Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 5

Needs Revision 05 15 2013
This is referring to " current theories". Then it appropriately lists the RNA world hypothesis. Then, it proceeds to discuss theory from 1949!. That is not current. In addition, there is not recent citations validating claims for the three steps.

SzostakJack (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Under that umbrella, however, are a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures such as the following, listed in a rough order of postulated emergence: The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis suggests that the atmosphere of the early Earth may have been chemically reducing in nature, composed primarily of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent. In such a reducing atmosphere, electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane. A fundamental question pertains to the nature of the first self-replicating molecule. Since replication is accomplished in modern cells through the cooperative action of proteins and nucleic acids, a cytoskeleton, a protein-reinforced membrane, the major schools of thought about how the process originated can be broadly classified as "proteins first" and "nucleic acids first". The principal thrust of the "nucleic acids first" argument is as follows: The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis) Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity might have resulted in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosome might have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis.[citation needed] Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information.[citation needed] No one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be focused on chemosynthesis of polymers. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University.[36] Others have argued that a "top-down approach" may be more feasible.[citation needed] One such approach, successfully attempted by Craig Venter and others at The Institute for Genomic Research, involves engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life were reached. The smallest genome of any organism with genotype function, phenotype function, that can self-replicate and self-sustain is 582,970 nucleotides in length.[37][38] The biologist John Desmond Bernal coined the term biopoiesis for this process,[39] and suggested that there were a number of clearly defined "stages" that could be recognised in explaining the origin of life. Stage 1: The origin of biological monomers Stage 2: The origin of biological polymers Stage 3: The evolution from molecules to cell Bernal suggested that evolution commenced between Stage 1 and 2.[40]

This citation, number 40 is from 1949 and it is under current theories. SzostakJack (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's more current than the theory of gravity by the metric your suggesting, namely age of first publication. We don't use that metric to judge if a theory current. Calculus is still a current theory as well, if you want something that hasn't changed in a few hundred years. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This page could use a conclusion section. It just cutts off. In conclusion, abiogenesis is valid scientific theory but more research is needed to elucdiate the numerous steps. SzostakJack (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

SPI
Based on the edits of the last two days, I have started an SPI case at Sockpuppet investigations/AbioScientistGenesis. (This was originally suggested at the WP:FTN discussion.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment
Hi everyone. Regardless of the outcome of the SPI, the page is being edited very quickly right now, with a lot of contested edits (and speaking for myself, a lot of edits that I would contest but are too numerous for me to check them all right now). Could we please try for more discussion here on the talk page? It makes everything much easier to follow and tends to lead to more productive results. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed PR
I removed the pronunciation respelling. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Issues associated with page restriction
1. A few wikipedia users are opposed to "citation needed=May 2013". Apparently, according to them, this counts as creationism. Wikipedia encourages others to cite sources. 2a. Misinformation: Sol Spiegelman aimed to find the simplest LIFE FORM by taking advantage of evolution's natural selection process. His new life form, Spiegelman's Monster, had a genome with just 218 bases. Manfred Eigen built on Spiegelman's work and produced a life form with just 48 or 54 nucleotides.[55] 2b. In what manner i "life form". '''What justification do you give for referring to 218 nucleotide base pairs as a "life form"? that is clearly not consensus.''' SpazAbiogenesis (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 May 2013
Much is made of the Miller-Urey experiment and its ability to generate amino acids etc. This is rather unhelpful; the page cites the Miller-Urey experiment on Wikipedia which itself doesn't entirely make clear that the experiment is presently regarded as invalid and historical. OTH, the page points to the more recent scientific american details of the experiment where other combinations are used to demonstrate that ancient earth atmosphere- as currently proposed - is capable of a similar primordial soup (though it too does not admit the wide number of issues, such as L and D chirals being present).

Please can the wikipedia entry be updated so that less is made of the now refuted experiments of Miller and Urey. They did good work, but it is no longer directly relevant and persistent reference to a methane atmosphere is not helpful for the regular reader who may not realise the present state of research.

Thanks,

Dr J Ward

82.151.247.238 (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Dr. Ward, as you may be aware in the academic arena sources are king, so the "presently regarded as invalid and historical" requires valid reliable sources to back up. — raeky  t  11:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection
I have protected this page to stop the edit war. Could we discuss here to decide what we want from it? --John (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A semi-protection. Limiting editing to auto-confirmed contributors would, most likely, end this edit war.  According to the IP posting on my talk page, this is a "creationist campaign".  The style of edits and the user pages involved seem to confirm this. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved editor, I'd say there's more to it than that, and I'd suggest the current lock should stay in place until this is sorted out. There's socking/meating and 3RR gaming, and an open SPI case.  Resolving the latter should solve the issue and make it easier to address future problems. MSJapan (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fyi we're currently at the last stable version . That is, the version before the meat puppets arrived. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * : Yes, I asked our Cambridge IP when this edit war started on my talk page, and he/she proposed May 15.  I reverted to that date and that's where the article is now.
 * : I agree.  Let's wait for now.  But the page should probably be semi-protected for at least several months.  I can't imagine these socks are autoconfirmed and few of them made even a dozen edits.  If I recall correctly, there is a semi-protection level to filter them out.  If we are going to proceed form where we are now, the page needs some kind of extended protection.
 * Biochemistry is not my field. I normally recognize creationism and ID when I see it, but in this case all contributors and socks are describing their edits as "revert creationism".  I noticed the page was reviewed once.  Is there a small community of biochemists around?
 * --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there's an editor or two that are openly biochemists. Most of us appear to be non-experts with a smattering of various science backgrounds. I wouldn't go so far as to assert that the edits are based in creationism in and of themselves. However, if a group of creationists were to get lose on the article, they would be concerned with tangental non-issues like this. It takes a bit of interaction with them to understand what their limited grasp of science would yield. Then there's the reference to militant athiests, which is a dead giveaway. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, then a review is not what we need here (the article was educational to me.) A small but well-tailored obstacle for all these "new editors and self-styled experts" to bang their heads on makes more sense.  But I see a problem in the unreferenced parts of the article.  It appearently leaves the field open for him/her/them to add and remove content arbitrarily. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have some biochemistry background, but probably not enough to go through the whole article. I'd need to do a lot of reading - it goes into a lot of depth, after all. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

So the article is live now and, as far I can tell, there is no protection. [Virtually] all trolls are blocked. Do we still need a semi here? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like our socks are back. I reverted today’s edits. I'll ask to have this page semi protected. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :-) I reported the new account to SPI; they have already dealt with another generation of socks over the ACGME topic area. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reporting that account. I assume we will return to this in a month when the current protection is automatically removed.  The best help the article can get at this time is protection-- sort of pointless to improve it while socks keep restoring to older versions. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Public perception
With over a million views, and rank of #2 on google, please add the following video explaining why abiogenesis is improbable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gGk03WViTQ thank you. SuperFreakCell (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You Tube is not considered a "reliable source".Rick Norwood (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Malware Link Removal
-- Gary  Dee  18:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Potentially Malicious Domain: (EXPLOIT, RBN Known Malvertiser IP 22)
 * hxxp://www.dailygalaxy.com/
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/url/06f7d7c43c549e5e370a1e64d961bbbb9f4be55c29111d41e93ae9bb66489f23/analysis/1374427632/
 * JS/Exploit-Blacole.cw
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/5ea1609b649e14ccfd84fec0d7e9d13cb0f885876f0ef5fae0407d23490ecddc/analysis/1374428349/
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/192346fedd2cc52353f89fd93fe1da383b6fa8a969c4c27f1fa663d4a40c3ae4/analysis/1374428351/
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/2656324fdda8179413cf416bd559e5f6f13864886a6d31907928e6334e64ebfa/analysis/1374428355/
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/a9dc933ca440b54c82be1fc9a71df252cf738ca3d908814adc656d9ffcc7c6ed/analysis/1374428365/
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/42430671c0fd1332eeb990373a1707da334520e2bae48d1dc9ee6df47b728125/analysis/1374428367/
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/8eb65132b441b07193c467814570e2c0959ceff07e35149247f531dde514782f/analysis/1374428377/
 * REFERENCE: http://jsunpack.jeek.org/?report=49695ac9748fc84c3953dd8db54a661f52fd8be4
 * http://urlquery.net/report.php?id=3902995
 * SEE ALSO:
 * http://quttera.com/detailed_report/www.dailygalaxy.com
 * http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.dailygalaxy.com
 * http://www.UnmaskParasites.com/security-report/?page=www.dailygalaxy.com


 * All I see is the website has an Adsense script that is using some obfuscated code that those scanners don't know what to make of? No reason to remove the source... Got anything else that is more concrete then that? — raeky  t  12:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support restoration I am restoring them on all articles they were removed from. please see Talk:Saturn. Consensus for restoring the links was reached there.-- Anderson   I'm Willing To Help  01:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Unclear text
"However, it is now thought that the early atmosphere, based on today's volcanic evidence, would have contained 60% hydrogen, 20% oxygen (mostly in the form of water vapour), 10% carbon dioxide, 5 to 7% hydrogen sulfide, and smaller amounts of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, free hydrogen, methane and inert gases. As Earth lacked the gravity to hold any molecular hydrogen, this component of the atmosphere was rapidly lost during the Hadean period. Solution of the carbon dioxide in water is thought to have made the seas slightly acidic, with a pH of about 5.5."

This passage above starts out clearly about elements (with hydrogen and oxygen), and then switches to chemicals. So is this a list of the makeup by element or by chemical? If the hydrogen and oxygen were in the form of water vapor, why mention hydrogen and oxygen at all? Not to mention that 20% oxygen, as a chemical, is the current makeup of Earth's atmosphere, which makes the passage even more confusing. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Need for seriously reordering the article
The Urey Miller experiment gets referred to repeatedly in differing locations. The article quotes 2000 and later research describing the discovery of 23 amino acids in Miller's residues and then reverts back to the Miller experiments in 1953. This is complex and dysfunctional and needs reordering.John D. Croft (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have done it, but now I see that Fox's work is repeated twice. I propose its deletion the second time John D. Croft (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Molybdenum from Mars
Not sure if any other scientists are looking down this road, but it is certainly an interesting avenue to explore. Even if not added to this article, it is a good read about the topic.

We all may have a little Martian in us "New research suggests mineral only found on Mars may have been crucial to the origin of life" Zell Faze (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"Only on Mars" stretches credibility. World Mo production in 2011 was 250,000 tons. That's a lot of falling stars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molybdenum#Occurrence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kortoso (talk • contribs) 18:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be missing the point (apologies if not). The "stuff" in question is not merely the element Molybdenum, but a particular oxidised form of the element which, it is claimed, could not yet have been formed on Earth when life arose here but which did then exist on Mars and could have been transported here as Martian meteorites. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Article needs rewritten introduction and structural revision.
I agree that the Intro is rotten. Way too much of it is about Miller-Urey and the large volume of discredited work (much good work, but bad assumptions about atmospheric composition). Someone needs to find a better definition of abiogenesis. "Spontaneous" should, in my personal opinion, be part of definition in order to distinguish abiogenesis from designed (or created) life origins. The Miller-Urey work was/is significant for several reasons and needs to be (imho) part of the lede, but not its details. Panspermia is given short shrift. The subject, abiogenesis, is concerned with the where, when and how of the origin of life, starting with commonly abundant chemical building blocks (mostly but not totally organic) and showing that a spontaneous mechanism exists, given possible physical and chemical conditions, for life to develop. It is not logically valid to claim that the goal of the research is to determine "the" mechanism for the origin of life on Earth, but such demonstrations will (if ever accomplished) have a significant impact (imho) on many philosophical and religious questions. Avoiding the philosophical seems a bit misleading/blind. the lede should be an overview of the field, and then concentrate on accomplishments in specific areas, I think. Surely 'experts' have published on these points somewhere! Anybody researched Dirk Schulze-Makuch's work? Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is barely mentioned in the article, yet a recent article in American Scientist pointed out its relevance, as did (if I recall, it was so long ago) Prigogine's classic book. And the fountain of work on Complex Systems of the last 2 decades seems to be unknown here. ???Abitslow (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis not a fact nor a theory
"Abiogenesis (/ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoiesis is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds."

