Talk:Abiogenesis/Origin of life archive

"life" as another state (phase) of matter
Collier's Encyclopedia, under "Biosphere", describes life as possibly another state or phase of matter (plasma, gas, liquid, solid, life). This definition just seems obvious to me. "Why" it is that way seems to be a meaningless question. Why is there a universe? It just is. We live in a universe where matter, given the right conditions, behaves like life. - Marknw

GA
what is a "ga" or "Ga" is it a gigaaeon? someone please fill in what the measuring unit is. all this creation stuff has its own vocabulary which is never explained

Ga = giga-annum = 109 years. As always, the prefix giga- is abbreviated to capital G; the name of the unit annum is abbreviated to a small a. Capitals for units are only if the unit is named after a person, but the full unit name is lower case, e.g. N = newtons; V = volts. 220.244.224.8 05:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Controversy?
Could you add a note that this controversy exists almost only in US ? Even worse fundamentalists in Europe don't deny evolution. --Taw

Taw - I don't think that is true. My assessment would be that controversy exists almost everywhere in the world, it is only most pronounced in the US. I'd like to see some numbers that verify your claim. - MMGB

Excuse me, even the worst fundamentalist atheists in Europe don't claim to have solved the origin of life from non-living chemicals. 220.244.224.8 05:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * What's a fundamentalist atheist? Are there any particular "fundamentals of atheism" other than belief in the non-existence of deities? -- Temtem 01:30, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Numbers: 0 - number of publically known people in Poland who reject evolution I suspect results will be similar in other European countries. --Taw


 * OK - I went and got my own numbers. According to Planet Project (a UN research project) around 15-20% of Europeans ascribe to some form of creationist thought, and another site says this is roughly evenly divided between biblical creationism and the "intelligent design" flavours. Christian groups successfully had evolution removed from the Dutch educational curriculum (for final exams) in the mid-90's, however this was reversed shortly afterwards. Specific numbers for various countries are also presented at . You can view the Planet Project Survey at  - go to "Religion, Beliefs and Fears", question 15.


 * Oh and Taw - Poland has one of the highest rates of creationist belief for any European country - 34%. - MMGB


 * What about other regions than Europe or North America? They don't exist? Homagetocatalonia

I'm going to delete this page entirely. Ed, the spectrum of belief here is not reducible to the simplistic two or three schools into which you'd like to divide it. The whole idea is nothing but your personal opinion, and has no place in an encyclopedia meant to educate people about the world as a whole. If you'd like to engage in discussion of these issues to clarify them in your own mind, there are plenty of places on the net for that. But this is an encyclopedia, not a discussion group. We're supposed to report on established mainstream beleifs and widely-held minority beliefs, but not any one man's personal opinion. --Lee Daniel Crocker


 * It's not entirely my idea, it's based on the Gallup Poll which (I believe) you dug up after I mentioned it. I have been attempting to remove bias from several articles; some of the time this means giving more attention to something I myself believe, other times I have softened claims that something (which I believe) is fact. I continue to appreciate the guidance of those with more wiki experience, and I do realize that my own bias is hard for me to see, but I do accept the wiki NPOV standard. No doubt I will discover that many things I thought I knew were merely my own opinion. --Ed Poor

OK, so it's your opinion and Mr. Gallup's. But it's still an overly simplistic division of a very complex field that deserves better treatment. This has nothing at all to do with how much attention is given to each idea: if you want to write 20 pages on ID, its proponents, its theories, etc., more power to you. But you have to be very careful when describing what others believe. ID certainly exists, and that's why it should be mentioned in these articles, along with dozens of other beliefs. But to blindly state that the whole field can be neatly carved up into A, B, and C is simply false. --LDC


 * Falsifiable, you mean :-) Here's an example: Everyone in the world either (A) always divides things into 2 categories, (B) never divides them into 2 categories, or (C) does it one way or another from time to time. --Ed Poor

Old contents:

The three main ideas explaining the origin of life are:


 * a. The Theory of Evolution

New species came into being over millions of years. Natural processes are sufficient to account for this.


 * b. Intelligent Design

New species came into being over millions of years. Natural processes alone cannot account for this.
 * c. Sudden Creationism

God created all forms of life around 6,000 years ago, pretty much as they are today.

The accepted scientific view is the theory of evolution, i.e., the neo-Darwinian synthesis. (Only a tiny minority of scientists depart from the accepted view.)

Religions which adhere to Sudden Creationism reject evolution entirely, although some denominations of Christianity recognize that some sort of evolution took place. See Christian views on evolution.

Recently, Intelligent Design has been formulated in an attempt to bridge the gap between faith and science.


 * It's hardly recent - the notion of ID has been around since at least the time of Newton and probably before. The specific case of "God handles the genetic variations" is just a new twist on a very old theme. I suspect that the Gallup poll referred to reflects the more general idea of ID than the "genetic" version you are presenting, Ed.- MMGB

LDC - I'm going to throw some weight in with you on this. I do believe that the topic "Origin of Life Explanations" (or something similarly named) deserves to exist, being a broad and linking page that present the many various theories as to how life emerged. But the rather restricted (and Americo-centric) view that Ed presented is not fair coverage. Also, the article would need to acknowlege the "no origin" explanations that come from hinduism and buddhism - where the universe and life just has "always been".

