using the "disorder" interpretation of entropy---rather it simply says he believes entropy is violated;
• (2) Even if that interpretation is the basis of his objection, this article isn't the place for a lecture on thermo. The attributed source Rosenhouse has said there is no violation of entropy. If readers need more information on why entropy isn't violated, they should read Rosenhouse or the entropy article.

The material above does not pertain specifically to abiogenesis, and since the reference to Rosenhouse covers that he doesn't see a violation of entropy, the material amounts to a long digression on thermodynamics (longer than the direct discussion of the relevant issue it's trying to clarify) Gnixon 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for explaining your position. Here are my responses:

(1) I might concede that it "doesn't obviously pertain" since Pullen never explicitly uses the word "disorder". This is because it doesn't explain why Pullen thinks the 2nd law is violated by abiogenesis. However, Pullen must necessarilly, like all who make this claim, be presuming that "entropy" means "lack of order or complexity". Otherwise he has no objection. He is certainly not showing a calculation that shows that a system with mammals, for example, actually has more entropy in units of "joules/kelvin" (the actual physical units of entropy in thermo). I've assumed nothing more about Pullen's argument than that he must be using the common layman's defintion of entropy that everyone who ever makes that argument uses. I think one sentence would suffice to make my point obviously pertain to Pullen's objection. Perhaps I should have said "Pullen's argument implicitly presumes a common non-technical definition of entropy as 'disorder' or, by extention, 'lack of complexity', not the identical use of the term by physcists".

(2) I could concede this point with the qualifier that if this response is not appropriate here, then neither would the Roundhouse argument. I would say they both go or both stay, although both could be edited down. If anything, I see the point I make as even more fundamental than what Roundhouse is saying. This addresses the same error as irrational numbers or imaginary numbers are irrational or imaginary in the common use of these terms. Or that quarks have "flavor" or "color" in the same sense as those words are used to describe food or wallpaper. They just aren't talking about the same thing and the use of such terms by physicists have caused untold confusion and irrational (in the non-numerical sense) claims in the general public.

I agree that the argument is probably redundant here. Both points - Roundhouse's response and the one I made - could be just breifly mentioned in a single sentence and moved under a topic heading more specific to these points. Even as I wrote the section user:ConfuciusOrnis refered to, I felt it was probably redundant with points made elsewhere. Perhaps the entire section could simply be replaced with links to another article with the sentence "This position has been refuted by those who point out that 1) Earth is not a thermodynamically closed system and 2) that "entropy" in thermodynamics has little to do with popular notions of disorder or lack of complexity." Each point in this statement would link to the article on creationism, evolution, thermodynamics, or whatever.Hubbardaie 11:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with someone else. ornis 11:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I meant Gnixon....Hubbardaie 14:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree things should be trimmed. Regarding (1), your proposed rephrasing would solve the logic, but assuming Pullen means something that he hasn't said explicitly constitutes WP:OR. Again, for complying with WP:NPOV, it's okay to say that Rosenhouse says the guy is wrong, but not okay for Wikipedia to explain why he is wrong. Likewise, it's not okay for us to say Rosenhouse has "refuted" the guy, because that also takes the side that Rosenhouse is right and the other guy is wrong. It should be entirely sufficient to quote Rosenhouse saying the guy is wrong, and count on our readers to decide who is more reliable. Moreover, it's our policy to do so. I totally understand how tempting it is to simply adopt the POV of the guy who's "obviously" right, but we have to stick to the letter of the WP:NPOV law here. By the way, I think it would be quite useful to link to some article that describes the common "disorder" misconception, as long as we can mention it in a neutral way. Gnixon 06:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

yes this article is a mishmash, i too suggest rewriting it solely as spontaneous generation

the origin of life wiki looks like a nice review of the topic of abiogenesis that is hypotheses on how the early biogeochemical earth could have produced (or can) life. this wiki: abiogenesis has a good description of spontaneous generation, but everything else in it is kind of muddled. The origin of life wiki also does a good job of discussing Oparin, Miller, and Urey. so all in all i don't think there is much more than spontaneous gen that is special to this article.

the paragraphs on criticisms to abiogenesis are not in the origin of life wiki. that's true. Perhaps as with the Objections to evolution wiki there should be a separate wiki for criticisms of abiogenesis.

furthermore the opening paragraph does not realy make it clear what this wiki is precisely about.Wikiskimmer 23:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I also don't know why there have to be two articles, 'abiogenesis' and 'origin of life', if abiogenesis is understood in the modern sense of 'life from non-life', not the Aristotelan 'mice from garbage'. Modern abiogenesis is per definition 'life from non-life' and thus 'origin of life'. Many paragraphs could just be duplicated. Thus this article here might just recapitulate the history of the concept. Modern abiogenesis hypotheses then should redirect to 'origin of life'.