This is incorrect. It should really say that abiogenesis is an hypothesis fueled on speculation hypothesizing the natural process of how life might have arose from non-living matter. The introduction is therefore dishonest in trying to assert abiogenesis as an undeniable fact. --86.21.101.169 (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not stated as "an undeniable fact". It is stated using information from reliable sources. Jim1138 (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW - yes, I *entirely* agree with the comments made by Jim1138 above - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There weren't any reliable sources. --86.21.101.169 (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In regards to abiogenesis being an hypothesis
The "reliable" sources weren't stating abiogenesis as factual. Indeed the own Wikipedia page on here suggests Panspermia afterwards due to the problems of abiogenesis. The sources were from Alexander Oparin, Scientific American (arguing for Panspermia rather than abiogenesis), the other (life from RNA world) is the RNA world hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis Let's stop with the lying then shall we and actually check the sources next time. --Suigens (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is routine to remove commentary on pages like this to avoid them becoming forums where people exchange personal views on life, the universe, and everything. To avoid that, contributors should focus on discussing proposals to improve the article, with reliable sources. What wording in the article is a problem? Abiogenesis is the name used for the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter, and the "Current models" section makes it clear that exactly how that happened is not known, and that the source of the original organic molecules may have been extraterrestrial. None of that should be controversial, unless a creationist would like the article to say "God did it"—however, until that is the conclusion of reliable sources, there is no reason to change the article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not everyone who says "God did it" is a creationist. See Theistic evolutionist. Using panspermia is using an equal amount of blind faith in the unknown. It's very interesting to note that other articles on this site are fine listing abiogenesis as a hypothesis ([]) but the actual abiogenesis article doesn't use the term. Unfortunately, abiogenesis (and indeed the origin of life) is a religious/atheist subject which is why simply Googling the term "abiogenesis evidence" or "abiogenesis hypothesis" reveals an collection of theist/atheist sites all debating on the subject. The actual science sites are hard to come by as a result. Interestingly enough, even "Rational" wiki lists abiogenesis as a hypothesis. But I am perplexed, with the idea, that anyone who doesn't agree with the hypothesis that life can arise by itself is suddenly a creationist. I'd say that that person is the true logician and skeptic for doubting what is beyond scientific method and empirical science. So that's what wrong with the opening paragraph. It's really an argument from ignorance (i.e "we don't know, therefore abiogenesis because anything else is incorporating religious concepts"). But whatever. Such is Wikipedia. --Hskian (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with your logic is that the people who claim that "abiogenesis is a religious/atheist subject" inevitably turn to be Creationists and other, similar deniers of science, to say nothing of the fact that you've never bothered using, say, scholar.google.com. But, hey, if you're here to troll and pick a fight about whether or not abiogenesis is science or not, rather than make any actual suggested improvements to the article, okay then.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Imprecise terminology
Not sure there's a better way to say this, but in the primordial soup section, there's a bit that says "synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors". Thing is... by at least some definitions, anything that contains carbon (or, at least, carbon and hydrogen) is "organic". So technically that statement is incorrect. By definition, unless you have some nuclear fission or fusion going on, you can only make organic compounds from organic precursors... Tamtrible (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Carbon dioxide is often considered to be inorganic, since many rocks are carbonates. From that viewpoint, the formation of urea from ammonium carbonate counts as the creation of an organic compound from an inorganic precursor. Howard Landman (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Chirality section needs updating.
The section on chirality is very out of date. There has been a lot of progress in the last 20-25 years, and none of it appears here. A good survey is given in The Origin of Biological Homochirality by Donna G. Blackmond. As can be seen from that paper, even to just cover the main results in 1 sentence each might require expanding the Chirality section to 5 or 10 times its current size. I might be willing to tackle this myself if there is general approval that it should be done, but it's a lot of work. Howard Landman (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It is an important subject, but should be as brief as is consonant with clarity.Rick Norwood (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

lede: arise, arose?
It has been a discussion quite a while ago (initiated by me, because I changed arose to arise). If abiogenesis is in the past, it is a historic science. Never to be repeated, never to be proven. If it is an experimental science, the verb should be in the present tense, because it could happen again (if not on earth than on another planet, or in deep space). I will change the verb into the present tense. Northfox (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * according to Vsmith, who reverted my edit, abiogenesis is a one-in-a-universe event that happened in the past, once and for all. Never to be repeated, and thus never to be proven. Then, why not completely change the article to reflect that line of thought? Northfox (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)What tense do the four sources use? If the sources are using past tense, then why change it? I've restored "arose". Doesn't say "never to be repeated" ... and what does "proven" have to do with anything here? Yes, it seems logical that life could "arise" elsewhere, but that is rather speculative until we have evidence - from Mars perhaps (but again that happening/evidence is likely past tense also). Vsmith (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And says nothing 'bout "one-in-a-universe event". Just that we only have one well studied sample. Vsmith (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between abiogenesis in general (first sentence in lede) and abiogenesis on earth (second sentence). First sentence: abiogenesis is a process. It should not depend on place and time (e.g. 'water boils at 100°C under ambient pressure' is in present tense). If abiogenesis is THE only conceivable natural process by which life arises, it should be in the present tense. If in the past tense, it indicates a once-in-a-universe-lifetime event, and thus not repeatable, (and I assume thus thus not provable). Second sentence: Life on earth arose in the past, and there is evidence for a single progenitor organism. Thus, in the second sentence of the lede, past tense is okay.Northfox (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * maybe let me try to explain by using a simple example. Let's say somebody was successful in producing life from non-life. He then would not be allowed to use the word 'abiogenesis' for his finding, because according to wikipedia, abiogenesis is the process by which life arose. I think, abiogenesis is either a general process, and then in present tense, or a special process once in the past here on earth in the past tense, but then 'on earth' should be added to the first sentence of the lede. Northfox (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ...would not be allowed to use the word 'abiogenesis'... ...because according to wikipedia... - now that's funny. When such happens - and after the ensuing debate settles down - then we can report such and worry 'bout a couple of words. Vsmith (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Vsmith, my funny example was written tongue in cheek. But more seriously, please consider the use of present tense for other natural processes. Osmosis, photosynthesis, apoptosis, pyrolysis, endocytosis, all are defined in the present tense in wikipedia. 'Once-in-a-universe' events like Big Bang nucleosynthesis (the ending -sis indicates a process) in the past perfect tense. Once-in-an-earth events (not really a process, by the way) like the Cambrian explosion in the past tense. I strongly feel that a past tense 'abiogenesis' restricts it to a past event, which, like the Cambrian explosion, can neither be repeated, nor proven by experiment. 'Abiogenesis was' means that it does not happen anymore, and it will not happen anymore. The past tense makes it inaccessible to experiment. Who can be so sure? Northfox (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

To reiterate Northfox's point, we have to distinguish the historical question ("How did life arise on planet Earth?") from the plausibility question ("Is it possible for life to arise from non-life, and if so how?"). Abiogenesis covers both of these, but they have very different statuses, since we will almost certainly never have a definitive answer to the first (most of the evidence has been destroyed), while it is easy to believe that we might get a definitive answer to the second someday. Maybe the article needs to distinguish them more clearly. Or maybe we need two different articles. Howard Landman (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems the article is about the origin of life on Earth and doesn't address abiogenesis in other contexts. Perhaps you would like a "new" article on philosophical or modern abiogenesis. However, maybe first view the history of this article and the decision back in 2008 to rename Origin of life to abiogenesis - and the long talk page discussions back then. Should you decide to add something re: life arising from non-life in a non-historical context, well - bring along some WP:RS's discussing such and start a new proposal section here. Vsmith (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW - seems to me atm the abiogenesis article is about the orgin of life generally - and not only about life on Earth exclusively - nevertheless, the only confirmed instance, so far, of the existence of life is on Earth - and much, but not all, of the abiogenesis article presumes life may have begun on Earth - however, other possibilities - such as panspermia, coenzyme world and others are also considered - which to me atm seems *entirely* ok - and consistent with recent evidences suggesting that starting materials for life may be present throughout the universe - and not just solely on planet Earth - (my NYT comment - related link - may be somewhat relevant) - (should note that viable earthly life-forms transported to extraterrestrial areas via forward contamination and/or directed panspermia may extend the scope of the abiogenesis article as well I would think) - in any case - presenting the origin of life in a general way in the abiogenesis article seems *entirely* ok with me atm - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Spoken Version
At the time I made this recording in February, this article was, and still is, completely in-accessible to laymen. I explained or canned the ridiculously technical aspects and got to the point of them as well as the tedious repitition and the self-serving name-dropping of the source of various studies used throughout. This is an encyclopedia, not Google Scholar. I didn't alter the actual text of the article.
 * Not sure who wrote the above, nor when. Sorry. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Origin of life in hot mineral water as part of Deep sea vent hypothesis

 * I was published in Further reading 5 publications with links from the authors with proofs for origin of life in hot or hot mineral water and thermal energy. There are – Sugawara et all., Pons et all., Ward, Ignatov and Mosin, Shock with model for Mars. For me the life is in different types, which are depending of water. I need support from other editors. --Analiticus (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * My proposed text for the origination of life in hot mineral water similar as Deep see vent hypothesis also contains current publications from December 2013. All stated authors have scientific publications in journals of high impact factor. --Analiticus (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletionists, Unite!
Just curious as to why the first (afaik) human created life from chemical building blocks (with citations and sources!) is not acceptable in this article.

Your move wikipedians.

~ender 2014-03-08 8:38:AM MST
 * Did you try bothering to read the edit summaries for reading comprehension before launching into this mini-tantrum? I mean, why make a section for information that's already incorporated and cited in other sections?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it's not really life either - e.g. it can't replicate independently but instead requires the externally provided enzyme. :-)  Sunrise    (talk)  05:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Drop the attitude and immaturity Mr.Fink. He asked a valid question and one you didn't need to answer in such a manner --Diskain (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one being immature or having an attitude problem. Diskain: "ender" created a section in the article, it was removed, and an explicit reason was given for its removal, and yet, "ender" is the one here whining/demanding an explanation, nevermind that that explanation was ignored just so "ender" could throw a temper tantrum. I mean, really, why is his question valid when it was already explained to him that the topic is already discussed in other sections, and is not "life" to begin with?--Mr Fink (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That, and please do not edit other people's comments, Diskain. Unless said comments are breaking up the thread's format, or are blatant vandalisms, or are blatant personal attacks, it is considered extremely rude to edit other people's comments.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Source list
Hi everyone (this is Arc, for those who aren't aware). I've compiled a list of sources (Talk:Abiogenesis/Sources) that I'm intending to use as a basis to make some major improvements to the article. I tend to work slowly though (I started on this ~6 months ago), so I'm posting it for anyone who would like to join in.  Sunrise    (talk)  07:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Sunrise, thank you very much for your professional edition of Abiogenesis.

--Analiticus (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Early Conditions and Boiling Point
I am not an advanced scientist; however, I do not appreciate the cursory treatment of early oceans forming in temperature conditions at the boiling point of water. Better corroboration is needed to support this claim (full citation is EUR 39), and to make the rest of the article readable. This simple avoidance of pedestrian explanation closes the mind to any other productive idea in this article. Editorially, my mind calls question to the claim.


 * Dear, there are two reports for the early conditions of water - temperature, content of deuterium, etc.

http://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEES/article/view/9903 Modeling of Possible Processes for Origin of Life and Living Matter in Hot Mineral and Seawater with Deuterium Ignat Ignatov, Oleg Mosin
 * Journal of Environment and Earth Sciences, impact factor 5.56:

http://www.biologydirect.com/content/4/1/26 On the origin of life in the Zinc world: 1. Photosynthesizing, porous edifices built of hydrothermally precipitated zinc sulfide as cradles of life on Earth Armen Y Mulkidjanian --Analiticus (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Biology Direct, impact factor 2.72

Planning
I just thought I would write this up to give editors a general idea of my thoughts and plans at the moment. This will also function as an approximate to-do list.
 * Continuing to add content from the source list (of course). My focus thus far has mostly been on Origin of organic molecules and RNA world - I decided not to get into Protocells right away but it will probably also be a focus soon. I also haven't started adding content from some of the most useful general reviews.
 * A lot of the article is based on primary sources. At some point I'll probably start moving some of them to a subpage so that if there's any useful content it won't be lost.
 * Adjusting relative weight of topics based on the representation in secondary sources, per WP:DUE. (I was surprised to find that metabolism-first hypotheses are actually not well-represented in this regard.)
 * Some further reorganization. Thus far I've mainly made changes for the topics I've been working on, and I've approximately followed the layout of some of the general reviews. I think "Other models" will eventually be broken up, like I did for "Current models."
 * Small things - edits for coherency and clarity, etc. I also have a document with notes on more specialized topics that might or might not make it into the final product.

Of course, everything is subject to change and the feedback of other editors. :-)  Sunrise    (talk)  05:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Sunrise, accept my congratulation for your plan. I am professor of physics

and your edition is with deep understanding of science, the methods in the science, reliable sources and excellent logic for the structuring of the text. --Analiticus (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I support the suggestion to expand the protocell subsection, and cover the micelle → protocell → living cell model. I'll take a look at it on Monday. I will have some more feedback after reading the whole article, reviewing its sources, and the Talk page history.  Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Here below I am pasting a draft o what would become a new article: Protocell. I meant to write only a section for the abiogenesis article but grew into what it is now. I would use only a portion of it here and link the main article to "protocell'. Please feel free to review and modify it at will before I make it go live. Thanks, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

A protocell is self-organized, endogenously ordered, spherical collection of lipids proposed as a stepping-stone to the origin of life. A central question in evolution is how simple protocells first arose and began the competitive process that drove the evolution of life. Although a functional protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting, the goal appears well within reach.

Ongoing process
Abiogenesis and evolution in general is depicted as step-wise and linear. The discussion should not be stated as an idea of origins, but as an idea of process. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that dictates that life can't "devolve" or that populations can't branch, then recombine, then branch again. Abiogenesis, if correct, should be a process that not only can be recreated in the laboratory, but should be found to be very common in nature (even today), whether on Earth or elsewhere. Additionally, it is unlikley that a single "abiogenesis hypothesis" is "the" hypothesis that is correct and I suspect it will eventually be found that there are multiple abiogenesis paths. Chronofish (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Chronofish. We need sources in order to make changes to the article. That being said, you are conflating Evolution and Abiogenesis, which are two very distinct processes.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggest reordering of "other models"
I have been doing a major edit of this article in the last few days, and suggest that we reorder the "other models" depending upon a schema moving from "external" models and origins to terrestrial based theories. What do you think? John D. Croft (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for your edits! I have no objection to that. That said, I think that the section should eventually be broken down to give a better framework for readers, rather than having a "catch-all" category. I'm in the (slow) process of rewriting the article and this is one of my longer-term goals (see the "Planning" section above).  Sunrise    (talk)  05:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sunrise for your vote of confidence. I agree that the "other" is a catch-all category and it would be good to go through the sources in more depth and insert the reasons for their proposed alternative.  I know Cairns-Smith's argument as I have his "Genetic Takeover", but I fly to Zurich tomorrow and haven't time to do more.  Good luck to anyone who takes it on John D. Croft (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Horrible Introduction!
I rolled my eyes at the awful, incorrect and irrelevant first paragraph of the introduction: "Abiogenesis ... or biopoiesis is a natural process by which life arises from simple organic compounds." There is NO defined process, at best we have frameworks. Hiding the fact that this subject is deeply speculative is deceptive. Who claims that abiogenesis must start with simple organic molecules? It is just not true. Astronomical sources of complex organic molecules, for example, may have existed long before they fell to Earth to be converted into living systems (or precursors thereof).

Abiogenesis is the term used to describe the hypothetical chemical processes that led to life on Earth. A multitude of scenarios have been proposed and there is little agreement because evidence is virtually non existent.