Taw - I'd like to see some numbers that support your assertion that Europeans reject creationism so extensively - I suspect (hope!) that the percentage is substantially less than in the USA, but ther would still be a significant number. - MMGB

Numbers: 0 - number of publically known people in Poland who reject evolution I suspect results will be similar in other European countries. --Taw


 * Taw - please be serious. You opinions do not constitute fact. :) For starters, the "British Biblical Creation Society" has a very prominent website and publishes a quarterly magazine, so there are at least some Europeans who subscribe to creationism. - MMGB


 * Manning: I'd agree with you, contra Taw, that there certaintly are some European creationists, but I suspect there are a lot fewer than in America, and the public pays a lot less attention to them than in America. I also suspect that the UK probably has significantly more creationists than continental Europe, due to the common language with the US. (Ireland also uses mostly English, but its mostly Catholic, and the Catholic church is pro-evolution.) -- SJK


 * SJK - I found some hard numbers - I am writing them up right now. PS - why are you up so early? I got a call from my fiance (who cannot calculate time differences) - what's your excuse? - cheers MB
 * Up early? I haven't been to bed! BTW, where is your fiance? -- SJK
 * Lucy is in Scotland - have you never read my personal page? :) - MMGB
 * Now you mention it, I remember. I'd just forgotten. Too little sleep. :)

I think the creation article already makes some very fragmentary mention of different views on the origin of life, though more in the context of the origin of the universe in general. Also, I think Hindus believe the universe to be eternal but also believe life to be created -- the universe is cyclic, and all life is destroyed at the end of one cycle to be created anew at the beginning of the next. -- SJK

Link to "Aromatic hydrocarbon?"
I wrote a section of "Aromatic hydrocarbon" about the origin of life. Maybe someone can link to it in this article in an appropriate place. &mdash;Vespristiano 01:23, 2004 Jan 11 (UTC)


 * Done, added under origin of organic molecules section. --Lexor 09:35, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article should be named Origin of life (science)?
I think this article should be moved to Origin of life (science) so that someone searching on "Origin of life" gets the disambiguation page. There are clearly several articles that relate to the origin of life. It is not for us to decide which is the one someone is looking for. A student of world cultures might very well want to know the entire spectrum of beliefs and theories about the origin of life. Also, having the disambiguation page as the first hit might reduce all the controversy that seems to clutter this talk page without making anyone feel intellectually dishonest. There could also be more discussion about the various views in the disambiguation page similar to the Evolution (disambiguation) page. I've raised the same issue with the article on Evolution for the same reasons. BTW, I am not a creationist in the slightest. --Samuel Wantman 07:43, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Links
I'd like to request that someone put an external link to Talk.Origins on the page. I feel it would only be fair in view of the several creationist/ID links already on the page. 136.176.110.112 22:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oxygen
What is the section about the poisonous effect of oxygen to the first generation of microbes doing in this page? It seems to add nothing to the topic. Awolf002 20:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well if oxygen was present in the atmopshere at the time that abiogenesis supposedly occured in the primordial soup, no amino acids could of come together, as oxygen gas is so reactive it dissolves those kinds of bonds between complex compounds, and generally wreaks havoc in any biological setting, it's even technically killing us every time we take a breath...just very slowely. But I do also have a question, where is the source that says that it is "generally" accepted that there was no oxygen, i've seen plenty of places out there that say it was highly more likely than we once thought, it's a shame I can't remember where they were :(. Homestarmy 02:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this comment was made on a long ago version, with the section The oxygen holocaust. (See date) Awolf002 02:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, ok. Maybe i'll just make another section for my question then heh. Homestarmy 14:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You can trace the geological history of an oxygenic atmosphere via banded iron formations. Graft 18:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but that article doesn't cite any sources, not that all articles in Wikipedia have to have them, but when your discussing things like how life began, words like "conventional wisdom" "is assumed to result from" "some geochemists suggest" don't seem to inspire much confidence in something you'd think would be very important. Also, it doesn't say how they got that date, if it was Carbon-14 dating, then that has it's own notorious problems. Homestarmy 19:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for comment/138.130.194.229
Please see Requests for comment/138.130.194.229. Dunc|&#9786; 16:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I've also protected the page to stop the vandalism. Dunc|&#9786; 16:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"creationist trolls"
Deglr6328, please refrain from calling creationists trolls in edit summaries while you are blindly deleting the cited scientific articles that are precisely on point for the article. Ungtss 05:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * mmmnope he's a troll. He just happens to be a creationist as well is all. One glance at his edits reveal that. Also there was really nothing "blind" about my deletion.  What "precisely" is on topic about a highly detailed extremely obscure 35 year old refutation of urey-miller experiment in this article? Oh that's right, nothing. If it belongs anywhere its in the urey-miller article SANS the wacky editorializing and pov pushing that's become so synonymous with our precious anon.--Deglr6328 06:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) your link just indicates he's religiously and politically conservative, not that he's a troll. i note that the edits in which he mentioned "trolls" immediately follow you calling him a troll first.  there's a log in your eye.
 * 2) even if he were a troll, there's no justification for attacking in edit summaries, especially when his edit was composed entirely of a summary of a cited article.
 * 3) your user page explicitly states that your primary goal is to EXCLUDE "mysticism" from pages, which is explicitly anti-npov, because npov incorporates views of "mysticism" to be presented along with all the others. You are currently executing your anti-npov agenda on this page by blocking views offensive to your pov.  you are the pov-warrior in this case.
 * 4) there is absolutely nothing "mystic" about this scientific critique of the experiments, anyway.
 * 5) the article was cited, summarized, and from a mainstream journal. you deleted it without replacing it with any better critique, thereby reducing article quality.
 * 6) no instances of "bizarre editorializing" have been presented, and if they had, they should have been fixed, rather than deleting the thing in it follows a summary of urey-miller above.
 * 7) i'm not going to edit war with you, because i'm tired of it and it never ends. but don't kid yourself.  you are absolutely wrong in this case, and "our precious anon" is absolutely right.  Ungtss 13:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * He has been tagged as a troll by at least two other users if you follow his edits and other users numerous reversions on many other pages. Anyway, it dosen't surprise me you find it dificult to discern the difference between actual npov and the inclusion of mystycism into legit science articles. The edit in question was not germaine to the discussion it was attached to and does not belong here. It is a highly specific critique (presented as a strawman argument by our anon. here) of urey-miller and that's where it belongs. cheers. --Deglr6328 18:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * that neither makes him a troll (any more than the pot calling the kettle black makes it so) nor justifies attacking him in edit summaries, period.
 * <>
 * well thanks for explaining it to me. npov="what dglr6328 thinks it is."  thanks.  i appreciate it.  Ungtss 18:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * proof by assertion and a hollow conclusion without providing opportunity for discussion. very nice.  Ungtss 18:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't know what type of logic That was, but anyway I really feel there is no need for drawn out discussions on inapropriate edits by habitually anon users. If they can't take 20 seconds of thier oh so valuable time to make a username after making hundreds of edits under various IPs I'm not going to waste MY time refuting them point by point in excruciating detail on every wrong edit. --Deglr6328 23:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * i see your feelings about anons are the only policy of consequence, and they override any and all objections to the CONTENT of your deletions. it's okay.  we're used to it.  The defining characteristic of those who censor ideas is their inability to compete on a fair playing field.  People only cheat if they have to.  Ungtss 23:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I can practically hear the violins. Get over yourself and don't be such a martyr, it;s unbecoming. No one's out to get you. --Deglr6328 00:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Violins? It's you i pity.  You're stuck in a 19th century fantasyland you can only maintain by shutting out alternative viewpoints.  wanna prove me wrong?  compete, don't delete.  00:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The soon to be deleted rules [] courtesy of Ungtss' alternate playing field. Bensaccount 00:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Why exactly did you join "my playing field" again? wikiproject:FACTS Ungtss 00:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't like being excluded from the editing process. Bensaccount 01:04, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * so you vote to delete a wikiproject, join it, and then gloat over the pending deletion of a clear articulation of the npov rules. excellent.  carry on, sir.  Ungtss 01:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I had to point out the irony in your remark about maintaining a "fair playing field". Bensaccount 01:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * i see no irony. the faq is simply a restatement of npov.  npov is not in operation on the main pages.  when mob rule takes over, the good work has to take place somewhere else.  that's the way of the world.  Ungtss 01:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