I would be very much against a separate article 'objections to abiogenesis'. Normally, criticism is part of the main article. If not, it would open a whole can of worms. Northfox 13:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I find no evidence that there is this "modern sense" of the term abiogenesis. When I search on dictionary.com, I find definitions from six sources, none of which show a more general modern usage and all of which use the aristitilian sense. The dictionary.com definition is "the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation". Every other definition listed refers specifically to organisms spontaneously arising from non-living matter and none show any broader use of the term as "life from non-life". The key word in every case was "organism", no just "life". In the Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary (perhaps more authoritative on this than general dictionaries) defines organism as "an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being". It is only this type of life that abiogenesis ever refered to. Furthermore, since abiogenesis was concevied before the invention of the microscope, it clearly refered to macroscopic life forms. It also apparently refered to a process which was extremely fast compared to the processes described in modern evolutionary science. If someone cannot show that abiogenesis is used authoritatively to mean the broadest possible sense of any life at all eventually forming from non-living matter (and not simply be creationists using the strawman) then that assumed definition should be deleted.Hubbardaie 14:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Returning to the original post, is it fair to summarize that User:Wikiskimmer would like a Merge of the article with Origin of life? I note that Spontaneous generation currently redirects there. I think that merge would be a good idea. Gnixon 06:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've placed the "mergeto" and "mergefrom" tags on this article and Origin of Life, proposing this one is merged into that one. Gnixon 06:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

primordial sea vs primeval soup

Orangemarlin Confucius Ornis reverted a couple of time my edits. Primordial sea (or the redirect of primordial soup), refers to the hypothetical state of an ocean that already contains life. My change was not about soup or sea, but about the different meaning of primordial and primeval. Thus I think primeval soup would be better. Am I right? Northfox 13:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't thought about definitions, but "primordial" is definitely the term generally used in this context. Gnixon 20:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Then the original primordial sea article has to be amended. Even though wiki is not a primary source, the articles should at least be consistent. Oceans not containing life, oceans containing single cellular life, and only oceans (and not solid land) containing life are described by the single term primordial in different wiki articles. That's confusing. Northfox 00:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hoyle is misplaced here

This article continues to confuse the Aristotilian theory of abiogenesis with the modern theory of evolution. Evidence of this again is in the section that stated (I changed it) that Hoyle's point about panspermia was to reject abiogenesis and chemical evolution. Actually, all scientists at Hoyle's time and today rejected abiogenesis (the spontaneous formation of complex organisms). As I and other's have tried to make clear, the modern theory of evolution is not the same as Aristotle's abiogenesis. Furthermore, Hoyle did not specifically reject chemical evolution, as the article claims. His alternative theory of panspermia still depends on "chemical evolution" but argues that it must have taken a longer period of time than the age of the Earth (or at least longer than the period of time when Earth is inhabitable) and, therefore, argues that chemical evolution happened on other planets first.

But, as is widely understood now, Hoyle made two critical flaws in his calculation. Effectively, Hoyle computed the likelihood of the DNA of an entire complex organism (e.g. humans) in a single instance. However, this mischaracterized the nature of evolutionary theory. First, he ignored the number of "trials" of the individually unlikely event. For example, a one-in-a-trillion chance event will most likely eventually occur if there are 100 trillion trials. Each gram of water containing certain protiens in all the oceans on all the planets in all the galaxies for every second of billions of years is a "trial". Also, modern evolutionary theory does not assume that complex orgamisms formed in one improbable DNA combination. Instead, they argue, the initial random event only need to produce the first (and much simpler) self-replicating and mutating molecule. After that, future forms of greater complexity become much more likely.