"The earliest life on Earth existed at least 3.5 billion years ago,[6][7][8] during the Eoarchean Era when sufficient crust had solidified following the molten Hadean Eon." What has this second sentence to do with the core issue? Little as far as I can see. It is a thought fragment, probably a remnant of the edit wars. It disrupts the narrative and should, imho, be removed.

The Miller-Urey experiment is flawed because the assumed conditions (reducting) are no longer most consistent with the geological evidence, right? It is interesting for historical reasons, but since it is no longer plausible, imho, it shouldn't be mentioned in the Introduction.
 * Recent studies with an updated understanding of the early Earth environment have again shown spontaneous generation of amino acids and carbohydrates. For example, see http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/Cleaves2008.pdf. Kkosman (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Why not simply describe the complexity of the issue, and the multiple avenues approaching the evolution of a homeostatic catalytic chemical reaction system? Beyond a certain point, a cell of membrane is necessary. Self-catalysis is also necessary absent a natural catalytic substrate. And self-replication is also necessary. None of these things can independently lead to life as we know it. So why not just lay it out. Maybe start with the definition of life, and how it is believed early systems developed the structures to conform to that definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.76.228 (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The present Introductory sentences seem well-sourced and appropriate - specifying a particular "definition of life" has been a challenge; several definitions are noted at the following => Life - there's been several (somewhat lengthy) discussions, including the following => Talk:Life/Archive_4 - perhaps some suggested well-sourced introductory sentences would be helpful? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The Miller-Urey experiment was a chemistry experiment (duplicated by the way), not a geology experiment. Yes, aminos don't last long in an earth environment, but it's far more plausuble than the theory that all of the amino acids that we need for life on Earth all come from a few meteors.


 * What's remarkable, is that prebiotics (aminos etc.) somehow developed in the conditions of space in much less favorable conditions than the Miller-Urey experiment.


 * Was there once a former planet with these compounds? Is that why they are in space? Kortoso (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they were actually formed in space by chemical reactions, aided by the action of stellar radiation, between atoms of hydrogen (mostly from the Big Bang) and other elements created in earlier stars by nucleogenesis and scattered in supernovas. This process was/is very slow by terrestrial standards because of the low densities and temperatures of such "clouds" of atoms and molecules, but it's been going on for some 13 billion years. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195 212.95.237.92 (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The opening sentence scopes abiogenesis to *natural* accounts. While this page deals with scientific, and therefore natural accounts, does the word 'abiogenesis' outside of the context of this page mean exclusively natural accounts, or is it more generally a formal word for the origin of life by any processes, natural or supernatural? Matthew Pocock (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Abiogenesis" refers to life initiating through natural means only, and or the study of how and what possible/potential ways life initiated through natural means. Life initiating through supernatural means would be various forms of Creationism believe.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine. I was under the impression that 'abiogenesis' was a catch-all term for 'life initiating', although obviously supernatural means don't fall within science. Matthew Pocock (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at the ethymology of abiogenesis: a (not) + bios (life) + genesis (emergence) ≈ emergence from non-life. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm changing the first sentence. It's deceptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johngraybosch (talk • contribs) 19:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW - rv edit - original text seems more consistent with https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abiogenesis & http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/abiogenesis & others - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The topic sentence requires immediate attention. (related drn)
Guys, you all know that Wikipedia is meant to provide a neutral point of view on everything. Especially on such a topic which is debated hotly by many people and which is open to debate. Abiogenesis may make sense to the people who keep insisting it is fact, but I object to the listing it as such on Wikipedia. It is, as of yet, only a theory and not an established fact. We cannot list it as such on the article. ReallyFat B. (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a number of hypotheses about various stages in the process of abiogenesis but the existence of the process itself is a fact.Theroadislong (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. There is no proof of such a process having ever occurred, not even in a lab.ReallyFat B. (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are multiple references in the article that support it as a fact. Do you have any reliable references that say otherwise? Wikipedia only reports on what the references say not our personal opinions or beliefs. Theroadislong (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello. It is a fact that life -and all planets- evolved from star dust, and there is no scientific controversy about that. Elucidating the various chemical pathways (how) is a work in progress (hypotheses). The suggestion that that life arose by magic (goddidit) is not an intellectual option and cannot be invoked here in the name of "neutrality". BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, as was noticed by a user higher up the page, none of them pronounce it as a fact - only as the best scientific explanation they have gotten as of yet. And a large number of scientists do not, in fact, agree with the theory. There is a very large controversy about that. Furthermore, the vast majority of the world's population would argue the exact opposite of that statement - that abiogenesis is a ridiculous and non-intellectual option, and that the presence of a God is the only reasonable one. Science may prove or disprove abiogenesis, but it can never disprove God as it is beyond scientific scope to do so. Therefore as abiogenesis has never been observed as occurring, nor evidence of it found, nor reproduced in any lab ever - it cannot be stated as fact, whether or not you believe it is one. Science can't prove that there may not have been another reason for life, nor can it prove that abiogenesis is the or even a reason for life. Therefore we cannot put it down as such on the Wikipedia article on it. ReallyFat B. (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You might be happier here http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page Theroadislong (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Then again, I might not. It isn't what I'm happy about, it's about what is right. And the topic sentence isn't right. Are you going to correct it or not?ReallyFat B. (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No. But I hope that WP:The Truth with set you free. ;-) BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That article doe. But anyway, why not? I propose a reason for changing it. What do you oppose it for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReallyFat B. (talk • contribs) 14:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because belief in a superman is not evidence. Because religious faith does not seek evidence. Because religious faith denies scientific evidence. Because religious faith cannot even attempt to mutter a coherent hypothesis grounded on the laws of nature. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean that Superman doesn't exist. You don't know enough about the universe to conclude whether or not a planet of Supermen exists. That rant on religious faith too - that's false. But it's a separate discussion. The facts stand as follows:
 * Abiogenesis has not been proven.
 * Abiogenesis may be either proven or disproved.
 * God cannot be disproved.
 * That's the facts. Now it is your choice if you want to deny them. But logically speaking, of these facts, you can conclude that Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. And the topic sentence needs to be written to conform to that. I'm asking you to insert a single word: theorized. Stop denying just because you don't personally believe something. ReallyFat B. (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You say RFB that abiogenesis is a topic which is debated hotly by many people and which is open to debate. The point is that this is a science article and there is no significant disagreement with it being a fact among scientists with expertise in the subject. Whatever non-scientists choose to believe is not relevant here.--Charles (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, abiogenesis is hotly debated within the scientific community: the caveat is that the circumstances of HOW abiogenesis OCCURRED is hotly debated. Scientists do not dispute or even debate whether or not it did occurred, or even if the study of the circumstances of how abiogenesis occurred should be considered science/scientific.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are demanding that we include a wizard with a magic wand as an equally scientific and rigorous alternative. It won't happen for the reasons stated by several editors. Belief without desire for empirical corroboration is not "knowledge" but a religious doctrine. Please look at the top line of the abiogenesis article: For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth. Thank you. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have seen those arguments before, as well as many scientists and judges in the USA, who also dismissed them. Instead of listing even more reasons for you to understand, please take a look at Creation–evolution controversy article, where you can verify that creationism -in any of its modalities- is not science. There you can read and become aware that all outcomes in courts of law -where their best arguments were put forward- concluded that "creationism science" is religion. The tactic of demoting accepted scientific theories to "hypotheses" will not place them in a equal level with religious arguments for creation. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again I beg to differ. To have "Origin of life" redirect here implies that this is the only correct model and is actual fact when it has no evidence whatsoever in terms of having ever occurred. Scientists never label an unproved theory as fact, and this cannot be treated as a fact because it has no evidence behind it. If you believe each article is meant to be written judging by what field it is related to, then on the 'Creation myth' page we could write "Creation is the process by which God created the universe and all in it". Since you won't have that, it's absolutely unreasonable to have it here. Abiogenesis has never been proved or evidence of it found, in real life or in the lab. You want to pronounce it as fact in the largest encyclopedia? I am afraid not. To quote, "Belief without desire for empirical corroboration is not 'knowledge' but a religious doctrine." Those who believe in creation also desire proof and they present the universe as such. Some do not accept it. Be that as it may, a desire is not enough. You need solid proof. Therefore what you should have said was "Belief without empirical corroboration is not 'knowledge' but a religious doctrine." And to put down abiogenesis as fact is every bit a 'religious doctrine' and as ignorant as the stating of creation as fact. ReallyFat B. (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No luck; I know the creationist tricks with semantics. A scientific hypothesis is a poposed explanation of a phenomenon grounded on the laws of nature, while religious hypotheses are stories. Abiogenesis is a fact because life exists and there is no magic involved. As far as magic life-creators, I truly, truly believe in My Lord The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Prove me wrong. I'm out. Ramen! -BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably time to stop feeding the troll? Theroadislong (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, so I can change the topic sentence? ReallyFat B. (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This may come as a shock to you RFB, but you were unable to overturn the last 400 years of scientific discoveries. Besides, you do not need to convince some Wikipedia editors, but most evolutionary scientists. (Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back again...) -BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In case you've mistaken me, let me just make myself perfectly clear. I'm 'NOT' trying to convince anybody anything, and I'm 'NOT' trying to overturn scientific research. The topic sentence is WRONG. We do not know if abiogenesis has ever happened, can ever happen, or will ever happen. Therefore you can not say so in the topic sentence. Do you get it or do we need to ask somebody else to have a look at this? ReallyFat B. (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I posted a request in the dispute resolution noticeboard. Give your opinion there and e can get this over with. Here.
 * Excuse me, but you're the ones refusing to admit a mistake and add in a word. Abiogenesis is NOT a fact because life exists but you haven't proved it happened. How do you know God DIDN'T do it? You DON'T. Now stop being so ignorant. I don't want to prove you wrong, because there may actually be a spaghetti monster out there and we don't know it. There's also God out there and YOU don't know it. But until such time as I can give your the proof you need that he exists, I shall refrain from putting it down as fact on Wikipedia. I ask you to do the same for abiogenesis. I'm not telling you it's false, only that it is not fact ReallyFat B. (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW - I *Entirely* Support The Comments Above of BatteryIncluded, Theroadislong, Mr. Fink and Charles - Clearly, Their Comments Are The Present WP:CONSENSUS View - The Present Topic Sentences (Lede) (*without* changes) Are Well-Sourced, Reasonable and, imo, Excellent - Hope This Helps In Some Way - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Among other things, ReallyFat B., before you continue (falsely) accusing other people of being ignorant simply because they do not agree with you, or have otherwise failed to be convinced by your attempts at argument, you are misusing the terms "fact" and "theory," especially since "(scientific) theory" describes and explains the appropriate "facts." Furthermore, "Abiogenesis" is also a science where scientists try to determine how life first occurred using both labwork and studying fossils and studying potentially similar environments.  But if you fully intend to conflate "theory" with "wild mass guessing" on the world's largest encyclopedia, go ahead.  Just do not be upset or surprised that other editors revert your edits because you have failed to provide reputable sources to support your claims or have failed to achieve consensus.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The topic sentence is incorrect
"Abiogenesis is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds" is not a factual statement by any means. Since we cannot demonstrate, explain or identify any 'natural process' by which "life" (the smallest unit of which is an irreducibly complex cell that is coded for & self replicated by DNA, and is self sustaining through metabolism that responds to its environment) 'somehow' could have emerged from non-living material, we cannot be sure it did. Assumptions and speculation are not science.

With that in mind, I propose the new lead sentence of "Abiogenesis is the theory that life could have arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds, through natural processes." To show this is a more fitting opening sentence, refer to the section where the concept of self replication (one of the key criteria that defines "life") is discussed: "Eugene Koonin said, 'Despite considerable experimental and theoretical effort, no compelling scenarios currently exist for the origin of replication and translation, the key processes that together comprise the core of biological systems and the apparent pre-requisite of biological evolution.’" I believe the paragraph should start out "To quote biologist Eugene Koonin:…" in order to give credibility to the speaker.

Since the experiments and hypothesis discussed in the article show only how groups of organic molecules could have been formed by 'natural processes' - and do not describe how complete cells (the smallest units of "life" ) and the irreducibly complex processes of DNA replication & translation (which are required to define "life") came about - the current first sentence of the article is erroneous. Since we have no compelling evidence to describe or demonstrate how "life" could have been formed by 'natural processes' from non-living organic material, we cannot just assume it 'somehow' was and call it science. How do we know "life" was formed by 'natural processes' at all? We don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shandck (talk • contribs) 20:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Abiogenesis" is the natural process: the "theory" of Abiogenesis describes said process. That, and, until you can provide undeniable proof of life arising through non-natural processes, i.e., being magically poofed into existence as per a literal reading of the King James translation of the Bible, why on Earth should we bother using the word "theory" to cast unreasonable doubt on Abiogenesis?  To say of nothing about how DNA is not actually "irreducibly complex" or that "complete cells" are the "smallest units of 'life.'"--Mr Fink (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it. Anyway, to continue our discussion, that's not how science works. A theory is only a theory until it is proven with undeniable evidence. The burden of proof lies on proponents of abiogeneis to show that "life" was formed through natural processes - which they have not. To be defined as life, a unit must be self reproducing and self regulating with a metabolism that responds to the environment. The smallest and most basic (despite being irreducibly complex) structure of "life" is the complete cell. And since the experiments discussed in this article show only how groups of organic molecules could have been formed by natural processes and not "life" itself, the topic must be referred to as a theory. Also, why was religion brought up? This isn't a matter of religion, it's a matter of observed truth. Which is that we cannot describe or explain any natural process by which "life" was formed, so we cannot assume it was formed by a natural process at all. As per Eugene Koonin we cannot even specify natural processes by which the irreducibly complex (*) self reproduction we observe was achieved, and self reproduction is required for a structure to be considered alive. Amino acids aren't alive. Lipids aren't alive. Carbohydrates aren't alive. Yet these are the structures discussed in the article that have been produced experimentally through natural processes, not "life" itself. So to say "Abiogenesis is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds" is not a true statement. "Abiogenesis is the theory that life could have arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds, through natural processes" is a true statement since we cannot be sure life was formed by natural processes due to a lack of evidence or explanation.