O2 holocaust
I really don't see why this is here at all. What does it have to do with the origin of life? The event happened long after life started. Removed section.--Deglr6328 05:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

God created the World
Here's a place where the anonymous user can discuss why he thinks "God created the world" is a model of the origin of life worthy of inclusion. -- Temtem 01:25, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

God created life through a simultaneous quantum fluctuation (which beyond the quantum level we can't observe) through manipulation of virtual particles and then created a self-replicating system which could support its own energy supply. So ha! (Its just not secular hence not NPOV: but suppose if supernatural beings could manipulate seemingly 50% chance quantum reactions.) -- Natalinasmpf 01:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow that was insane. I hope THAT doesn't make it into the article.--Deglr6328 04:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The idea of a simultaneous quantum fluctuation isn't that crazy actually. It just becomes a matter of chance. -- Natalinasmpf 07:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm nnnope, I think it is in fact crazy. Are you a scientist?--Deglr6328 08:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Just a secondary school student. But look at it, the very fact we have something like a quantum fluctuation happening regularly at every point in the universe that temporarily violates the law of conservation kind of insinuates a supernatural presence. -- Natalinasmpf 08:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Stay in school kid.--Deglr6328 03:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that human beings can come long long time ago from a primordial soup. But the point of this all is that we can only be sure after we're dead (whether human come from a primordial soup or created by God) and whether there is really a God, heaven and hell. (see Pascal's Wager).


 * We won't find out when we die if God didn't create life, because....we'll be dead. --Vagodin 02:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Unless of course, we happen to have souls which cannot die.... :D Homestarmy 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV COMPLAINT

 * talk:origin of life. NPOV complaint. The difficulty for the naturalist explanation of the origin of life is not even mentioned nor is the theism view presented.   Why not?  Is theism a fringe opinion?  Is materialism a fact or does a materialistic view of the origin of life have strong proof in this forensic science question of the origin of life.  Are theology departments held to be legitimate departments in academia?  Are singularity events the exclusive property of materialism? Are singularity events repeatable though experiments?  I see no reason to mandate a mere philosophy like materialism and again theism is by no means a fringe view.

I also cite the following:

Nobel prize winner, Sir Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA said,

“The origin of life appears almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going …. Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts.”

Notice he says "almost a miracle". Well theist often assert it was a miracle. There doesn't seem to be any reason to rule out a miracle.

Also, Walter Bradley said, “There isn’t any doubt that science, for the moment at least, is at a dead end. The optimism of the 1950’s is gone. The mood at the 1999 international conference on the origin of life was described as grim—full of frustration, pessimism, and desperation.”

taken from: http://www.valleyviewseek.org/teach/010527.htm

Lastly, is the DNA wrongly called a code? Do codes infer intelligence? Obviously these are legitimate questions in regards to the origin of life that should be raised.

ken 20:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo


 * Did you actually read the first sentence of this article? Here it is
 * This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For alternate uses, see origin of life (disambiguation).
 * In my oppinion your claim of a violation of NPOV is construed and incorrect, because this article discusses the scientific approaches to answering this question! I will remove that message box, if you do not have any arguments based on scientific reasoning, which by definition does not stop its inqueries and proclaim a "miracle". Awolf002 21:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

TO: Awolf

Science and the philosophy of materialism are not synonymous regarding the forensic investigation for the origin of life which likely was a singularity. Also, indirect evidence is invaluable in historical investigations since they are not repeatable. If you say the philosophy of materialism is scientific I would ask you how science has shown this philosophy to be true. What experiments are there for this philosophy that has demonstrated this philosophy to be true? I would also remind you that Francis Bacon the author of the scientific method derided atheism.