Abiogenesis is not synonymous with evolution, as many creationists claim. It is an attempt to say that "Here is another, more primative theory, that has been discounted. It sounds sort of like evolution. Therefore evolution was discounted and every argument against abiogenesis is an argument against any kind of evolution." Abiogenesis said nothing about evolution and evolution says nothing about abiogenesis. The original abiogensis proposition did not say anything about the spontaneously forming maggots, for example, continuing to evolve. It was a one-time, one-generation, leap from inanimate matter (skipping past generations of self-replicating molecules, bacterium, and symbiotic colonies) to organisms with differentiated organs. And abiogenesis was never described as a process that takes millions of years, but weeks or even days. Evolution is a process of slow change from one generation to the next over millions of years.

There is still a strong creationist agenda in much of this article. Its time to clean it up and clarify the topic.Hubbardaie 14:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted "Peanut Butter Counterproof"

The section and its source misrepresented evolution as abiogenesis. Furthermore, the video which the section linked to is provided by a YouTube user who calls the views in the video a "misunderstanding of evolution" and therefore is not a reliable source. Given the source and the title of the section (which is not used in the source), it seems as if the section was included to satirise the creationist viewpoint rather than provide serious criticism.
Fluffy654 17:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Source

I'm not sure about http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/ It really looks like a homemade website. I'm unable to find any information about who owns or created the sites, what organizations they're involved with, or what authority they have to speak to the subjects. It doesn't look scientific at all, even compared to something like Talk Origins. --Vital Forces 02:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and removed. Seems to have been a site promoting an ID book for sale. Site states: Copyright Intelligent Design Books. Vsmith 02:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Merged from Origin of life

Per consensus on Talk:Origin of life I have made an effort to ensure that useful information from the previous revision of Abiogenesis was merged into the much more detailed Origin of life article, which I then moved and redirected here. If anyone thinks some good stuff got left behind, please feel free to either post it here with your thoughts, or be bold and at it directly. Cheers --Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the pre-scientific theories of abiogenesis (the ones present in "spontaneous generation" in the pre-merge) should still be included, but they were unsourced originally, and I have no sources for it now (shouldn't be in without a source). Someguy1221 (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll put that here so they don't get lost in the history GromXXVII (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

two sections are now lost in the new article, the one below and the Primordial soup, I think they should be restored. V8rik (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

restored Spontaneous generation . On second thought the Primordial soup section is already covered so no need to restore that bit V8rik (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this section is entirely unsourced. It really should have been sourced before its reintroduction into mainspace, per WP:V. I will template it in the meantime, but if it cannot be sourced quickly it will be liable for removal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A better option is to use fact tags to target controversial material see Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. Also validation and citation belongs in the specialist pages for example for Girolamo Fracastoro's views it see that article. There is really no point having the same citations in several articles at the same time. Also there is no point in using italics for the word quickly because there is no time limit. V8rik (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fracastoro appears to be the exception rather than the rule in terms of the "specialist pages" confirming this section's contents. Further, "all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source" (per WP:V) and the Alexander Ross quote is uncited. Also per WP:V, "[t]he burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would further point out that Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines applies to statements of (modern) scientific fact, not to the viewpoints (often rejected by modern science) of historical scientists and proto-scientists, as is the case in the section under contention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Spontaneous generation

Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat.

According to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, alligators and crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so forth. In the 17th century such assumptions started to be questioned; such as that by Sir Thomas Browne in his Pseudodoxia Epidemica, subtitled Enquiries into Very many Received Tenets, and Commonly Presumed Truths, of 1646, an attack on false beliefs and "vulgar errors." His conclusions were not widely accepted, e.g. his contemporary, Alexander Ross wrote: "To question this (i.e., spontaneous generation) is to question reason, sense and experience. If he doubts of this let him go to Egypt, and there he will find the fields swarming with mice, begot of the mud of Nylus, to the great calamity of the inhabitants."

In 1546 the physician Girolamo Fracastoro theorized that epidemic diseases were caused by tiny, invisible particles or "spores", which might not be living creatures, but this was not widely accepted. Next, Robert Hooke published the first drawings of a microorganism in 1665. He is also credited for naming the cell which he discovered while observing cork samples.

Then in 1676 Anthony van Leeuwenhoek discovered microorganisms that, based on his drawings and descriptions are thought to have been protozoa and bacteria. This sparked a renewal in interest in the microscopic world.

The first step was taken by the Italian Francesco Redi, who, in 1688, proved that no maggots appeared in meat when flies were prevented from laying eggs. From the seventeenth century onwards it was gradually shown that, at least in the case of all the higher and readily visible organisms, the previous sentiment regarding spontaneous generation was false. The alternative seemed to be omne vivum ex ovo: that every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing (literally, from an egg).