(*) Think about what came first back then? DNA or the proteins and enzymes that synthesize DNA? They're synthesized by DNA themselves. Shandck (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not accuse me of not knowing how science works when you're the one who is conflating the term "theory" with "hypothesis," especially since the term "theory" is used by scientists and students and scholars of science as "the description of a natural phenomenon." Furthermore, the reason I bring up religion is that you're the one who's trying to cast unreasonable doubt on whether or not the transition of non-life to life was natural or not, AND that creationists and similarly religiously motivated science-deniers are the ones who coined and use the term "irreducibly complex."  Having said those, are viruses alive?  Is Mimivirus alive?  Is the Cadang-Cadang viroid alive?  If DNA is "irreducibly complex," then how come there are RNA analogues?  Are scientists who try to recreate abiogenesis events doing science?  If it turns out that life really was magically poofed into existence via unnaturalness, how could we tell?  More importantly, actually, is how and why are your personal definition of "theory" and your personal doubts about whether or not abiogenesis occurred relevant to improving this article?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, since there is no evidence that "life" was formed by 'natural processes' we cannot assume it was, rendering abiogenesis theory only. For a theory to become a hypothesis it must be tested, and no experiments have shown "life" to be able to emerge from 'natural processes' - only groups of organic molecules. Humans, cells, DNA, amino acids, and rocks are all made up of the same protons, neutrons and electrons, so a definition must be set down to distinguish life from non life. Based on a quick read of many other articles here on Wikipedia and various biological texts, the complete cell is the smallest unit be considered "life" since it meets all the criteria necessary. "Are viruses alive?" No, they aren't self sustaining through metabolism that responds to the environment and they do not self replicate; they need a pre-existing host cell to make new viruses. Also, even if RNA is analogous to DNA we still can't describe how they came to be.

To continue with biologist Eugene Koonin, "the RNA World concept might offer the best chance for the resolution of this conundrum (the origin of DNA replication and translation) but so far cannot adequately account for the emergence of an efficient RNA replicase or the translation system." This makes self replication an irreducibly complex system since it cannot function without DNA/RNA replicase enzymes that are coded to be produced by the DNA/RNA itself. It's a big paradox! So again since we cannot explain or describe a 'natural process' by which genetic information could come into existence and reproduce (needed to define "life") we cannot be sure there is one. Saying "there must be one, but we just don't know yet" is merely assumption and speculation. The reality of the matter is that saying "life" came to be through 'natural processes' is only a theory with no compelling evidence in it's favor. The thoughts I've typed on this topic are not personal, I'm simply distinguishing between what is observed truth and what is not. This improves the article by pointing out that it is incorrect to refer to abiogenesis as anything other than a theory since we do not know "life" was formed by 'natural processes' in the first place. I wish I had a dollar for every time the terms "may have" "might have" "could have" "it is possible that" "has not yet" "theory" etc. were implied in this article. At this point we do not know how life formed on Earth from organic molecules, so we simply cannot assume it was through 'natural processes' and call it science. For these reasons, it is reasonable to doubt that abiogenesis occurred and the burden of proof is on proponents of the theory. Shandck (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But the problems with what you're proposing are a) YOU CAN NOT USE "THEORY" HERE TO DESCRIBE ABIOGENESIS AS A "HYPOTHESIS" WHEN YOU ARE BLATANTLY USING ITS INFORMAL DEFINITION OF "WILD GUESS" ESPECIALLY WHEN "THEORY" IS FORMALLY USED BY SCIENTISTS TO DESCRIBE FACTS AND PHENOMENA b) it is assumed that the transition from organic chemicals to life occurred through natural processes BECAUSE SCIENCE CAN ONLY STUDY AND DESCRIBE NATURAL PROCESSES c) tough luck to you because Abiogenesis is already a science being studied by scientists even as we bicker here, and d) your proposed changes as you've explained them will introduce intolerable errors into this page, i.e., using your personal definition of "theory" to imply that there is no science behind the study of Abiogenesis, and to use "theory" to cast inappropriate doubt on Abiogenesis. That you are apparently deliberately blind to the research being done, as well as your deliberate conflating the term "theory" with "hypothesis" or "wild guess" are the two main reasons why you have failed to present a convincing or compelling reason to insert the word "theory."--Mr Fink (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary definition of theory is "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained" and based on current science, that's exactly what abiogenesis is. Next, since you admit "it is ASSUMED that the transition from organic chemicals to life occurred through natural processes" - no matter what the scope of science itself is - if you don't know for a fact, how can you be so sure life WAS formed by natural processes? You can suppose it is and use general principles to base your claim (which is the very essence of this article in nutshell) but at the end of the day, unless you have a testable hypothesis (which there isn't) the idea is no more than a theory. Since current experiments have not even come close to demonstrating the complex phenomena of "life" (previously defined) can emerge from non-living organic molecules by natural processes, abiogenesis is nothing more than that. Yes we can show how organic molecules could have been produced. But no, we cannot show the supposed natural process of how life itself was produced by any natural means - which is in the definition of the term abiogenesis.

It's quite simply a matter of logic: If you cannot describe or explain how life was formed through natural processes, how can you be so sure it was? My original point stands: "Abiogenesis is the theory that life could have arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds, through natural processes." is a TRUE statement based on the dictionary definition of "theory" and "Abiogenesis is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds" is a FALSE statement because said natural process has not been identified. Saying anything to the effect of "there must be a natural process that formed life, but we just don't know yet" is merely assumption and speculation, not science. Again for these reasons, it is reasonable to doubt that abiogenesis (life forming by natural processes) occurred in the first place and the burden of proof is on proponents of the theory. No such proof currently exists and keeping the original lead sentence is deleterious to the article because it has the capacity to mislead the reader to think there HAS been proof that life formed from non-living material by natural processes! Shandck (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Shandck, I too noticed that your writing is familiar in this page, including your creationist-loaded vocabulary such as irreducible complexity, truthTM and theory. Please, if you are going to be confrontational in a scientific article, you should at least become familiar with the correct meaning of the terms hypothesis and theory in this context. Their colloquial meaning and use in a scientific article are worthless and misleading. Please read that twice: Their colloquial meaning and use in a scientific article are worthless and misleading. Abiogenesis is a fact because scientists found no magic gods where you do; and a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What? This section I put in today is the first time I've ever written anything on this page. Abiogenesis is NOT fact because no proof, explanation or description of 'natural processes' that results in "life" have been hypothesized or tested. Therefore abiogenesis is only a theory, based on the dictionary definition of "theory." Read this twice: If you cannot describe how life formed from non-living material by 'natural processes' how can you be so sure it WAS formed by 'natural processes'? The current lead sentence is misleading because it is indicative that abiogenesis is a proven fact when no such proof actually exists. Speculation and assumption are the only things that currently fill in the gaps from non-living organic molecules to "life" itself. You think there's proof? Describe the 'natural process' that formed life to me right now in your own words, then publish it and claim your Nobel prize. I ask you, what EVIDENCE is there that non-living matter was formed into living material by 'natural processes'? Shandck (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "how can you be so sure it WAS formed by 'natural processes'?"
 * There we go again with supermen and magic. We are done here. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Who died and made you king of Wikipedia? You can't delete my comment just because I called you out as unwilling or unable to answer a simple logical question. Since there is no evidence that life emerged from non-living material through a 'natural process' it is un-intelligent of you to assume it did in the first place. Again, if you think there is evidence - claim your Nobel Prize! Shandck (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Stop closing MY thread, I have much more intelligent conjecture to present on the topic that I wish to be reviewed by my peers. Again, you cannot delete my comment and accuse me of standing a soapbox because you cannot/will not answer a simple, logical question. I ask you: Despite the fact that there is no evidence, how can you assume that "life" formed from non-living material through 'natural processes' in the first place? Maybe you're afraid of the truth: The only possible answer you can give in this situation is that you have FAITH that life somehow emerged by means of an unknown 'natural process' - and that puts you in the same boat as spiritual people! Shandck (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

First sentence...
Would the sentence

Abiogenesis ( < ref name="OED Oceania">Pronunciation: "/ˌeɪbʌɪə(ʊ)ˈdʒɛnɪsɪs/". ) or biopoiesis  is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds. be a useful change? It allows rather better for respectable (albeit minority) opinions discussed later in the main body of the article, such as panspermia, and also for discussion of multiple possible origins either on Earth or on other planets. The present version does tend to limit the article inappropriately to a single event. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW - and for my part at the moment - the current original first sentence in the Abiogenesis article seems excellent - perhaps to be a bit clearer - seems the proposed change to the lead sentence is from the current ["by which life arose"] wording to the newly proposed ["of life arising"] wording - as follows:

 CURRENT Sentence => Abiogenesis ... or biopoiesis is the natural process [by which life arose] from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.

PROPOSED Sentence => Abiogenesis ... or biopoiesis is the natural process [of life arising] from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.
 * In any case - hope the above helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The current sentence, where arose is used, is preferred because Earth's ancient abiogenesis events are the ones where study is focused on, and it is unsure if there any abiogenesis events currently going on (on Earth).--Mr Fink (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, the point of the change is to allow the article to include other possibilities. Extraterrestrial life (plus or minus panspermia) is indisputably notable. It is, appropriately, included in the article at present, but the lede seems to exclude it. I suggest we should make a very minor change to the lede so that it more correctly introduces and summarizes the article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand (and appreciate) your point of view - my position atm is flexible but, before adopting the proposed change, would welcome comment/s from others if possible - seems Wiktionary *may* present even broader/? definitions => "The origination of living organisms from lifeless matter" - as well as - the original 1870 definition => "living matter may be produced by not living matter" (1870, Thomas Huxley, Imperial Granum, The Great Medicinal Food) - and also perhaps => "The original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances" (Oxford Dictionary of English) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let's see what others have to say. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, extraterrestrial life and panspermia is consistent with abiogenesis. Indeed, an account of abiogenesis is needed to explain the final origin of that extraterrestrial life.  Astronomy and cosmology show that the observable universe was previously in a hot, dense state in which no life could occur.  Now there is life.  Abiogenesis is that process of moving from a state of no life to a state of life.  Now maybe abiogenesis occurred on Earth, maybe it only occurred somewhere else, but it occurred, by the consensus of academic cosmologists at least. The article could be more clear, but it does reflect the weight of research which focuses more on abiogensis on Earth, which is easier to investigate.  "Whether the first reproducing molecules formed here on Earth or in space, the important thing is that they could have formed by natural processes.  Scientists know enough about these processes to feel confident about them, even though some of the steps remain unknown."  (Backman et. al., Astro textbook, 2013, p. 356). Scientists are confident that abiogenesis occurred, but some (most?) of the steps remain unknown. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @ - Thank you for your comments above - Yes, I *entirely* agree - somewhat consistent with these comments - and abiogenesis - are initial conditions - yes, there seems to be a premise for serious abiogenesis studies that life began on earth - under conditions of the primitive earth (ie, Miller–Urey experiment) - however, there seems to be some worthy studies that this may not have been the case at all - and instead - life may have begun elsewhere - with *entirely* different initial conditions - one intriguing possiblity (at least to me at the moment) is that life began 9.7 billion years ago (based on a statistical regression analysis of "genetic complexity" over the years by several researchers at NIH not too long ago - see details => Panspermia, including < ref name="arXiv-20130328"> ) - if so, then life may have begun somewhere in the universe billions of years before the earth was formed - and under conditions *entirely* different from that of the primitive earth - (if interested, my NYT comment, also here, may be related) - (note: above text based on one of my earlier posts) - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In light of all these pertinent points made, I propose amending Richard's proposed change to:
 * "Abiogenesis ... or biopoiesis is the natural process [of life arising] from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds, as well as the study of this natural process."
 * And then possibly follow up with a sentence or two mentioning panspermia or astrobiology.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

✅ - First sentence in the lede has now been updated with the "[of life arising]" wording per above discussion - hopefully this is *entirely* ok - suggestions for a followup sentence (or two) welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

✅ - Added the following ("follow-up"?) sentence to the lede =>  "FOLLOW-UP" Sentence => ... According to other researchers, life may have begun earlier yet, before the Earth was even formed,< ref name="arXiv-20130328"> and, as a result, life on Earth may have started from life already existing in the universe, perhaps by a process called panspermia. Hopefully, the added text/ref are *entirely* ok - please let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this all seems like an improvement to me. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @ - Thank you for the "inspiration" - improving the lede in the abiogenesis article was fun - and probably well overdue for an update - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks better. A comment: The Gordon paper on the age of life was not published but archived in arxiv, so we cannot assume it was peer reviewed favorably. If it must be mentioned in this article, I'd give it a much smaller profile (fringe?). The researchers used Moore's Law, that suggests that the complexity of computers grows at a rate of double the transistors per circuit every two years, resulting in exponential growth. Looking at the complexity of computers today and working Moore's Law backwards shows that the first microchips came about during the 1960s, which is when they were actually invented. In their paper, Gordon and Sharov take the same approach, only they apply it to biological complexity. The two researchers acknowledge their ideas are more of a "thought exercise" than a theory proposal  Two obvious problems that jump to view is that 1) it is a mathematical speculation, and 2) genetic complexity is not a requirement for evolution (see: Evolution of biological complexity). CHeers. Going back to my summer vacation. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @ - Thank you for your *excellent* comments - yes, I *entirely* agree - the Sharov/Gordon studies as they are now presented could be better - and should not be overpresented - however, afaik atm, the studies may provide a somewhat plausible basis for thinking that life may have originated somewhere other than Earth - better ways of presenting this (if possible) - and/or - other studies to consider - *always* welcome of course - Thanks again for your comments - they're all *very much* appreciated - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

✅ - Replaced the above "follow-up" sentence in the lede - with more factual material - as follows =>  "NEW FOLLOW-UP" Sentence => ... Earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life.< ref name="NASA-1990"> < ref name="Astrobiology-2008"> Nonetheless, the exact steps in the abiogenesis process, whether occurring on Earth or elsewhere, remain unknown. This more factual material seems better - comments *always* welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

NASA-TV (07/14/2014-2pm/et/usa) - Search for Life Beyond Earth.
NASA-TV - Monday, July 14, 2014 (2:00-3:30pm/et/usa) - panel of leading experts to discuss plans leading to the "discovery of potentially habitable worlds among the stars" => < ref name="NASA-20140710"> - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * FOLLOWUP - NASA VIDEO REPLAY - Space Experts Discuss the "Search for Life in the Universe" (86:49) at => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNjuz6MO0eU - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Primitive extraterrestrial life
This section gives way too much credit to one very poor paper by 1 author working outside his field, with no co-authors. While the paper did get reviewed, the reviews were unanimously negative - it was published in a journal that publishes everything regardless of the reviews (but the reviews are open for everyone to see). The section has entire paragraphs on the one guy's side, and a couple sentences that it had some criticism.