 * Removed NPOV banner - it seems ken ignored the disambiguation notice in the first line of the page. Origin of life (disambiguation) which leads the user to Panspermia and Origins beliefs, which he seems to think belong in this article. They don't. Vsmith 00:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Vsmith. This looks to me like the correct action.
 * To ken: I think you are falling into the old trap of equating the approach and methods of science with a certain believe system. Alhough many people think the same way, it is still incorrect. For further reading I would propose to you: Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by Stephen M. Barr. Awolf002 02:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's true. Most philosophers of science would accept that science DOES imply a specific belief system - for example, empiricism as a system of epistemology. Other things could debatably be called a belief system as well. Naturalism, certainly - the demand that we adhere to natural explanations of the world - is arguably required by an empiricist outlook. Ken demands that we allow other systems of epistemology in the door - but this would not be science. One couldn't believe in revelation and miracle and still claim to be operating on scientific principles. Where he IS wrong is, I think, in implying that a methodological commitment to naturalism implies atheism - certainly not. But it might indeed imply that the Christian outlook and biblical innerancy is a load of tripe. Graft 14:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Granted, the word "belief system" is a bit broad. What I tried to say is that using the scientific method does not imply a "philosophy of materialism," and thus an NPOV creating section of other philosophies are not needed. My conclusion is, in the context of this article, that it is unfair and misleading to call it POV when only science based arguments should be included. This article, after all, is the description of the scientific hypotheses to explain the origin of life. Awolf002 18:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

reverted text dump
I just reverted a massive text dump by User:213.228.0.86 and User:213.228.0.12 and a formatting mess that followed with the 50+ references included. It was stated to be from the Text of a conference given in Rio de Janeiro for the 100th Anniversary of the death of Louis Pasteur (February 1995). Don't think we need the whole thing plus possible copyvio problems.

Also the addition of the following was removed pending sourcing:
 * two artificial viruses have been synthesied by scientists from scratch - polio virus and Phi-X174 bacteriophage. While polio virus took 3 years to make and had genetic code defects, Phi-X174 was made in 14 days and was completely identical to "natural" virus. Injected into bacteria it started reproducing (and eventually killed the bacteria) - just exactly as its "natural" counterpart. Currently some researchers are trying to design a protocell (which is far more complicated than virus)

and
 *  It worthy to note here that if soup has not been completely eaten by primitive organisms, then after plants saturated atmosphere with highly reactive oxygen about 2 billion years ago any soup remnants were likely oxidised.

both added by User:67.177.35.2 within and at the end of existing paragrphs. Need sources for these two edits. Vsmith 00:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

omne vivum ex ovo
omne vivum ex ovo is Latin for All life from the egg or an egg. I've changed it as such. Homagetocatalonia, 22:54, 6 September, 2005 (UTC)

More literally, it actually means "every living thing from an/the egg" or "every living thing out of an/the egg". "All life from the egg" would be "Omnis vita ex ovo". But I'm quibbling, and I hate being a quibbler. -Silence 03:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

RNA
tried to add a reference to research from the university of delaware which calculates the probability of spontaneous RNA formation at 1 in 1.0e+79, but got a couple of people that don't like it. just wanted to start a discussion about why.

the researcher is an astrophysicist, Dermott J. Mullan and has been a researcher at the Bartol Research Institute since 1972. his paper on probability is very well written, it was published in the ISCID (international society for complexity, information and design) in their journal PCID (Progress in Complexity, Information and Design) - you can read it yourself right here.

basically, i'd like to see a good reason aside from things like "um..i was too lazy to actually bother looking at the link and checking the author and his affiliation, and since it makes RNA seem really impossible to be produced, this must be some kind of kooky creationist crap, so i'm going to edit it out." which is what i think is happening.

here's an example of the last reason for it being edited:
 * (rv. Rem unreliable, badly formatted, badly linked line. The actual reference is hard to find on the page referenced, and purports to be scientific while being written by a IDist without qualifications)

sounds like a lazy edit to me.

so - should we put the current best guess as to the probability of spontaneous RNA formation in the article about spontaneous RNA formation, or not?


 * I was the second person to remove the reference. I did follow the link provided, and found it led to a table of contents, of sorts. The actually relevant article was listed, and could have been directly linked to. Hence, my suggestion that the reference was badly linked. As for the article itself, the last page contains this text:

In summary, if the first cell actually originated by random processes, the genetic code must already have existed, and conditions must have been “finely tuned” in order to trace a path through a narrow (and hostile) region of parameter space. The idea that some of the constants of the physical world have been subject to “fine tuning” in order to allow life to emerge, has been widely discussed in recent years (e.g. in the book by J. D. Barrow and F. J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford University Press, 1994, 706 pp). If we are correct in concluding that “fine tuning” is also required in order to assemble the first cell, we might regard this conclusion as a biological example of the Anthropic Principle.
 * This in no way appears to be an actual scientific article. No scientific article would or should be worded in this manner. A quick google search turned up nothing interesting about the author, except his work for a noted ID organisation, which also calls his conclusions to question, as ID proponents have obvious reasons to want to give the impression that life could not have come to be naturally.
 * What's the noted ID organization? I could only find that he was an astrophysicist.  Also, I don't see why you don't think it's a scientific article - just because it's worded a certain way?  The author *is* a scientist, and the journal it's published in *is* scientific (sure looks that way to me.)  I must admit, I'm not in tune with the whole ID vs Athiests debate, so I probably wouldn't recognize it.
 * I think I was right to remove the content, for other reasons too, but I have spent enough time here. Please, in future, post new sections at the bottom, and use proper punctuation. -- Ec5618 18:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am the "second guilty" party of this revert. The problem I have with the number (and its related reference) is, that it is presented (and you repeated it explicitely above) as "current best guess" of the probability of RNA being "randomly" created. Since the reference given does not point to a journal acknowledged by the community doing the scientific research of the origin of life (which is the focus of this article), I found myself justified in regarding this numbers as not verifiable "in this context". So, I left the text but removed the number and reference. This data might fit well under the ID or creationism article, but not in here. Awolf002 18:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's pretend for a second that actually putting a real number in the article just makes it not flow very well - but let's talk about some of this crazy talk I'm reading: "a journal acknowledged by the community" ?? So just because this guy isn't in the right "club" you're rejecting his science and math? Don't you think that is sort of bigoted?  I mean, it looks like really good, thoughtful research on a particular theory of RNA creation - good math and all.  I mean, WTF?  I don't hang out in these circles, but I'm a little surprised at some of this kind of behavior.  Feels like Jr. High "Oh, he isn't cool enough to be included in the special Athiest club - he clearly doesn't know the secret handshake or run with the right crowd, he simply must be an IDist..." -- I know most religous zealots are bigots, but I'm surprised by this kind of talk.
 * I'm sorry, but the scope of this article is clearly stated: This article focusses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. This means that verifiable information from this research topic should be part of this article. Wikipedia has policies that requires that. Yes, this paper concludes that the probability for the described process might be that number, but I believe the publications (= communications of the relevant science community) that we use as sources for this article did not evaluate this conclusion. This is no judgement on the author or the truth of this paper. Awolf002 01:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I read the wikipedia verifiability guidelines, and I still don't understand why this probability, which can be verified by this research paper, published in a research journal, with math than can be easily verified violates this guideline? You say that this conclusion doesn't match the sources used in this article - well, then please produce the conclusions about the probability of spontaneous RNA creation that your favorite scientific sources cite.  If they are silent on this interesting piece of mathmatics relating to RNA, then why not let another valid researcher be cited in this article?  Is this wikipedia your own private article, in which only your favorite biologists and mathemeticians can be cited?  Please, help me understand how this works.