In 1768 Lazzaro Spallanzani proved that microbes came from the air, and could be killed by boiling. Yet it was not until 1861 that Louis Pasteur performed a series of careful experiments which proved that organisms such as bacteria and fungi do not appear in nutrient rich media of their own accord in non-living material, and which supported cell theory.

Primordial soup

From 1860 onwards Charles Darwin maintained in On the Origin of Species that "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one", but in a private letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker in 1863 he regretted using the term of creation, "by which I really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." In 1871 he wrote "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

In 1936 Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, in his "The Origin of Life on Earth", suggested that organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere, through the action of sunlight. These molecules, he suggested, combine in ever-more complex fashion until they are dissolved into a coacervate droplet. These droplets could then fuse with other droplets and break apart into two replicas of the original. This could be viewed as a primitive form of reproduction and metabolism. Favorable attributes such as increased durability in the structure would survive more often than nonfavorable attributes.

Around the same time J. B. S. Haldane suggested that the earth's pre-biotic oceans - very different from their modern counterparts - would have formed a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds, the building blocks of life, could have formed. This idea was called biopoiesis or biopoesis, the process of living matter evolving from self-replicating but nonliving molecules.

In 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemist Stanley L. Miller working under Harold C. Urey carried out the famous Miller-Urey experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks a racemic mixture, containing 13 of the 21 amino acids used to synthesize proteins in cells, had formed from the highly reduced mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life, they demonstrated that more complex molecules could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals. The environment simulated atmospheric conditions as the researchers understood them to have been on the primeval earth, including an external energy source in the form of a spark, representing lightning, and an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen. Since that time there have been other experiments that continue to look into possible ways for life to have formed from non-living chemicals, e.g. the experiments conducted by Joan Oró in 1961. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GromXXVII (talk • contribs) 18:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Section removed

The following material was removed by User:ScienceApologist originally on an ad hominem argument despite one of the authors having a Ph.D. in Chemistry and when who was making the argument was removed as original research. It was removed by User:Orangemarlin when the authors were readded with Fazale Rana who has a Ph.D. in Chemistry.--JEF (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The section below is being worked on and is thus not the original version: --JEF (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis of nucleotide bases

In Hugh Ross' and Fazale Rana's book Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off, Hugh Ross points out research from the National Academy of Sciences and the Journal Science that he claims hurt the argument for the formation of nucleotide bases in a primordial soup. The National Academy of Sciences research shows the ingredients adenine and guanine require freezing conditions to synthesize, but cytosine and uracil require boiling temperatures. In order for all of them to synthesize at once requires the primordial soup to freeze and boil at the same time. --JEF (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Has references for entire talk page:

Response

These are creationists. Creationists are not reliable sources for mainstream science. See WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:REDFLAG. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on this new information the argument can easily be made that abiogenesis is unscientific, and thus your mainstream argument is not pertinent to this discussion. --BETA 04:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you choose to take this one book from a creationist and believe it cancels out everything else, what you said is true. What a groundbreaking book! It had to have been #1 the world over. Too bad it wasn't and OEC criticism is not warranted. The policies apply. You better re-read them first though. And new comments are supposed to go at the bottom. Baegis (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Using a noted OEC and his criticisms about a topic he already does not believe in is highly suspect. The information would be much more useful in the OEC article. I see that SA has already weighed in on words to this effect. Baegis (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Problems with formation of nucleotide basis are well known:

• http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=20907

--JEF (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't indicate any problem to me. It's more of a parameterization with how life had its beginnings. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Typical misreading of the article. Sounds like an interesting theory on how life may exist on a frozen world. Might be useful for outer planet studies. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Presupposing that the current frozen state has been a constant since the planet, planetoid or moon developed. Then there's Europa. Not that the link belongs in any of those articles either. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I need to thank the Creationist for pointing me to a great article about formation of life. What if life developed on Europa too? Creationists will have massive coronaries everywhere. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

100°C, the growth temperatures of the hyperthermophiles, the half-lives are too short to allow for the adequate accumulation of these compounds (t1/2 for A and G ≈ 1 yr; U = 12 yr; C = 19 days). Therefore, unless the origin of life took place extremely rapidly (<100 yr), we conclude that a high-temperature origin of life may be possible, but it cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine, or cytosine. The rates of hydrolysis at 100°C also suggest that an ocean-boiling asteroid impact would reset the prebiotic clock, requiring prebiotic synthetic processes to begin again.