Do we really want an entire section based on one fringe opinion that was unanimously rejected by peer review? read the reviews (they are included in the "Genome increase as a clock for the origin and evolution of life" paper (although don't be fooled by the author's response to the reviewers, his original logic was faulty, and his replies are still faulty) - don't you think this section is way too biased in favor of this guy?

This entire section is based on one paper with cherry picked data points and bad reasoning. I could cherry pick data to show any date I want, since his criteria for picking 5 genomes was entirely subjective. We only have data for present day genomes. Every living thing is part of a lineage that is the same age, so this idea that you can look at an extant human genome, and an extant parasitic bacterial genome, and deduce when life started, is highly suspect. and only 5, out of the multitude of genome data we have, he takes a cursory look at 5 and concludes life begain billions of years before Earth formed- what a load of crap.

From those reviews: "The problem is, however, that, for the first 1.5–2 billion years of life's evolution on this planet, all existing life forms were prokaryotes. There is just one point corresponding to prokaryotes in Fig. ​Fig.1,1," "The authors dismisses, very lightly, the notion of punctuated equilibrium. This is not the place to assess the validity of the specific theory of Gould and Eldredge (it might indeed have its problems), however, I believe that, in general, major non-uniformity of the tempo of life's evolution cannot be denied." "In the general epistemological sense, the approach to back-extrapolation of life's history taken in this paper can be characterized as ultra-uniformitarianism, ... In that vein, I believe that what is done here is an interesting exercise because it showcases the kind of conclusions to which ultra-uniformitarianism can lead." "Another issue is that of the "minimal genome": equating minimal genomes reconstructed by comparative-genomic approaches with ancestral life forms is incorrect and does not reflect the original view of the authors of the minimal genome notion"

"But as we have no information about the minimal genome size of living organisms, an extrapolation with a pure exponential simply makes no sense. Thus, while a thorough analysis of the evolution of functional genome size would certainly be welcome, the data presented here do not warrant any conclusion, except perhaps that the size of functional DNA has been increasing in evolution, something we should not be terribly surprised to learn."

"Using five data points (prokaryotes, eukaryotes, worms, fish, and mammals), the author deduces an exponential increase in functional size with time. He then uses this functional relationship to hypothesize an origin of life that exceeds the age of the Earth by a factor of two. From this he concludes that the origin of life cannot have taken place on Earth, but points towards hypotheses of the panspermia type.

This paper is an example of how not to analyze data. First, there is no doubt that a much more sophisticated analysis of whole genome data can be performed. For example, the author claims that 1/3 of the Fugu rubripes genome is functional (this is one of his datapoints), but the original publication only states that "gene loci occupy about one-third of the genome". There is some evidence that non-coding but functional (likely regulatory) DNA increases with the complexity of the organism (see, e.g., [1]), so that taking just the gene loci into account is very likely to be misleading, more so for complex metazoans."


 * Firstly, if you are going to contribute - please sign your contribution in the accepted way. Secondly, there is no need to use the word "crap" in your heading. Wikipedia is an encylopedia and not a comic. Your reasoning may well be correct.  My reason for reversion was that deletion of such a large contribution should be discussed on the Talk page first - which you have belatedly done.  If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, may I suggest that you create an account - rather that hiding behind a unregistered IP address?  Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @ - Thank you *very much* for your recent comments - I *entirely* agree - seems the ip user is presenting a pov about several studies reported by Sharov and Gordon and summarized here => < ref name="arXiv-20130328"> Issue is whether the studies are sufficiently worthy to mention in the article - irrespective of the apparent WP:POVPUSH and WP:OWN edits by the ip user - my position at the moment is flexible - but would welcome comments on the issue by others if possible - seems reasonable that the original text be restored while the issue is discussed - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Very well, signed up. My reasoning for deletion is 1) such a large addition should be discussed before addition, and I see no discussing of the addition. Where was the discussion before adding this? 2) It alreayd was discussed in peer review, and it was unanimously very negative. The peer review process discussed it and concluded it was deeply flawed, and then it is added here without discussion? To me the addition giving so much weight to a single paper by a single author that has not passed any peer review stinks of POV pushing, so I find it quite ironic that I am accused of POV pushing when I am merely trying to get rid of a biased section based upon the work of a single author with a single paper that was "strongly criticized" by peer review (and that is putting it mildly, I think "crushed" is a better term). I actually think the reviewers were far too kind in their reviews of this paper that uses 5 cherry picked datapoints. We can discus that in more detail if you wish - but given the lack of a reliable source for the key claim, the 10 bn year claim, the onus should be on those that want to keep it in the article to argue why it deserves to stay in.BicelPhD (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @ - Thank you for your comments on the issue (ie - whether or not the Alexei Sharov and Richard Gordon studies, referenced above, should be mentioned in the main article) - generally, afaik atm, adding relevant material, esp with WP:RS support and without prior discussion, seems consistent with present Wikipedia practice - via of WP:BRD and related - newly added material can be challenged - and discussed on the relevant talk page - in some cases, if there's no casual agreement re the issue, WP:CONSENSUS among editors may be sought - for myself at the moment re this particular issue - your comments (and pov) seem worth considering - however, comments, if any, from other editors may be worth considering as well - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

FOLLOWUP - to better understand the issue - the entire challenged edit is as follows:

 Copied from the Abiogenesis article:

An alternative to Earthly abiogenesis is the hypothesis that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially (extraterrestrial life), either in space or elsewhere. Studies which apply the equivalent of Moore's Law to biological evolution and extrapolate backwards have proposed that life began $9.7$ billion years ago, billions of years before the Earth was formed. They noted that life may have started "from systems with single heritable elements that are functionally equivalent to a nucleotide". In the case of evolution, empirical evidence suggested a doubling of complexity every 376 million years. As the age of trees can be measured by the number of rings, the hypothesis that the age of life could be measured by biological complexity (i.e., the length of functional non-redundant DNA in the genome) was studied. If log-transformed complexity is plotted against the time of origin of large evolutionary lineages, then the points fit to a straight line (see figure). The exponential increase in complexity can be explained by a positive self-activating feedback loop. The regression line hits zero (i.e., one nucleotide) at $9.7$ billion years ago. If this model is correct, and since our Solar System is 4.6 billion years old, then life somehow arrived to Earth from older stellar systems. This hypothesis was criticized by Eugene Koonin, who suggested that the rates of early biological evolution might have been much faster due to the absence of competition on early Earth. Chris Adami argued that "it is inconceivable that life began with just a few nucleotides." To answer this criticism, Sharov proposed a hypothetical abiogenesis scenario that starts from coenzyme-like molecules that are functionally equivalent to single nucleotides. (also see Astrobiology and Panspermia)

Hope this helps - Comments from other editors about the above edit (to include - or not - in the Abiogenesis aritcle [and other relevant articles?]) welcome of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @ if Someone decides that it should be put up, here is what, in my opinion, may be sufficiently neutral:

"An alternative to Earthly abiogenesis is the hypothesis that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially (extraterrestrial life). Studies which apply the equivalent of Moore's Law to 5 selected extant genomes and extrapolate backwards have proposed that life began 9.7±2.5 billion years ago, billions of years before the Earth was formed. They said that life may have started 'from systems with single heritable elements that are functionally equivalent to a nucleotide'.[187][188] In the case of evolution, Sharovs says a curve fitting 5 selected extant genomes said to represent previous time periods, shows a doubling of complexity every 376 million years. As the age of trees can be measured by the number of rings, the hypothesis that the age of life could be measured by biological complexity (i.e., the length of functional non-redundant DNA in the genome) was proposed.[187][188] If log-transformed complexity is plotted against the time of origin of 5 extant genomes selected by Sharov, then the points fit to a straight line (see figure). The exponential increase in complexity may be able to be explained by a positive self-activating feedback loop.[188] The regression line hits zero (i.e., one nucleotide) at 9.7±2.5 billion years ago.[187] If this model is correct, and since our Solar System is 4.6 billion years old,[189] then life somehow arrived to Earth from older stellar systems. This hypothesis was criticized by Eugene Koonin, who suggested that the rates of early biological evolution might have been much faster due to the absence of competition on early Earth.[190] Chris Adami argued that 'it is inconceivable that life began with just a few nucleotides.'[188] To answer Adami's criticism, Sharov proposed a hypothetical abiogenesis scenario that starts from coenzyme-like molecules that are functionally equivalent to single nucleotides. There was no consideration given to Koonin's criticism of variable evolutionary rates and higher initial rates. Sharov's paper was subjected to peer review, and all three were strongly negative. [191][192] (also see Astrobiology#Biology and Panspermia#Complexity)"

The changes would be:
 * ", either in space or elsewhere."-> "." unless he's suggesting alternate dimensions?


 * "Studies which apply the equivalent of Moore's Law to biological evolution" -> "Studies which apply the equivalent of Moore's Law to 5 selected extant genomes"


 * "They noted"->"They said"


 * "In the case of evolution, empirical evidence suggested" -> "In the case of evolution Sharov says a curve fitting 5 selected extant genomes said to represent previous time periods" The evidence suggests no such thing, compare http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Genome_Sizes.png to his plot. This linear relationship doesn't show up until he selects specific genomes, and then assigns a time that they are supposed to represent.

He proposes this, but none of his published work shows any study trying to validate it.
 * "studied" -> "proposed" ("the hypothesis that the age of life could be measured by biological complexity.. was")

Again, he's not analyzing lots of genomes across evolutionary lineages, he's selecting 5 specific species, some of them specifically for small genome size. He leaves out Archea completely, and uses one data point for an entire domain of life. 3 domains of life, he has 0 data points for Archea, 1 for Eubacteria, and 4 for Eukaryota. For Eukaryota, 3 of the 4 are in metazoans, just one of multiple kingdoms. It is extremely biased to say he sampled large evolutionary lineages.
 * "large evolutionary lineages" -> "5 extant genomes selected by Sharov" ("If log-transformed complexity is plotted against the time of origin of")

I'm not convinced those explanations would work, although I haven't looked into it in more detail, I see no validation that its plausible. "Can" implies they are plausible.
 * "can"->"may be able to" ("The exponential increase in complexity XcanX --may-- be explained...")


 * "To answer XthisX criticism," -> "To answer Adami's criticism," + "There was no consideration given to Koonin's criticism of variable evolutionary rates and higher initial rates." Making it factually accurate again.

Of course, you can see by editing this to be more accurate, the whole stinky pile of unfounded speculation that Sharovs paper is becomes evident, which is why I decided to just delete it in its entirety.
 * addition of "Sharov's paper was subjected to peer review, and all three were strongly negative."