 * Please sign your posts using four tildes.
 * This is not about censoring opposing viewpoints. It is about the article you referenced. While it may seen valid to you, it is not. It is not scientific, for several reasons. For one, it draws conclusions it really shouldn't (by literally saying that RNA could not have formed through natural means because the odds are not in its favour), and assumes that a mathematical formula can adequately explain events billions of years in the past, glossing over the fact that no science is so exact. No science claims to be so accurate, while making gigantic assumptions about the odds and about the world in that time. It is important to note that science does not prove anything, ever, and statistics do not ever disprove anything. Please understand those two concepts, because if you don't, this subject may be beyond you. -- Ec5618 03:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL! Dude - you've got to be kidding.
 * Let's see here, it's not scientific because it uses math to explains things billions of years in the past? Oh, you mean, kind of like the big bang theory postulates? or science that explains the age of the earth?  Is that not scientific to you?  Everything about early earth and universe science makes assumptions, probability and uses mathematical formulas to draw conclusions.  If you aren't outraged by this line of thinking from Ec5618, you aren't paying attention. Please, open discussion is a great thing, but making such thoughtless comments do not help - and please spare us the ad hominems.
 * So, at this point, all I think we've done in this discussion is say "Mullan and the journal that published his paper isn't 'part of the club' and so we shouldn't include his science" and that's the reason for the edits? That's fantastic.  Nice impartial, logical open minds.  -prefetch
 * Feel free to read my comment, and feel free to respond to it. You are even free to ignore my remark, but please don't twist my meaning. The article is rediculous. If you are not going to read my comments, there's no real point in me explaining that to you. Initially, I felt encouraged to explain to you why the article is rediculous, but you seem more interested in congratulating yourself for puncturing the conspiracy.
 * Finally, read Graft's comment below. Even if the odds calculated in the article work out, the assumptions it makes make the math pointless. -- Ec5618 16:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I did read your comments, and I responded to them. First off, I don't read anywhere in the article that says "RNA couldn't be formed by natural means".  Are we reading the same article?  You said Mullan's article isn't scientific because it "...assumes that a mathematical formula can adequately explain events billions of years in the past..." Please, Ec5618, explain what you meant - I don't want to twist your meaning.   --prefetch


 * Laughing at other editors is not a good idea. Now you know that.
 * A quote from the article (the same quote appears above):
 * "In summary, if the first cell actually originated by random processes, the genetic code must already have existed"
 * In other words, cells could not have formed through natural processes. This quote does not directly address your point, but it illustrates mine. The wording "Must have existed" is just not done in scientific texts. "We may conclude from the calculation that the genetic code would probably have had to have existed prior to formation of early cells, assuming of course that .." would have been much better.
 * In the end, this text seems to have been written for lay people, not the scientific community. Could you check in which peer reviewed publication the article appears? -- Ec5618 20:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you need check your level of Intellectual_honesty - please, do two things: 1) Don't pull incomplete quotes from articles out of context and 2) Read them more carefully.
 * The complete sentence you butcher is as follows: "In summary, if the first cell actually originated by random processes, the genetic code must already have existed, and conditions must have been “finely tuned” in order to trace a path through a narrow (and hostile) region of parameter space." And in the preceeding paragraph, he explains that the genetic code could have appeared in a similar manner as mitochondria may have, as suggested by the Endosymbiotic_theory.
 * But back to where we left off - you never responded to my request for clarification about what you meant when you said Mullan's article isn't scientific because it "...assumes that a mathematical formula can adequately explain events billions of years in the past..." I am eagerly awaiting your explanation for this asinine declaration you have made.  Either say "Sorry, I was talking out of my bum in a zealous fit of irrationality" or explain yourself.
 * In the same vein as talking out of your bum, just for fun, I did an advanced search for the phrase "Must have existed" on pdf's that contained various chemical/biological key words. Above you told us that this phrase would never appear in a real scientific article.  I was not surprised to find peer-reviewed papers, university text books and scientific lectures from universities and journals from around the world.  Too many to list.  So please, once again, stop talking out of your bum - you've doing it this whole thread. -- prefetch
 * You are again trying to insult me. You're new here, so I'll point you to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I suggest you read them, as it will make your time here more productive. -- Ec5618 08:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the calculation is just tearing up strawmen. No one claims that RNA formed "randomly", not that such a thing could even be accurately computed under any circumstances. Yeesh. Graft 21:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean that "no one claims RNA formed randomly"? How else was it formed?  By intelligent design? What are you talking about graft?  --prefetch