We show here that the rapid rates of hydrolysis of the nucleobases A, U, G, C, and T at temperatures much above 0°C would present a major problem in the accumulation of these presumed essential compounds on the early Earth.

At 350°C, the half-lives for hydrolysis are between 2 and 15 sec, and at 250°C they are between 1 and 35 min. These rates are so fast that it would be impossible for these compounds to accumulate to significant levels, making a heterotrophic origin of life at these temperatures highly unlikely.

At 100°C the half-lives for the decomposition of the nucleobases are still very short. The half-life for A is 1 yr, G is 0.8 yr, U is 12 yr, and T is 56 yr. C is shortest of all with a half-life of only 19 days. Therefore unless these compounds were used immediately after their synthesis, an origin of life at ≈100°C is also unlikely.

Even at 25°C, the rate of hydrolysis of the compounds are fast on the geologic time scale. The half-lives for A and G are ≈10,000 yr, whereas that of C is only 340 yr.

At 0°C, the half-life of A is 6 × 105 yr, G is 1.3 × 106 yr, U is 3.8 × 108 yr, and T is 20 × 108 yr. These rates are comparable to the present rate of destruction of organic matter in sea water as it passes through the hydrothermal vents every 107 yr (29). This has been cited as a major limiting factor in the build-up of organic molecules on the early Earth (30, 31), and suggests that at 0°C, A, G, U, and T are sufficiently stable for a low-temperature origin of life. The case for C, however, is different, and is discussed below.

We are not suggesting that short-term, high-temperature processes (≈100°C) such as those that may have occurred in lagoons or on drying beaches did not play a role in the origin of life, but that the temperature of most of the Earth could not have been much above 0°C. However, even small portions of the Earth at high temperatures can lead to the rapid overall decomposition of organic compounds. For example, if 5% of the ocean is at 100°C and the remainder at 0°C, then assuming rapid mixing, the overall half-life for the decomposition of A will be ≈20 yr instead of the ≈106 yr at 0°C.

In one scenario, organic compounds would be stored at low temperatures (e.g., 0°C) and may be brought into higher (≈100°C) temperature regions (i.e., hot rocks, drying lagoons, low-temperature hydrothermal vents) for brief periods of time (<10 yr). Areas of extreme temperature, such as the hydrothermal vents (350°C), may be excluded from this view because of the very rapid rate of decomposition at these temperatures.

Most atmospheric models generally predict a warm early Earth with high levels of CO2 or other greenhouse gases. In the absence of greenhouse warming, however, the Earth’s oceans would have been frozen because of a 30% less luminous sun (62). Our kinetic data on the stability of the nucleobases indicate that a cold or frozen early Earth would be more favorable for the accumulation of the nucleobases and therefore for the origin of life. An early frozen Earth may have been melted numerous times as a result of a large meteor or comet impacts (63). However, very large impactors could boil the Earth’s oceans. The rates of hydrolysis at 100°C, for all of the nucleobases measured, suggest that an ocean-boiling impact event would completely decompose the nucleobases in addition to a number of other biologically important compounds. This would require the whole prebiotic process to begin again. Ocean-boiling impacts therefore are more damaging to prebiotic chemistry than to an early biosphere (64–66), where the survival of a single organism (e.g., in a crustal environment) would be sufficient to reestablish the entire ecosystem.

Other stability problems also point to a low-temperature origin of life and early evolution in the pre-RNA and RNA world. These include the stability of ribose (67), the decomposition of nucleosides (28, 68), and the hydrolysis of the phosphodiester bonds of RNA (23). Similar stability considerations would apply to any alternative pre-RNA backbone, e.g., peptide nucleic acids. All of these factors point to a low-temperature accumulation of organic compounds on the primitive Earth and a low-temperature origin of life. Therefore, atmospheric models suggesting a cool early Earth (≈ 0°C) rather than a warm one (12, 13) need to be considered.