 * @ - Thank you *very much* for your corrected version above - at first glance, your version seems *excellent* imo atm - and - clearly, again imo, *greatly improves* the edited material - I would think others may think so as well - thank you for your efforts with this material - yes, seems we both agree the material may be worth sharing on Wikipedia - in any case - Thanks again for your efforts with this material - perhaps after a reasonable time for others to comment, we may wish to introduce your corrected version into the relevant articles - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I am repeating here the post I made in the topic above: That Gordon paper on the age of life was not published but archived in arxiv, so we cannot assume it was peer reviewed. If it must be mentioned in this article, I'd give it a much smaller profile (fringe?). The researchers used Moore's Law, that suggests that the complexity of computers grows at a rate of double the transistors per circuit every two years, resulting in exponential growth. In their paper, Gordon and Sharov take the same approach, only they apply it to biological complexity. The two researchers acknowledge their ideas are more of a "thought exercise" than a theory proposal Again, if such fringe thought experiment must be mentioned here, it should be much shorter, brief and remark in no uncertain terms that is a mathematical speculation that does not use biology data at its foundation. As the subsection stands today, it is giving WP:UNDUE weight to a very fringe scientist's POV not actually published nor peer-reviewed. CHeers. Going back to my summer vacation. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @ I agree, that arxiv paper was most certainly not peer reviewed. I could type up something and get it on arxiv. For that matter, Biology Direct is not a very reputable journal either. I suspect it is a pay-to-publish, as all the reviews were negative, but it was published anyway. The two authors seem to vacilate between it being merely a thought experiment, and seriously suggesting that life is 9.7 bn years old. Obviosuly I agree that it is undue weight, as I deleted the whole thing initially (and still support such). That the linear relationship doesn't show up until he selects specific genomes, and then assigns a time that they are supposed to represent, should make it clear that this is just one guy cherry picking unrepresentative data points, and he's found no support in the scientific community - well 1 other guy. Frankly I'm surprised Sharov was able to find another person willing to put his name on that abortive attempt at logic - although it seems it took him 10 years to do so given the first paper was 2003, and the later unpublished manuscript was 2013BicelPhD (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree as well - esp re WP:UNDUE weight - if the material is to remain, perhaps trimming the corrected version presented by BicePhD above may suffice I would think atm - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Pseudo-scientific article?
The article says that Huxley originally coined abiogenesis as a "hypothesis", yet the article regards it as a fact, whilst provideing no scientific basis for the change from hypothesis to fact. It is surely a discredit to the integrity of the scientific world (and Wikipedia alike) to assign the label of "natural process" to a hypothetical, unobserved, seemingly-impossible event? If science has now confirmed this former-hypothesis to be categorically true, could someone please include these important findings in the article? As it stands, it reads as pseudo-science with a superstitious bias. Grand Dizzy (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Huxley did not use abiogenesis in the current sense; he was considering then-current beliefs that life occurs spontaneously in every-day situations (like maggots in meat), which have of course long been disproved. The concept meant here seems to have been introduced by Darwin later.
 * Technically, all of (natural) science is just hypothesis, though some hypotheses are more generally respected than others. Abiogenesis indeed has the problem of being unobserved; on the other hand it is so general a concept that there is no alternative scientific theory which can explain the existence of life - life must have come into existence by some natural process at some time (whether on Earth or elsewhere), otherwise it wouldn't exist today. It's certainly not impossible that a large amount of organic matter coincidentally forms into a primitive living cell; the odds for this are "astronomically" small for any given time and place, but over billions of years and sextillions of potentially habitable planets in the observable Universe, it can certainly happen. (If the Universe is infinite, it must happen somewhere, see Infinite monkey theorem). In conclusion, I wouldn't mind replacing "natural process" by "presumed natural process" or something similar to make clear that the actual process is still hypothetical, but wouldn't change much else. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with many of the comments made by Roentgenium111 above - however, "natural process" seems preferable to me than otherwise at the moment - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Spontaneous generation is an outdated hypothesis. Magic (creation) is not an intellectual/scientific option. Abiogenesis is fact; the "how" and its chronology are hypotheses. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Roentgenium111. You are right that all natural science is hypothesis. However, not all hypotheses come to be regarded as accepted truth. To do that, a hypothesis must have strong supporting evidence, which abiogenesis lacks, being more a matter of presumption based upon personal faith. According to Wikipedia, 54% of the world population believe in a god or gods and therefore subscribe to the hypothesis of an intelligent creator. Those who do not accept creation are forced to presume abiogenesis is true. Neither hypothesis is apparently plausible, explainable, demonstrable, or based on any known scientific principle. Given the vast complexity of a living cell, the probability of a cell randomly assembling is not even remotely likely--the estimated odds are in excess of 1 in 10^746. Given that the universe is (at most) a mere 10^18 seconds old and contains just 10^80 atoms, abiogenesis is way beyond a mathematical impossibility in any universe, and the multiverse hypothesis is yet highly theoretical and nowhere near to accepted fact. Given that the abiogenesis hypothesis is held by a minority of people and is a mathematical impossibility, I personally would have liked to have seen "hypothesis" added to the opening sentence of the article, in the interests of neutrality. But perhaps such open-mindedness is frowned upon here? In any case, I won't be challenging this again, I just wanted to voice my concern and shall leave these matters in the hands of intelligent people. Good day :) Grand Dizzy (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe they were right in hatting the discussion in view of the use of discredited creationist math that assumes random, rather than non-random, interaction. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Right; but even random interaction would make abiogenesis a mathematical possibility even in a finite universe, and a certainty in an infinite universe (which has nothing to do with the "multiverse hypothesis"). But it's indeed thick to call abiogenesis "superstituous" while giving creationism as the only alternative. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Presenting the fallacies of Appeal to personal incredulity, Appeal to popularity, and The Mystical Texas Sharpshooter, while conflating theory, science, and hypothesis with "wild mass guessing" because you're too arrogant humble to bother looking at actual scientific literature about abiogenesis do not make for a compelling concern or argument.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Mr Fink You seem to suggest that there is information out there that can scientifically validate abiogenesis? If that is the case, would you please add it to the article, or simply tell me where to look so I can add it myself? Thank you. Grand Dizzy (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Among other things, the purpose of Wikipedia talkpages is to suggest and discuss beneficial changes to their corresponding articles: they are not soapboxes from which to broadcast your personal agenda, poorly disguised as "concern" using heavy-handed logical fallacies as support. As for your arrogant demand for information, did you ever bother to try accessing the various references and citations in the article, itself?  I mean, I make it a point never to bow to the demands/whinings of Concern Trolls for Jesus, given as how they only demand things specifically so they can automatically invalidate anything that contradicts their initial position.  So, Grand Dizzy, please desist trying to convince other editors to help you rewrite this article in order to inappropriately cast unreasonable doubt on science.  Perhaps it would be a better use of your time by taking up what Michael Behe never bothered to do in trying to find evidence of how the "Intelligent Design 'Theory'" can be used in science?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Grand Dizzy, You keep repeating that there is no evidence while the article has a list of references describing all kinds of evidence. Denial for denial is an obtuse attitude. Accretion of the Solar System —and Earth— from cosmic dust and ice was witnessed by nobody, yet is a fact. Scientific understanding is self-corrective and derived from evidence. You believe in an "origin of life" book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, winged people, zombies, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories. You believe a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree and we are born guilty of that. To you, those stories are factual and not one bit hypothetical. And you say that we (science) are the ones that need help and correction? Ever heard of reaching a reasonable conclusion from evidence? One that is coherent and in harmony with the natural forces around us? That is what abiogenesis does, and it is supported by data from many fields of science, not just biology and chemistry. Simply denying the listed references and conclusions from a multitude of scientific disciplines is not a valid argument in Wikipedia. In case you missed the topmost line, here it goes again: "For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth." BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Grand Dizzy's question has been answered. If the Big Bang theory is correct, and the mainstream of scientists thinks that some form of Big Bang theory is correct, it is ipso facto true that life is evidence of abiogenesis.  At the same time, this was a valid question that has been answered, and it should not have been hatted.  Grand Dizzy:  At the same time, if you are a creationist, your question here was absurd, because creationism is a form of abiogenesis, even if not through a natural process.  Any further off-topic discussion will be boxed rather than hatted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

de Duve quote
The following quote is problematic:
 * Christian de Duve argues that the determination of chemistry means that "life has to emerge quickly ... Chemical reactions happen quickly or not at all; if any reaction takes a millennium to complete, then the chances are all the reagents will simply dissipate or break down in the meantime, unless they are replenished by other faster reactions."

In checking for more complete references for the books, it appears the quote is from an Amazon forum. Neither Google book search nor Amazon book search finds the text quoted. Therefor I'm removing it. If I'm in error, put it back with a proper source. Vsmith (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

"Evidence" for life on earth earlier than 3.7 billion ?
Currently, I find the following sentence in the introduction quite misleading:


 * Nevertheless, several studies suggest that life on Earth may have started even earlier,[13] as early as 4.25 billion years ago according to one study,[14] and 4.4 billion years ago according to another study.

These studies do not in any way claim that life started earlier, the Reuters article is based on computer simulation which suggest that it was *not impossible* that life has started earlier. The 2008 article from newscientist is only based on C12/C13 ratios and while it might be indicative of life it is a single study. It would be much more useful to link to a peer-reviewed review article in a respected journal instead of newsbits about individual scientists interpreting their own results. To me, these claims seem not well founded and possibly outdated (it is not clear which of them have entered the scientific mainstream). Even worse, some of them directly contradict statements later in the article, specifically:


 * Between 3.8 and 4.1 Ga, changes in the orbits of the gaseous giant planets may have caused a late heavy bombardment[31] that pockmarked the Moon and the other inner planets (Mercury, Mars, and presumably Earth and Venus). This would likely have repeatedly sterilized the planet, had life appeared before that time

I suggest to remove the highly speculative parts from the introduction or at least replace them by well-founded statements from a peer-reviewed review article. Best regards, --hroest 12:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @ - Yes, seems the sentence may be in a grey area of sorts - ie, life probably began before the appearance of the first physical evidence cited earlier in the lede, but supporting references/studies for this could be better than those currently cited - for my part, I'm flexible with any changes (removal?) of the sentence at the moment - comments from other editors would be welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am in strong favor of sticking with fossil evidence. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

✅ - remmed text/refs - per talk - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Undisputed
I boldly removed the word from the description in the lead of the 3.5 billion year old evidence. But there are quite a few examples of evidence, and I can't say for sure they are not all 'undisputed', so feel free to put the word back if I'm definitely wrong. zzz (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, some evidence is more disputed than other evidence. "clear" might make a good compromise.  Or "generally undisputed".  The implication being "we have stuff that's this old that pretty much everyone is pretty sure is evidence of life, but nothing older that we agree on", or something of the sort.  Tamtrible (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I see the creationists are out in force.
Other than individually removing what am assuming are creationist attempts to call abiogenesis completely unscientific, is there anything we can or should do about it?... It seems like it might, at least, be a not-terrible idea to, I don't know, make a brief list on the talk page of "no, this argument has been debunked, so please don't make it, you're just making yourself look bad" claims, so that the creationists know any such attempts will be nuked from orbit, or something?... Tamtrible (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Other than page-protection, there's not much else that can be done beyond manually removing creationists' inserted inanities. As helpful as a list of questions and answers and pre-debunked fallacious arguments sound in idea, in practice, they're of little help as those creationists determined to make Wikipedia talkpages their WP:soapboxes will do so in blatant disregard to Wikipedia policy unless physically stopped.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Panspermia?
Why does the third sentence in the article mention a fringe idea that sidesteps the question of the inception of life on Earth? That position lends it undue weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.61.121 (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Text in Lede OK - or not?
The following text in the lede of the Abiogenesis article seems well supported by reliable references - however - should the text and related references remain in the article lede - moved elsewhere in the article - or not be presented at all for one reason or another?  Copied from the lede of the Abiogenesis article as follows:

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

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


 * I would say it's overemphasis, especially the first sentence - cited to a primary source from arXiv and a NYT piece. More generally, my reading of the literature is that people who seriously consider panspermia (in the sense of being descended from life that first evolved elsewhere, as opposed to the undisputed observations like the seeding of organic molecules through space) are certainly in the minority.  Sunrise    (talk)  19:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - they're appreciated - fwiw, several responses are below:
 * Response re "First Sentence" => "chemistry of life" mainly refers to "chemicals" - particularly "organic compounds," "biochemicals" and/or related - that may have arisen during a habitable epoch in the early universe - "life" itself may have been much less likely to have arisen during this time I would think.
 * Response re "Panspermia" => seems, at least, humankind itself may already be a part of the panspermia process - one possible example => seems there's microorganisms, like Tersicoccus phoenicis, that have been well demonstrated to be resistant to being "cleaned" in spacecraft assembly clean room facilities - and may be aboard numerous spacecraft in outer space at the moment - such microoganisms may have already been introduced to Mars, the Moon and other solar system bodies - after all - microorganisms, at least under certain test conditions, have been observed to thrive in the vacuum of outer space - Further - is there any real, and complete, assurance that there is not a single (at least potentially viable) microorganism at the moment inside the Voyager spacecraft that have left, or are leaving, the Solar System? - at the very least - the possible related implications may be interesting to consider re panspermia I would think.
 * Response re "Minority" views in Science - seems that, at one time, many, maybe most, thought the Sun went around the Earth - seems only a "minority" thought otherwise - at least at the time.
 * In any case - hope the above helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree with pretty much everything you've said, and I definitely agree that panspermia is plausible. Just making the point that in the literature on the topic, the typical approach is to consider the topic in the context of us being descended from life that first arose on Earth.
 * One of the best WP essays I've ever read (the name escapes me right now) observed that if Wikipedia was around before Copernicus, then we would have had to reflect the prevailing view even if we knew it was wrong, because otherwise we would be doing original research. ;-) It's both a strength and a weakness of our model I guess.  Sunrise    (talk)  17:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - Brief followup - if interested, seems this WP essay section refers to heliocentrism - and Copernicus (ie, "JDobrzycki J Editor (1973) The reception of Copernicus' heliocentric theory pg 311") - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

- Thanks again for your comments - my present understanding of the word "abiogenesis" (and the "abiogenesis" article) seems consistent with the definition of "abiogenesis" presented in the first sentence in the lede: ie, "the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds" - clearly, life began somewhere in the universe - less clearly, life began solely on Earth - restricting the "abiogenesis" article to life arising on Earth alone seems an overemphasis on the WP:POV that the origin of life occurred on Earth only - which may not be entirely consistent with the given definition of "abiogenesis" in the first sentence in the lede of the "abiogenesis" article - (aside: if interested, the definition of "abiogenesis" in the lede of the article seems somewhat consistent with my own NYT 2012 comment ) - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm still agreeing with you on almost everything - I'm only disagreeing on the WP:WEIGHT issue based on the the approach I've seen in the literature. :-)  Sunrise    (talk)  20:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That paper at arxiv (an archive, not a scientific journal) has not been reviewed and it may never be published. I would not quote it in the lede section. I would consider using it as an additional reference to a non-controversial statement. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

& - Thanks for your comments - AFAIK - seems the paper was published in the "International Journal of Astrobiology", a "peer-reviewed scientific journal" - with this new information in mind - suggested change(s) welcome => "no text/location change" OR "text change" OR "location change" OR "omit text" OR "some other change"? - Thanks in advance for your suggestion(s) - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It is good it was actually published, thank you. The state of current scientific understanding is that life may have started on Earth or elsewhere (and then brought here though panspermia),  so I suggest we present those 2 possibilities with equal emphasis. I say equal emphasis because recent experiments in LEO designed to test some aspects of panspermia, have demonstrated that many microorganisms can withstand interplanetary travel and atmospheric entry when protected inside a rock. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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