 * The calculation in the article basically assumed that amino acids are beads, tossed into a bog box with some string, and rattled. The calculation then concludes that the odds of a specific chain of amino acids forming are slim, and that thus the odds of useful RNA molucules forming is remote.
 * Read the article, and look for these things: the article calculated the odds of a specific chain of RNA forming, and assumes that life must have com about through this strand. The article ignores the fact that there is no way to know which strands of RNA could have been viable.
 * The article assumes that the strand must be of a specific length, noting that most virusses have longer DNA, to convince the lay reader that the calculation is generous. There is no reason to assume this minimum length of RNA must have formed before autoreplication could have occured. Etc. etc.
 * The point Graft is trying to make is that no-one is arguing that RNA came about through chance (the big box of beads in my example), but rather that conditions such as, for example, chemical peculiarities may promote the formation of useful strands of RNA. It needn't have been random,  which makes the calculation assuming randomness quite useless, and in no way representative of current scientific thought. -- Ec5618 20:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Ec5618 - this is the first reasonable contribution to the discussion you have made so far (except for the implication that the article is for 'lay' people, which is a clumsy rhetorical device to dimish the credibility of Mullan's research.) So then, if not the 'box of beads' of RNA creation, then how? Your example of "chemical peculiarities may promote the formation of useful strands of RNA" can be politely called a non-example. And to be honest, based on some of the things you've said above, your credibility is so slim, and the fruits of engaging in a reasonable discussion with you have been so poor, I'm not sure I should even ask.  Perhaps someone else in the audience could assist with the question of non-random RNA formation? ::::::--prefetch
 * I think you missed my other points. The article calculates the odds of a specific strand of RNA forming randomly, which glosses over the fact that many other strands of RNA might be viable too. Perhaps the first molecule of autoreplicating RNA was three 'beads' long while external prosesses such as salinity or temperature facilitated the replication process. Regardless, the article is rediculous, even if I may be unable to explain it to you. Anyone familiar with scientific texts can see that the tone, the methodology and the fact that it was never published in a peer-reviewed publication all suggest it's rediculous. But trying to explain it to you seems a lot like explaining a joke. There is no way you'll find it funny. -- Ec5618 08:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I should probably explain that I initially tried to explain to you what was wrong with the link, and why it didn't belong in the article, from the point of view that you were a new editor who misguidedly added what he thought was a real scientific publication. I reasoned that you had perhaps come across the article while looking for a reference for the odds of RNA forming, as the article doesn't stipulate those. I tried to explain, in a simple and friendly tone, what was wrong, so you wouldn't make the same mistake again.
 * Perhaps you didn't add the link accidentally. Perhaps you are trying to add the link for personal reasons. In any case, I see little point in rehashing my arguments, or even in clarifying my points. The link shouldn't be in the article. -- Ec5618 09:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

For the edification of prefetch: the presumption that the genetic code formed ex nihilo, that is, "truly randomly" is absurd. It's equally absurd to compute the probability of the RNA for the first cell forming randomly after the genetic code was in place. There is no sense in a "genetic code" unless translation exists already and numerous functional proteins have already been specified. The genetic code must have followed the first primitive translation machinery, which completely invalidates the premise of this paper. Not to mention that the other "figures" are pulled completely out of the author's colon. Graft 17:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Graft, please hear me out here: have you even read the paper? Because it sure sounds like you haven't. (btw - that's an improper use of ex nihilo, you should know better.) What qualifies you to say that some 30 year veteran in astrophysics and cosmology is pulling things out his colon? It sort of sounds like you are saying this Mullan guy is an idiot.  Your profile says you are graduate student in biology - is this your qualification to summarily dismiss his research?  I mean, at least you aren't acting like a complete fool like some other posters in this thread, (I mean to say, your points are at least approaching rational discourse) but it doesn't seem right for some random graduate student to wave his hand and call another career scientist an idiot.  Please explain how you can do that?
 * I mean, so far no one has actually made a reasonable argument as to what's wrong with this man's paper. I've heard lots of libel and irrational, emotional statements, but nothing of substance.  I have no stake in this Mullan guy - for all I know he's a crackpot and a fraud - but certainly no one here has given me reason to think so.
 * So, what am I to make of this? I'm going to guess many (most?) of you on this thread are either not very intelligent, or very intelligent, but zealous hyper-religous athiests.  That's not particularly mainstream you know - there are only 150M athiest in the world.  Whereas the non-zealous, non-hyper-religious folks fall into the more mainstream agnostic (ie. "disinterested" or have no opinion of religion) crowd. There are over 750M agnostics in the world.  Pure speculation, and not exactly on topic, but I can't explain a lot of the irrational exuberance on this thread any other way besides assuming that most of you folks are hardcore athiest zealots - am I incorrect? And if so, how on earth can we trust the judgement of a bunch of religous nuts? --prefetch