I don't know what article you are reading, but it is definitely not this one. This does not seem to indicate a primordial soup on the earth at all. It is more like a primordial block. You can read whatever you want. It is pretty clear that Matthew Levy and Stanley L. Miller give a harsh blow to abiogenesis occuring on this planet. Now you can believe in miracles all you want, but since miracles are not scientific, I guess we can't include them on a scientific article (not that I think that the abiogenesis material be removed, but that I felt like using irony as a rhetorical effect).--JEF (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

They are stating that the Earth may have had to be colder than originally supposed. Don't intentionally misinterpret articles, it's not becoming. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand why you're jumping on this article. Creationists have jumped on this article as a proof against a chemical beginning of life. Sorry, but Levy and Miller (who's now dead, I believe) are scientists that are trying to determine how Abiogenesis occurred, they aren't trying to disprove it. Typical of all scientific theories, one proposal is made, then another, then testing, then an adjustment to the theory. I know you Creationists don't understand that, because Creationism is anti-science, but in fact, these two are refining how Abiogenesis started. First, they have determined a hot earth would not have allowed RNA to form, but they propose alternatives to RNA that was discarded by evolution. Or they theorize the earth could have been cold at that time, allowing for RNA to form. Jorfer, you need to quit being so tendentious. It's unbecoming. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I was simply responding tit for tat to your lightly veiled ad hominem attack "Actually, I need to thank the Creationist for pointing me to a great article about formation of life. What if life developed on Europa too? Creationists will have massive coronaries everywhere." I guess only when I respond to you in the same way you respond to me it is WP:TEND. Since Stanley Miller's research is a critical part of this article, then there is a lack of a good reason not to at least include his own criticism of the idea of a primordial soup producing life. Preferrably the criticisms in the section I attempted to add will be included, but if not then at least this criticism on the accumulation of such material in the environment currently favored by scientists to produce life in order should be to conform with WP:NPOV. You say "Sorry, but Levy and Miller (who's now dead, I believe) are scientists that are trying to determine how Abiogenesis occurred, they aren't trying to disprove it.", but they do criticize the currently accepted ideas on abiogenesis in the article even if they believe in abiogenesis in general. Rather than the three of you being honest and straightforward about what the article says, you choose to spin in to make it fit confortably with what you believe and use it to attack an editor with jest. This article not just indicates "the Earth may have had to be colder than originally supposed." but necessitates freezing conditions under any realistic widely recognized chemical pathways scenario.--JEF (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the Levy and Miller source. There is something wrong with claiming it represents a "problem" for abiogenesis. It is a parametrization, nothing more. By the way, it is pretty much assumed that not all bases were present in the first lifeform. One of the ways we know this is true is because Uracil is found in RNA and not DNA. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So because of the replacement of a hydrogen with a methyl group in a nucleobase for DNA, it is fair to conclude that the predecessors to modern RNA had very different chemical properties than the current nucleobases?--JEF (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Science, as science, doesn't have "problems"... it's an open-ended investigation that follows the data wherever it leads. It neither assumes that life was spontaneously generated on Earth, nor assumes that it was put together by a designer. Now a scientist with either one of those two assumptions can run into problems if the data doesn't correspond to his assumption (just like Einstein's assumption was that the universe always existed, yet Lemaître showed how Einstein's theories - and subsequent empirical data - implied a big bang happening at a finite time earlier).

The article shouldn't take either side with one assumption or the opposite. It should just reflect all the data on the subject, and articulate all the parameters we know are necessary for each step. The only problem I see with Jorfer's edit that was removed was the part "that hurt the argument for the formation of nucleotide bases in a primordial soup." That might be Hugh Ross's conclusion, but not science's. The article needs to note the evidence, but should remain impartial and not draw its own conclusions. David Bergan (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that should be edited to say "that he argues hurts" rather than "that hurt".--JEF (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Correction

Here's how I would handle it:

One puzzle alluded to in research by the National Academy of Sciences is that the ingredients adenine and guanine require freezing conditions to synthesize, but cytosine and uracil require boiling temperatures. In order for all of them to synthesize at once requires the primordial soup to freeze and boil at the same time.

Kind regards,

David Bergan (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't quite work. The second source, for example, does not support the second sentence. Not much of a puzzle, either. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

SA makes a point here. It seems Jorfer was twisting the source in order to make that point. Fascinating article though. I am much more well informed about decomposing whale bones and the acoustic thermometry of ocean climate than previously. Baegis (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I made a mistake in citing (the citations are found in the back of the book). The correct citations are in the version under the request for comment now.--JEF (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, here is probably what the authors singled out "Without ice-melting bolides, life may not originate even though the conditions were otherwise favorable." It is the last sentence of the first source for the sentence about the primordiel soup freezing and boiling at the same time.--JEF (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)