 * I am OK with using "Abiogenesis is DEFINED AS the natural process..." Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Yes - *entirely* agree - text has been updated as suggested - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Didn't this come up before and get rejected at some point? The style convention is not to use "defined as" on Wikipedia - by that reasoning, we could use it in the lead sentence for any article where there's multiple or disputed definitions, like Physics. I would tend to call it WP:WEASEL since it reduces straightforwardness and begs the question "defined by whom?"  Sunrise    (talk)  19:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - Yes - Thank you *very much* for your comment - seems the issue was discussed earlier after all - at the following => "Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 4" - undoing my own earlier edit - at least until we've developed a better consensus - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Add "Template:FAQ" to "Talk:Abiogenesis" Page?
QUESTION: Could a "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)" Template (based at "Template:FAQ") &mdash; like the one posted at the top of the "Talk:Evolution" Page (and based on "Talk:Evolution/FAQ") &mdash; be a helpful addition to the present "Talk:Abiogenesis" Page as well? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support this. :-) I think we'd need fewer questions, so it shouldn't take a lot of work to put together. Maybe versions of questions 1, 3, and 4, plus something specifically about the lead sentence?  Sunrise    (talk)  20:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You would need to read the archives and compile the FAQ and frequent issues. Then type them. Yes, I would support it and am willing to review a draft. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

✅ &mdash; (and others) => a *very* basic (and incomplete) "Template:FAQ" form has been added to the top of the "Talk:Abiogenesis" page above - presently in collapsed form - at least until the relevant questions/sections are sufficiently completed - hope this helps start the process - any help completing the form is welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Added an answer to FAQ Question 2. I'd appreciate some extra eyes on my answer; I'm somewhat familiar with the literature, but there are certainly gaps in my knowledge, so please correct me if I've written anything that's not quite right.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer to FAQ Question 2 - Seems *Excellent* to me atm - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw updated Q#2 and #3. Thanks! I made a couple changes to 2, including restoring some of the removed text ( and I referred to you as Biological in my edit summary. Whoops! Sorry about that! :) ) I really think it's important distinguish between a fact and the theories which explain those facts in our answer. I also tend to think, for the purpose of the FAQ, it's best to aim for simple language; our purpose is to head off conflict before it begins, and making the FAQ as accessible as possible must have the best chance at that. I tried rewording it a bit. Let me know if the new version works better for you, Battery, or if there's something else we can try instead! Thanks!   &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is OK. A work in progress. Thanks! BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup => added several new questions (and related) to *consider* (based on "Talk:Evolution/FAQ") - *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

False definition of abiogenesis
The definition of abiogenesis in this article is completely wrong and gives false information since the very beginning. It starts with is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter. Just by reading this, people that want to check quickly what is abiogenesis about, can understand that abiogenesis is a demonstrated fact, a process as real as any other processes we know in our world. Actually the abiogenesis is just an hyphotesis about the origin of life, that actually was never observed, never proven and chances are, that it will never be proven due to the impossibility of the non-intelligence to create intelligence (aka a single living cell) and due to the complexity of any living cell (see this article) If you look at the definition of abiogenesis in Encyclopedia Britannica, it describes the abiogenesis in a much more accurate way saying that it is: the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth

Also, Merriam-Webster Dictionary describes it as: a theory in the evolution of early life on earth: organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substances

A careful look on the article's content reveals the real character of the abiogenesis (a hypothesis), since it is specified that some arguments on which the abiogenesis relies are speculations/hypotheses. But that is not consistent with the definition given to abiogenesis at the beginning of the article. That definition was written by someone that intentionally wanted to induce the false idea that abiogenesis is a demonstrated fact.

In contrast, the Theory of relativity, which (unlike the abiogenesis theory is proven), is found in Wikipedia under the name "Theory of relativity". There are arguments in this thread that there is nothing to contradict the abiogenesis, that is why it can be safely considered valid. That is not a scientific approach. In no case we can say that what is not scientifically proven false, is proven true. In addition, it is claimed that there is enough evidence to support abiogenesis. If a theory contains three suppositions X, Y, Z and one of them is proven true, that doesn't automatically make the whole theory true. On the contrary, until all X, Y, Z are all proven true, that theory still remains an unproven theory or an hypothesis/speculation. Otherwise each of us can build heavy theories and pretend they are true only because some tiny parts of them are true. This approach is completely un-scientific. The science is about things that are repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation (see Scientific theory) addition, following the criteria that any entity able to produce/process information is intelligent (a logical consequence of the fact that the information is intelligent), a living cell (that satisfies entirely this criteria, if we think at theGenetic code ) is intelligent. Other tests that studied the movement of the living cells concluded that the cells are intelligent (see the article here). There is no scientific evidence or observance of something intelligent being created by something non-intelligent (and the nature is not intelligent). Sure, all the basic elements that constitute a computer or a human being are found in the nature, but it is too much to think that the nature can ever combine them in the final product. The amino-acids can be found in the nature, but in the DNA there is an entire genetic code, chemically encoded (through an intelligent language), so very complex, intelligent information. The information is intelligent, the nature cannot create it. Some answers in the FAQ section of this article claim that some constituents of the living cells have been artificially created and that would imply that the mankind is close to discover how the nature created life ages ago. By the same logic, discovering in the nature some kind of natural ink would lead us to the conclusion that we can expect to find books written by the nature. So, these logical points that are in relation both with the logic and the science, make the theory of abiogenesis extremely unreliable.

And last, but not least, an argument mentioned in the FAQ section of this article that "abiogenesis must be true", because otherwise the origin of life cannot be explained, is not a valid scientific or logical argument.

I strongly suggest to re-formulate the definition, by specifying clearly, that abiogenesis is an hyphotesis and I would say "is supposed to be the natural process" instead of "is the natural process". The article lacks objectivity and scientific rigorousness.Epetre (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read FAQ at the top of the page.--McSly (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That, and please provide reputable secondary sources that unequivocally demonstrate and confirm that abiogenesis is a hypothesis and not a theory or science, and that it is the consensus of the scientific community. That, and please do not run afoul of WP:Synthesis or WP:Original Research, please.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all the article doesn't say that the abiogenesis is a theory and I already specified this in my initial post, read it carefully, second, in the article the abiogenesis is presented neither as an hypothesis nor as a theory, but as a fact and it doesn't present any reputable secondary sources that confirms the abiogenesis as a fact. Third, if the abiogenesis is a scientific theory, the article should show how the abiogenesis was repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation, as a requirement for any scientific theory.Forth, Encyclopedia Britannica that in no case describes the abiogenesis as a fact (it says that abiogenesis is an "idea" far from "the natural process..") is a reliable source always based on other reliable sources Epetre (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - Your posted concerns have already been well answered - in the FAQ above - also - in related discussions above - as well as - in archival discussions - please read (and/or re-read?) these discussions regarding your concerns - as before of course - re talk pages => WP:NOTFORUM and/or WP:NOTSOAPBOX - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop with pointing me to the FAQ section. I have read it before writing this comment. The FAQ section, especially the answer to "why abiogenesis is described as a fact?" contains many other false statements by themselves which in no way justify the obvious false definition of abiogenesis given in this article. Epetre (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then stop wasting other people's time by misusing this page as a forum thread from which to expound on your blatant synthesis, especially since you apparently can not be bothered to read things that do not pre-conform to your judgments nor provide reputable sources that confirm your claims.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Before reading, I have some knowledge about this topic quasi unanimously known as a simple hypothesis in the scientific community. This is a an extremely poorly written article, lacking coherence and any professional, reliable information.Epetre (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're not going to bother to provide any references to support your claims, nor stop misusing the talkpage as a forum thread because you can't hear that, could you at least please provide the credentials that demonstrate that you're the supreme ultimate arbitrator of what can and can not be science or scientific theory?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Before searching for the ultimate supreme arbitrator, this article suffers from dilettantism. For the moment, I suggest you to read my points before answering, because you obviously didn't spend time in reading and understanding them (I remind you that my main objection was that abiogenesis is falsely presented as a fact). References, answers to some of the statements present in the FAQ section and suggestions for fixing the issues were already provided by me. Epetre (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide a specific change to the article (let's start with just one sentence you think could be improved), and please back up your suggestion with a reliable source. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion - however, as stated before, the abiogenesis article itself considers "abiogenesis a fact" - this consideration is the basis of the abiogenesis article - since, according to "WP:OWN", "All Wikipedia content ... is edited collaboratively" - and since, the consensus view of editors supports the notion that the abiogenesis article considers "abiogenesis a fact" - then => the abiogenesis article considers "abiogenesis a fact" - further supporting details, sources and rationale for this consideration can be found in the abiogenesis article itself, the FAQ at the top of this talk page, and earlier talk page discussions - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your opinion - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide your arguments and the exact parts (section, page etc.) of your reliable sources attesting that the abiogenesis is a fact, sources that overtake all the other sources claiming the contrary. The content of the article and the sources you provided fail to show that also, being in discordance with the definition specified at the beginning, as I said in my initial comment.  Also please address my arguments, so far none of them is addressed, while you falsely continue to claim they are addressed. Thank you. Epetre (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read (and/or re-read?) posted discussions above - including the FAQ at the top of this talk page - seems we're talking past each other - nonetheless, seems we can agree that your opinions on all this differ from that of other editors - and, afaics atm, the differences don't seem amendable - seems you have not changed any minds here - and we have not changed your mind - that's *entirely* ok with me - so be it - in any case - have a Great Day! - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems impossible to have a rational discussion here. That's fine. Epetre (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Religious vs supernatural
Regarding this edit, I'm confused why we're switching "religious interpretations" (what it used to be) to "supernatural interpretations". reverted me switching it back with the summary "Creationist "Science" claims a "non-religious" creator did it." However, checking the creation myth article, I don't see 'creation science' listed anywhere. I suspect Batteryincluded is referring to ID's claim to be non-religious, but that's a disingenuous claim, which is covered well in the Intelligent design movement, Wedge document and Of Pandas and People articles. Furthermore, ID is also not mentioned in the creation myth article. Why are we linking to an article on religious claims and avoiding the word "religious" when describing its contents? &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Correction... it used to be "non-scientific views" until this edit by an ip.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello. Yes, we had IDots making their rounds around here, and it came down to supernatural creation. When I added ID to the creation myth article, it was deleted by a main editor because ID is a subgroup of something else already listed in that article. I am ok with reverting to your edit, though if you feel that way. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I'm only seeing religious claims in the creation myth article now. Maybe I'm missing something. They're certainly all "non-scientific views". I think I'd prefer "non-scientific" to my "religious" wording. Anyone else have an opinion?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * FWIW - I'm flexible with this atm - "non-scientific" is *entirely* ok with me as well - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Same - I'd be fine with either "non-scientific" or "supernatural." :-)  Sunrise    (talk)  20:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ => changed to "non-scientific" [views] - *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why does religion have to be non-scientific? I think supernatural is a better description, personally. :) The Pokémon Fan (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there is the scientific view, and then there are other views. Anything falling into the second category is not the "scientific view". There are several creation myths that I wouldn't call supernatural. They are religious or cultural, and sometimes there's a clear distinction between the two. Non-scientific is really the best descriptor.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A fair description. However, some creationist views are somewhat scientifically viable, so maybe there should be a sub-category between the two? Just putting it out there. The Pokémon Fan (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * According to our sources, creationism is either 1) a religious proposition, separate from science, or 2) completely opposed to science and rejected by the scientific community. I'm not aware of any version of creationism that engages in scientific research; creation science falls into category 2 (and so does ID).  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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


 * A difficult subject to define by concensus, when the principle of a NPOV is itself in contention. Perhaps if it could be worded / interpreted more closely with the definition given in Encyclopeadia Brittanica:- "Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex. Biogenesis, in which life is derived from the reproduction of other life, was presumably preceded by abiogenesis, which became impossible once Earth’s atmosphere assumed its present composition." Given the concept that the first life forms on the planet came from elsewhere, then eventually somewhere back down the line of evolution those life forms had to evolve from something. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Great suggestion, I like it! It paints much more of an accurate picture of where we are at scientifically to include terms like "idea","proposes" and "presumably" since as illustrated by the first word of the second paragraph in the article, the theoretical processes of abiogenesis are merely hypothetical at this point. Hypothetical meaning assumed by hypothesis, supposed or highly conjectural since abiogenesis itself is not supported by any sort of available evidence at this point in time and no models of abiogenesis have been empirically proven.66.190.249.214 (talk)
 * Nobody knows how gravity and mass came to be; there are hypotheses, explaining the possible mechanisms, but they do not make gravity and mass hypothetical. Juggling semantics will not make it less real. I will not discuss science in this venue, besides your semantic arguments have not succeeded in academia or in the US Supreme Court. I don't expect you will produce a reliable reference that may supersede the hundreds of references now cited in the WP article, so I leave this matter in the hands of the administrators instead of entertaining WP:CHEESE. Thank you, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Could someone provide the precise wording which is being proposed? Alongside sourcing to back up the change, of course. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I don't think sufficient sourcing exists to outweigh the long list of RS that treat the subject as factual. If it ever became necessary, we could go line by line through the entries at Talk:Abiogenesis/Sources. :-)  Sunrise    (talk)  06:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I started this thread to propose that the lead sentence be changed to "… the hypothetical natural processes of life originating from non-living matter…" because:


 * 1.) To be brief, abiogenesis has never been observed and - based on current science - is no where close to being empirically verified.


 * 2.) That is how it is defined in all professional encyclopedias and dictionaries.


 * A.) Brittanica: "The idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth."


 * B.) Oxford: "The supposed production of living organisms from nonliving matter."


 * C.) Dictionary.com: "The theory that the earliest life forms on earth developed from nonliving matter."


 * D.) Thefreedictionary.com "The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter."


 * E.) Webster: "A theory in the evolution of early life on earth: organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substances."