 * Actually, I did read the paper. It was nonsense, as Ec5618 said above. One reason it's nonsense is given above, if you'd care to read what I wrote with an open mind. As to whether I'm qualified to insult the author's intelligence, I think, yes, I am. I'm in my final year of graduate school in an evolutionary bio lab at a prestigious university, which puts me in contact with a fair number of luminaries of the field. Meanwhile, said astrophysicist is a definite outsider to the field of biology and contents himself with attacking strawmen and displays a lack of familiarity with the state of the art in the field (or even worse, very prosaic facts that have been well-established for years).
 * I don't know why you're so enamored of this paper - hundreds of other people made the same piss-poor argument. Here's an anecdote that illustrates the folly of such computations: a few decades back, when people first started sequencing proteins, they were astounded by the fact that proteins could fold to form such complex shapes. A conundrum for scientists was - how could proteins possibly explore the incredibly large space of possible folding conformations? Attempts to calculate how long it would take for a single amino-acid chain of even modest size to try every conformation resulted in folding times on the order of many times the age of the universe. And yet proteins clearly fold quickly in solution. Then someone figured out that if one simply incorporated cooperative effects - that is, as parts of the protein folded correctly, they would bring other parts into proximity and make them more likely to fold correctly - then folding times quickly collapsed to the appropriate time-scale. So, the moral is, coming up with and multiplying numbers is easy. But it's all for naught if your basic assumptions are flawed.
 * All told, enough said, I think. Graft 03:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I sort of don't care about the paper much anymore, I've actually become more fascinated by the irrational emotion of the editors of this particular article. I checked out your blog, and it looks like you are an athiest, so I guess my suspicions were right - you are a religious zealot, but at least you can eventually articulate a rational argument (unlike our rediculous[sic] friend, ec5618. ;-)  So, I guess what probably happened was, as soon as a reference was made about the improbability of something related to early cell formation, instead of a rational discussion on the merits of the science and math, the "IDist" alarm went off - and everyone got their "defenses" ready, and then things started to go south pretty fast.  (Note: I still have no idea if Mullan is an IDist as ec5618 claimed in his original edit, or if this claim was just an irrational, knee-jerk reaction on his part.)
 * As far as your arguments go, you cite an interesting anecdote - obviously there is a lot more to learn about early RNA formation. From the RNA_world_hypothesis article, it looks like scientists (they cite Gerald Joyce) doubt RNA spontaneously formed because of the difficulties involved.  Are you aware of any research that attempts to quantify this?  If you are, it'd be great to reference them in the article.  I'm sure I don't understand the science as well as you do, and I'd like to learn more - but the problem is that with your overreactive emotional response to this discussion, I think your personal and professional credibility has been pretty well shot in this thread, so I think I'm at an impasse.
 * Graft, take some unsolicited advice: tone down your level of arrogance, and reduce the level of emotion you employ towards your arguments - it will make you a better wikipedia editor, and probably a better person.  Anyway, good luck with that whole athiest religion thing you got going -- try not to let it get in the way of science.  -- prefetch
 * Actually, I'm not an atheist. At worst, I'm an "agnostic", at best a Hindu. Also, I don't think I've applied any emotion to this argument at all. I've stuck strictly to the merits of the argument, which are very weak, and the qualifications of the author, which are similarly weak. I've pointed out why I think this is the case, and you've failed to address the arguments I've made. I also don't think I've made any religious arguments at all, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. Graft 18:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Prefetch, I've begun to read the article to which you link. It is quite interesting, and although I've only read the first several pages so far, I am interested to read the rest when I have time. Already, however, a couple points have caught my attention. Wikipedia is traditionally quite selective with its external links; in general, a high bar is set for inclusion. Could you explain what you feel this link adds to this article? I hope you will be able to discuss this matter without insulting others, their religions, or beliefs. Please stick to discussing the issues at hand, not the editors. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Prefetch, please stop making personal attacks. Read WP:NPA. Read WP:CIVIL. Calling other editors arrogant is a personal attack, in case you were wondering, as is calling them ignorant zealots. Even suggesting a person is letting their bias cloud they judgement, simply because they have personal beliefs is a personal attack. Wikipedia's policy on this is clear. It doesn't matter what else you're saying, by actively trying to be offensive, you're not helping your case. -- Ec5618 06:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The Urantia Book
I do not see any reasonable connection to this article, so I removed it from See also. Any comments or explanations? Awolf002 20:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooppss... Somebody else got in there before me. I guess I might be correct. Awolf002 20:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are not correct. Please read The Urantia Book for verification as to whether this is correct. In Part III is an entire section about the origin of life, and is verifiable, is published and also has an article here in Wikipedia. Jan 28th 2006


 * How does a person simply writing a book make it correct, I read the Wikipedia article about it, it didn't seem very verifiable to me. Homestarmy 00:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read the book, then it is verifiable according to Wikipedia standards in spite of the shoddy article at Wikipedia. The esoteric explanation of the origin of life in The Urantia Book is as credible as any theory. Check it out at: http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper57.html


 * You can read the theory online.


 * Thanks for mentioning the challenge of it being "very correct"... considering no theory on earth has proved to be.


 * All the best in truth seeking, Jan 28th 2006 7:29pm


 * Right. Please do try to explain. I'm afraid we cannot just take your word for it. There are thousands of people who believe in something. Why is this book relevant?
 * Please don't re-add the link, until a case for including it has been made. Thank you. -- Ec5618 01:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Linking to the entire book does not equal 'backing it up'. You said in your edit summary: I backed it up with a link; give it consideration, please see discussion. You have not backed up anything. Please read this discussion. Initially, two people tried to remove your link. You then stated that it deserved to be linked, simply because it was verifiable. I don't doubt the existence of the book, mind you, just its notability and relevance in this case. As for the credibility of the book, it is irrelevant. The book doesn't appear to be relevant. Perhaps you should take your case to Origin belief, though I doubt the book has relevance there either.
 * Again, there are thousands of beliefs, why should we put this book under See also, and not other books? And again, I ask you to stop reverting, and make your case first. Are you aware of WP:3RR? -- Ec5618 02:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait, what definition of verifiable are you using, is there some new definition of it in Wikipedia policies? Homestarmy 02:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, wait too! What about your more than three reverts? I guess you will have to explain as much detail why this does NOT belong in "see also" as I should why it should stay there - to be unbiased and fair.


 * I have reverted twice, you have done so three times and have added the content once initially. As for explaining why it does not belong:
 * It's irrelevant to the article, which focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. (as per the disambig notice)
 * Even in the context of Origin myths, this book is just one out of thousands. Including this book, while excluding others would seem to show bias.
 * You have thus far failed to show any reason to include this book. Nothing seems to make this book stand out.
 * Also, please sign your comments using four tildes ~ -- Ec5618 02:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * in defense of Ec, I only count 2 reverts as well. Homestarmy 02:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you read the other "see also" entries? Then you have to read this one to say what you say and be of truth, which Wikipedia admiteddly doesn't require, it requires validation: The Urantia Book is validated because it is in print and verifiable as well; go ahead, read 2,097 pages, then refute.


 * You have now added the same link to Origin of life, Origin belief, Common descent and in fact, to God. Perhaps you should reconsider your stance. By the way, do you happen to know User:Hanely? Ve tried to add this book, a few days ago, without succes, obviously.	+	Good luck.
 * And I shouldn't need to repeat myself. The book is irrelevant to the article, which focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. (as per the disambig notice). I needn't read the book, I know it is unscientific, and this irrelevant. -- Ec5618 02:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Noone needs to refute anything, the link is irrelevant to this page as it stands. - Randwicked Alex B 02:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That Panspermia, for one mere example, is merely a theory means it must be removed as well - that is, based on your arguments. The other "see also" references, because they are not valid and solid must also be removed, if "The Urantia Book" has to be removed, too. I cite unbias here. To know the contents is imperative for those of you claiming truth. Read the contents so you can intelligently validate or invalidate. If you have not, you have not done your homework.
 * Hanely 03:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And now, inexplicably, a user similar to 69.137.116.242, with edits also concentrated around The Urantia Book, shows up. Could an admin please check the identify of these two editors. I suspect mild sockpuppetry, and violation of 3RR. -- Ec5618 03:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Revelation cannot be science - see scientific method. Guettarda 03:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The Urantia Book has science in it. You might not understand the type of "revelation" that this is. Have you given this actual, due consideration? And inexplicably there are multiple users here suddenly - and there has been no traffic for a few days. It's the weekend. I think it is misleading to have Origin Belief and Origin of Life articles, all views are supposed to be presented. There is no way you could have considered this fairly, reasonably or honestly in such a short amount of time. I think The Urantia Book belongs in the "see also". I also think the ridiculous idea to separate "origin belief" and "origin of life" articles is not a good solution to the problem of science and religion having different views. Interestingly The Urantia Book gives a good explanation of how science and religion do not have to be at odds. Hanely 08:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hanely, in what way do you feel that this link will benefit this article? Just because a book has some science in it doesn't make it a scientific work. Further, just because a work is scientific doesn't mean it should be linked in this matter. For instance, Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale is a book dealing with the origin and evolution of life, but there is no link to it here. It simply isn't relevant. Also, I don't know if you are familiar with watchlists on Wikipedia&mdash;many editors may have edited an article in the past and have it on their watchlist, even if they haven't been active on it recently. New comments will cause it to pop up on their watchlist, and seeing it come up repeatedly due to an active discussion may trigger them to come take a look&mdash;that's what happened with me at least. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 10:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Knowledge Seeker, Homestarmy, and Editors:


 * The title of this article is "Origin of Life" which naturally cues the reader to a very controversial issue that has points of view (POV) abounding. The subject can safely be called an unsolved and controversial mystery (from a scientific POV only - other POV say it is no mystery). Billions of human beings have varying theories, thoughts and ideas about the origin of life. Other editors have complained previously, so it is clear this is controversial.


 * I can see that some editors have attempted to seclude it from anything but "modern science". I feel that if the article is only addressing it from modern science then the title could be changed to reflect its specificity. I think this solution would avoid any further misunderstandings (except they will have to update that POV with the new modern scientific point of view that there is intelligent design, yet another modern POV).


 * As long as it is titled this way, The Urantia Book should be included among all other points of view as Wikipedia expects articles expect editors to do, and do without bias. There is a connectivity with not only 'creation' or 'creationism' and 'evolution' with ideas concerning 'the origin of life', but also ideas about who did it, how it was done, why and when. I feel The Urantia Book is useful in "see also" as an alternative point of view. I may even write a section for this if and when it gets fixed properly. The Urantia Book blends the scienctist's view with that of the religionist. One would need to read the book to see how it connects in all the various ways but mostly it is scientific and accepts intelligence as the First Uncaused Cause - as with any book, I agree that it doesn't have to be right, same with the references shown here or any other, that is not a valid argument as to why I or that anonymous user should not include it "see also" save for the concept that the article is trying to be modern science specific. Which when I saw that is what they are doing, then I realized the title should change - everyone will be confused by that as it is now. Hanely 14:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You still can't call it "science" if it is supposed to be a revealed work. Science is a way of asking questions, not a collection of "facts" about some topic.  Science depends on and is intimately linked to the scientific method.  Thus, science and revelation and mutually exclusive.  Guettarda 15:03, 29 January 2006 (UT


 * OK, but the scientific method can be flawed as well as any other method in logic, so ... I agree with other editors that the name of the article should be made specific to scientific research validation. I found "Origin Belief"... don't agree with the title but don't have time to pursue it now.


 * Hi Editors: If science, or better the scientific method, is about asking questions and not drawing conclusions, then the title really is misleading because "Origin of Life" implies knowledge of what that origin is as being THE fact - am I correct that science continues to puzzle over it? I think the problem is going to continue as long as humankind has controversy over it, but I am not experienced enough here to continue arguing a point which humankind has argued forever ~ with fervor. I agree with the meaning behind the words in the title "origin belief" for that article, but overall people looking for it will try for "Origin of Life" first, and the disambiguation page is cumbersome, though I don't know how to fix it. This article was brought to my attention through a link at The Urantia Book page in which the words "origin of life" appear in a sentence describing what the book is about - it is linked. All I care about is honest fairness and truth in the title and the article, it looks like somebody tried to fix the link. Maybe there is another solution, though I can't think of one at the moment and I will be away later. Hanely 17:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, this Urantia book, is the theory that it is presenting backed up by anything other than the book itself? Homestarmy 16:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Hoemstarmy: I see you visited The Urantia Book page. Yes it is, by many sources, see "Mystery of Origin" and a subsection titled "Plagiarism" on human source material under the section "Criticism" ~ there have been attempts to find the human source material (Matthew Block is cited as one). Even though these sections describe it from a point of view of biased skeptical criticism, the information is there nonetheless - and even though the article doesn't say so, Block concluded differently than it implies at Wikipedia. Since the scientific method requires asking questions and research then shouldn't all possibilities be explored? Does this article imply that the origin of life can only be discovered by biology or modern science? Is that true? Can that itself be questioned? What is this article trying to portray, research and scientific thought on the matter? Wouldn't it be more honest to admit that neither modern science or religion can be said to have the concrete answers? Can it be said that exploration must continue becasue science can not conclude only question? