Talk:Abiogenesis

Cosmic dust particles spread life to Earth - and elsewhere?
New studies (2/18/2024) seem to provide support for the notion that panspermia may have been a way that life began on Earth? - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Drbogdan (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Some people had a heavy night's drinking and some loose chat at a cosmology conference? Seriously, there's nothing new here. There's no suggestion cells could survive on dust impacting Earth's atmosphere – the results are predictably fiery. Could chemicals arrive? Sure, they do that all the time, as the article already accepts; but a wide range of organic molecules were certainly synthesized by processes on the early Earth, as the article also discusses, so the panspermo-dustio-chemo-theory brings precisely nothing to the table. Sorry but we can do better than this, and it's a waste of time on the talk page, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

(and others) - Thank You *very much* for your comments re this and all related discussions above - they're *all* greatly appreciated - and very worthwhile imo - Yes - *entirely* agree - you may be *completely* right about all this of course - but to rule out such notions fully may not be the better road - viable materials hidden away deep within such cosmic dust particles (or even some particles somewhat larger - or even a lot larger) may continue to be a possible way of distributing such (LUCA-related?) materials throughout the cosmos I would think - there may be other ways (maybe not yet thought about for one reason or another) as well - I would think a miniscule amount of such material (maybe even a single reproducible molecule?) may be sufficient to start the entire process going if settled in a life-friendly location within the universe - with an estimated 1024 stars and Earthlike planets in the observable universe,   there may be an astronomical amount of life-friendly locations available - to and fro so-to-speak - in any case - Thanks again for all your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, panspermia simply means "abiogenesis upon another planet". tgeorgescu (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes - life either began de novo on Earth - or started elsewhere - and was transported to Earth by panspermia - that's ultimately the concern of many these days I would think - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither I nor (more importantly) the article "rule it out completely". My point was and is that the article covers the subject already; further, it's more than adequately treated in the subsidiary articles on panspermia and pseudo-panspermia. Already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * - re: "rule it out completely" - sorry - my phrase was intended to be academic, and not at all otherwise - seems my wording could have been better - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

First we should determine with some certainty that Mars, Venus, or perhaps the Moon were habitable and had life in the past. Then we may discuss panspermia, if life migrated from one of those celestial bodies to Earth, or the other way. Otherwise, talking about it is like discussing the sex of angels. Panspermia can not work from one planetary system to the next, simply because of the distances and times involved. Let's assume that there was a planet with life in the Alpha Centauri planetary system, the one closest to us, and a meteorite is ejected from it, with some of its local life on it. And let's assume that it's not just any life, but one of those extremophiles who can survive in really harsh conditions. And let's assume that they survive the planetary ejection. And let's assume that they have enough protection to survive the conditions of outer space. Yes, I know, too many assumptions (and that means, too many factors that may not go as desired). Well, even if by some miracle that meteorite heads in the direction towards us, it would take it tens of thousands of years to arrive... and what kind of life could survive that long? Cambalachero (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (and others) - Thank You for your *excellent* comments - panspermia seems unlikely based on your comments of course - but panspermia - in the form of forward contamination from Earth - may have already occurred in fact - after all - one example (there may be others - maybe many others?) is that Tersicoccus phoenicis, a bacterium which resists sterilization, was not cleaned from devices sent into space - and may currently be on planet Mars (and elsewhere?) - further - seems humans are really, really filled with microorganisms which suggests that where humans (or their devices) end up in space, so too do other life forms - panspermia may be easier than some may think - and life, like water, may find a way, so-to-speak - and may have found such a way much earlier in the history of Earth as well - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That may happen, yes, but again, wait until we find life on Mars before discussing if it's native life, natural or artificial panspermia. Otherwise, there's no point to it. Besides, this is the talk page of the article about abiogenesis, and that scenario would have nothing to do with it. Cambalachero (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Added multiple sections on protein synthesis
I added multiple sections to the prebiotic synthesis section on protein synthesis as well one on directed protein synthesis with RNA and early functional peptides. I am new to wiki so I wanted to make a space here to for any feedback people may have. Pandas forest (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

suggested revert of 2 May 2024 edit
Based on the edit summary alone for the 09:42 2 May 2024 edit of Abiogenesis, it sounds like this content is inappropriate for WP and should be reverted. Fabrickator (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Why? It seems pertinent to the article's subject and supported by peer-reviewed articles published on scientific journals. Fornaeffe (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * In reading many discussions about the proper content of an article, it is emphasized that an article should consist of "claims" along with citations that support those claims. The edit summary states: "It deals with new experiments and findings on the experimental evolution of vesicles which - to my opinion - could be an important addition to the possible roles of vesicle structures in prebiotic molecular evolution"
 * These statements use terminology that seem to make very clear that it's speculation, why spend time looking at the actual content when the editor has already made clear that this sort of content is not permitted in an article? Fabrickator (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I completely agree about the general structure of an article: claims, support and citations. In the given case in section "Producing suitable vesicles", I see the claims being summarized in the first two paragraphs.
 * In this respect, the addition of the last (4th) paragraph should be understood as a support, based on citations 151-155. These articles report on laboratory experiments and their analysis. If my statement caused the incorrect impression that these contents are speculative, I am sorry about that. In fact, the contrary is being the case.
 * The fact that complex structures have evolved spontaneously in subsequent generations of vesicles according to 151-155 is no speculation, but a substantial experimental and analytical result. So, to my opinion, it is a very important addition to this section since it is supporting the claim of the potential role of vesicles in the origin of life.  Phragmites Australis (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Odds
The article seems to assume the probability of life occurring on a given Earthlike planet is reasonably high, but actually we have no evidence for that. "We don't know the mechanism whereby nonlife turns into life, so we have no way of estimating the odds … It may be one in a trillion trillion..." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-equation-tallies-odds-of-life-beginning1/ Justin the Just (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In that article you linked to, all I see under the heading Here is the equation: is a blank grey rectangle. If you can see it, could you please copy it here? HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Try here www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4961144/ Justin the Just (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Adapted:
 * $$ E = BB \times (1 / O) \times A \times \textrm{P}(\alpha) \times t$$
 * where
 * E is the average number of origin-of-life events for a given planet,
 * BB is the number of building blocks on planet
 * O is the mean number of building blocks needed per "organism"
 * A is availability of building blocks during time t
 * P(ɑ) is the probability of assembly during time t
 * Remsense 诉  03:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So it's just another equation requiring huge assumptions and guesses. HiLo48 (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Remsense  诉  04:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The article assumes no such thing: we have no way of knowing that the probability is low either, given we have a sample size of exactly one. All that we can discuss is what work has been done on the subject. Remsense  诉  03:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can we not say the probability might be low or high? Justin the Just (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, because it's a meaningless statement. We reflect what our sources have to say, which tend to be concerned with what we can know, not what we can't. Remsense  诉  03:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

This bit "The challenge for abiogenesis (origin of life)[7][8][9] researchers is to explain how such a complex and tightly interlinked system could develop by evolutionary steps, as at first sight all its parts are necessary to enable it to function." implies that all the steps are evolutionary and none of them are freakishly unlikely random events. But with a big enough universe such events can't be ruled out. "One origin of life on Earth could be the result of a remarkable and inexplicable pathway to life. " Justin the Just (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on what sources reliable for the subject (in this case, biology sources) say and not on what "cannot be ruled out". --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If the field redefines the challenges they are facing, then that will be reflected in the article. For now, we are covering what they do. Remsense  诉  11:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I found an actual estimate of the odds in what I think is an RS "Our results find betting odds of >3:1 that abiogenesis is indeed a rapid process versus a slow and rare scenario..." Justin the Just (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Added etymology to lead paragraph
I have added the following templates to the lead paragraph: etymology, wiktgrc, and grc-transl. serioushat 22:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC) serioushat 22:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed edits to lede
I have reverted this good-faith edit to the lede, which was made unilaterally, as there is a comment in the source reading "Please do not change the lead paragraph without first discussing on the talk page." Discussion on the proposed edit and on whether we should move or remove the etymology and whether the lede is overly wikified can take place here. 166.181.85.103 (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated the change since you made no specific objections to it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would object to the removal of "origin of life" as an WP:ALTNAME and that the etymology information was removed from the article completely instead of moved to a non-lede section. But hopefully others will offer input. 166.181.85.103 (talk) 06:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Etymology is mainly dictionary material. This article is about the concept of abiogenesis, not the word.  It's not a even a "real" etymology anyway, as this word was coined in the 19th century from Greek roots.  Nor is this fact particularly important.  If you can find some discussion of it in a source, then feel free to add it back somewhere else, but it sure doesn't belong as clutter in the lead.  WP:ALTNAME says "The editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability. Use this principle to decide whether mentioning alternative names in the first sentence, elsewhere in the article, or not at all."  And shoehorning in "origin of life" as a bolded alternative name is just clutter that makes the opening sentence more awkward, that anyone reading can easily gather that this is what the article's about anyway. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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