 * 66.190.249.214 (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Typical creationist argument: "Were you there?" "Did you observe it?". Ever heard of data? Heard of evidence? The Big Bang was not observed by anybody, yet nobody contradicts it happened, based on scientific evidence and physics. Same with abiogenesis.  BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * None of those sources use the word "hypothetical". And have you read through the sources we're using now, for instance, those within cite 8?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * First, "hypothetical" is the correct word to use here since the first paragraph of the article begins by outlining the various "hypotheses" regarding the theory. Next, the publications in cite 8 reference not abiogenesis itself, but the "RNA world hypothesis" - the shortcomings of which are illustrated by biologist Eugene Koonin later in the article: "Despite considerable experimental and theoretical effort, no compelling scenarios currently exist for the origin of replication and translation, the key processes that together comprise the core of biological systems and the apparent pre-requisite of biological evolution. The RNA World concept might offer the best chance for the resolution of this conundrum but so far cannot adequately account for the emergence of an efficient RNA replicase or the translation system." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.249.214 (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Abiogenesis is not hypothetical, the proposed mechanisms are. Got it? BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that could be clearer in the article, e.g. perhaps "Hypotheses about mechanisms of abiogenesis" would be better in that regard. On the other hand, I just checked the source and it doesn't actually mention hypotheses at all. It says "The study of prebiotic evolution divides itself into three main stages, which one may label geophysical, chemical, and biological" (pg. 22) - so we should probably address that discrepancy.  Sunrise    (talk)  03:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * First off, your statement "abiogenesis is not hypothetical, the proposed mechanisms are" does not make any sense and is not factual. Since you cannot currently describe, explain or prove any process of abiogenesis, the entire concept is hypothetical at this point. You couldn't say "time travel is not hypothetical, but the proposed mechanisms of such are." You can't say "antigravity technology is not hypothetical, but the proposed mechanisms are." Since abiogenesis has never been observed or empirically verified, it is nothing more than a hypothesis. Got it? Next, speculation and assumption are not science and since there is no evidence that abiogenesis is possible,.you cannot claim that it occurred and call it fact. For a concept to scientific, it must be falsifiable (I recently read paper published by researchers in Egypt and Canada that called out some of the major flaws in the big bang theory) and abiogenesis is not on some pedestal that excludes it from such burden of proof. The first sentence of this Wikipedia article needs to be modified to reflect this.66.190.249.214 (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The idea that abiogenesis is not scientific is one that flies in the face of all our sources. On wikipedia, we go by sources exclusively. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is abiogenesis falsifiable? Yes or no? If it is (like I claim here) then it is science. If it is not (like BatteryIncluded most likely will claim) then it is not science. If it is falsifiable, therefore making it scientific, the lead sentence needs to be modified to demonstrate that it is hypothetical; not proven or otherwise verified, explained or described.66.190.249.214 (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * See WP:TPG. This page is not for debating the subject of the article. If you have sources indicating that abiogenesis is not scientific, please present them.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Once again, the fact of the matter is that abiogenesis itself is hypothetical and that needs to be reflected in the opening sentence to comply with the quality standards of Wikipedia content. Any seventh grade science teacher will tell you that a hypothesis needs to be tested, observed and verified to gain scientific validity - and abiogenesis has not. What is so hard to understand about the fact that since there is currently no scientific evidence that abiogenesis is possible, the lead sentence shouldn't suggest that there is? Again, since it is not verifiable that life arose through natural processes, saying so is not a neutral point of view and therefore not acceptable.


 * I suggest following the lead of professional publications and modifying the opening sentence to a more accurate definition of abiogenesis: Collins Dictionary defines it as "the hypothetical process by which living organisms first arose on earth from nonliving matter." Encarta Dictionary calls it "the hypothesis that life can come into being from nonliving materials." To be taken seriously, Wikipedia needs to be held to the same standard as professional publications when presenting information. For these reasons, the lead sentence should read "abiogenesis is the hypothetical natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds." 66.190.249.214 (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So... no sources that say abiogenesis is not scientific. In that case, please stop advancing that position - your opinion on the matter cannot influence our decisions about content. Regarding the wording proposal, "hypothesis" != "hypoethetical". Hypothesis is a scientific label, whereas "hypothetical" introduces (it appears intentionally) implications of controversy and dubiousness. Our policies on due weight apply. Is abiogenesis dubious or controversial within the scientific community? I don't believe our sources back that up; AFAICT, abiogenesis is very widely accepted within the scientific community as having happened, despite there being several hypothesis about how it happened, and we detail this distinction within the article already.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok post one source that proved, tested, observed or verified abiogenesis as a fact. I have posted excerpts from seven professional publications that describe it, in one way or another, as the undemonstrated concept that it is and Wikipedia should follow suit. So let's see it, where does a publication say abiogenesis is a proven scientific fact and what evidence is used to justify the claim? And please don't again have me re-read citations from the article itself that merely point in the direction of other unproven hypotheses that precede abiogenesis itself. Based on the consensus of professional publications, other acceptable lead sentence options would be "abiogenesis is the (supposed/presumed) natural process of life arising from non-living material" as this would also show that the topic is unproven, untested, unobserved and unverified. 66.190.249.214 (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your opinion and understanding of science is cute. Nobody knows the cause of gravity, mass or the Big Bang. Therefore goddidit? Should we modify those articles too and say they too are just hypothetical voodoo? BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Your opnion about science is even cutter. There are some big differences. If we go to the corresponding article about the Big Bang, there it is written: The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe. Gravity and mass observable, measurable, testable, mandatory attributes when we talk about the real science.


 * Like I said before, both gravity and mass are observable and the big bang theory is disputable: I just read a paper by university researchers from Egypt and Canada that disputed it. Abiogensis has never been observed and is non-disputable according to you, which leads me back to the point that speculation and assumption are not science. Testable, observable hypothesis are. Since abiogenesis is unproven, untested, unobserved and unverified - nothing more than a hypothetical supposition at this point - the lead sentence of the article needs to be changed to reflect that. For these reasons, it could appropriately be changed to "the supposed natural processes of life originating from non-living material" if you don't like the word "hypothetical." That's how some of the professional dictionaries I've mentioned define it anyway. Am I wrong? Then let's see it: where does a publication say abiogenesis is a proven scientific fact and what evidence is used to justify the claim? 66.190.249.214 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 20 days later and nobody has come up with any evidence from a professional publication against it. Hmm... The Pokémon Fan (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - added relevant HatNote to article as follows => This article considers Abiogenesis a "scientific fact". per { {Hatnote|This article considers Abiogenesis a "scientific fact".}} - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello. I am not sure using a hatnote to make that statement on the article is useful. I'd let the introduction and the cited references state that. Besides, the talk page has a couple of them already. My 2 cents. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments - probably right - deleted the HatNote - can always restore it later if needed - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for the comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How can the article consider abiogenesis a scientific fact when, according to "scientific fact", 'a "fact" is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence.'? For the umpteenth time, since abiogenesis is unproven, untested, unobserved and unverified there is no way it can be considered a scientific fact and the lead sentence needs to be changed to reflect this. Am I wrong? Then let's see it: where does a publication say abiogenesis is a proven scientific fact and what evidence is used to justify the claim? I've already posted seven definitions from professional publications that describe abiogenesis as the hypothetical supposition that it is, and the Wikipedia article needs to reflect this. 66.190.249.214 (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@66.190.249.214: Thank you for your Opinion - Nonetheless - According to "WP:OWN", "All Wikipedia content ... is edited collaboratively" - Seems the consensus view of editors supports the notion that the article considers Abiogenesis a "scientific fact" - please see the relevant Wikipedia essay => "ONE AGAINST MANY" - in any case - Thanks again for your Opinion - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the Wikipedia article you cited, a "fact" is "a repeatable, careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means)." By that definition, since abiogenesis has never been observed or verified, there is no way it can be considered a fact. That's black and white, no opinion whatsoever involved. Professional dictionaries and encyclopedias, on the other hand, describe abiogenesis as:
 * An "idea" - Britannica
 * "Supposed" - Oxford
 * A "theory" - Webster
 * "Hypothetical" - Collins
 * A "hypothesis" - Encarta
 * So in order to avoid intellectual dishonesty (as you are trying to convey by stating abiogenesis is a fact without providing any evidence of such) and maintain a neutral point of view, the lead sentence of the article needs to be changed to reflect the fact that abiogenesis is merely hypothetical. Hypothetical meaning assumed by hypothesis, supposed or highly conjectural - since that's all abiogenesis is at this point. 66.190.249.214 (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar enough with the literature to know if abiogenesis is a "fact" or not, but the idea that "not a fact" means "hypothetical" is wrong. "Idea" does not mean hypothetical, and "theory", within a scientific context, absolutely does not mean hypothetical. While examing other encyclopedias is useful, this is a science article, and scientific sources are more significant. I don't know of any scientific sources which discuss abiogenesis as "hypothetical", and I'd need to see those to be convinced of the wording proposal.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - As a matter of scientific fact, life in the universe has been around for at least 4 billion years - also - life in the universe was not around at the beginning of the universe - about 14 billion years ago - either life came about naturally - or - by magic - the "Abiogenesis" article, by regarding abiogenesis a scientific fact, considers natural processes of going from a universe containing no life to a universe containing life - the "Creation Myth" article, on the other hand, considers magical (and/or supernatural) processes instead - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * First off, let's see if the citations following "abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds" are even sufficient to verify the statement. They are [3][4][5] and [6] so let's go through each of them and see what they say:


 * [3] Oparin's "The Origin of Life" never uses the word "abiogenesis" but rather "presents a fairly complete survey of all the theories on the origin of life, from ancient times to the beginning of the twentieth century." So that source does not back up the current lead sentence, but says that the processes of the origin of life are still theoretical.


 * [4] is a Scientific American article that states 'most scientists have long assumed that life on Earth is a homegrown phenomenon. According to the conventional hypothesis, the earliest living cells emerged as a result of chemical evolution on our planet billions of years ago in a process called abiogenesis.' This source uses the word abiogenesis but also mentions that it is based on assumption and hypothesis, rather than evidence.


 * [5] Page 47 of Michael Yarus' "Life from Another World" is not listed publicly so there is no verifying what it says. However, page 36 reads "this book is not primarily about the origin of life, but the origin is an essential gateway to the RNA world." … "nevertheless, this is not for the most part an account of life’s origins, because the RNA world cannot occur at the origin, as a property of the first living things." The bottom line is that this source does not verify the current lead sentence either.


 * [6] Is an article in the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology which says: "while many scientists assume that life started as a self-replicating molecule, the first gene, a primitive self-catalytic metabolic network has also been proposed as a starting point." Though it does not mention the term abiogenesis, it still describes the proposed starting point of life as being based on assumption.


 * Based on these sources, saying "abiogenesis is the presumed natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds" would make a much better lead sentence rather than how it is currently written. Let's go on though. The next statement "the study of abiogenesis in involves three main types of considerations: the geophysical, the chemical, and the biological" is backed up by citation [7].


 * Citation [7] Freeman Dysons' "Origins of Life" states on page 11 "the main reason I am hopeful for progress in understanding of the origin of life is that the subject is moving away from the real of philosophical speculation and into the realm of experimental science." This alone is enough to warrant a change in the lead sentence as it is a primary source that also acknowledges the fact that abiogenesis is merely speculation at this point.


 * 66.190.249.214 (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The support of these sources for the lead sentence was discussed in this talk section (note that I'm Arc). Some sample quotes are given in my comment about halfway through. In any case, these are only a small sample of the sources that could be used for the statement; if any of them is actually insufficient after consideration, I have no objection to removing it and adding another.


 * Just looking briefly at your own quotes, I would add that you're again missing the difference between "theory" as it is used in science and as it is used in informal speech. Also, the use of "assumed" in the SciAm article is referring to the location of abiogenesis and not whether it occurred; I also own the book by Yarus and would be happy to provide you with as much context as necessary.  Sunrise    (talk)  05:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then let's see it: where does a publication say abiogenesis is a proven scientific fact and what evidence is used to justify the claim? It's a simple question. 66.190.249.214 (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You don't need the statement "is a fact" to source the statement that an event happened. Something like "it happened" is fine - as in the SciAm source (to take one example), "the earliest living cells emerged as a result of chemical evolution." There are further quotes in the discussion I linked.  Sunrise    (talk)  06:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You're still dodging the question; what evidence is used to signify that abiogenesis occurred? You can assume that "the earliest living cells emerged as a result of chemical evolution" all day long, but until evidence is provided that shows that's the way it happened it's nothing more than a blanket statement. Either way, the lead sentence needs to be changed to reflect that nothing is concrete at this point. How about "abiogenesis is the supposed natural processes of life arising from non-living material..."? 66.190.249.214 (talk) 07:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

As before, the Abiogenesis article considers abiogenesis a fact - and so presents this in the first sentence ("Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living material, such as simple organic compounds.") (ie, life didn't always exist in the universe - then life occurred - therefore - life occurred from non-life) - exactly how all life naturally came about, based on the fact that life occurred, is the point of the abiogenesis article - (if interested in related details and reliable sources, please see the Abiogenesis article itself, as well as the earlier discussion above and relevant archival discussions) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @66.190, there's no dodging. However, consensus has formed on this issue, and you haven't provided sufficient sourcing to sway that consensus. You're failing to understand due weight, an integral part of NPOV, and your suggested change would (perhaps unintentionally) place undue weight on a position not held by the scientific community. As a science article, we can't do that. I'm sorry, but it's time to move on.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If we are going to use the ONE AGAINST MANY argument to prevent abiogenesis being described as a hypothesis (as many other lead publications do) then we should have a general consensus on who agrees and who disagrees with abiogenesis. The Pokémon Fan (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is actually a difference between "ONE AGAINST MANY" and I DIDN'T HEAR THAT, especially when it concerns making original research proposals to skew the article's point of view to a position contrary towards common consensus in the scientific community.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see where the majority is actually going on this and I understand their position. This probably would be an example of WP:WEASEL if we were to, in this article, state that abiogenesis is a hypothesis.  However, when mentioning abiogenesis, then it should be mentioned as a hypothesis. A reasonable explanation, no? The Pokémon Fan (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Your opinion about science is even cutter. On one side there are some big differences between the content of this article and the content of Big Bang article. If we go to the corresponding article about the Big Bang, there it is written: The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe. On the other side, gravity and mass are observable, measurable, testable, mandatory attributes when we talk about the real science and especially when we talk about facts Epetre (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It is astonishing that ONE AGAINST MANY is the only argument that can be brought into the discussion and there is absolutely no interest to discuss the validity/invalidity of some others' arguments, as it is normally expected to happen on this TALK page. Epetre (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)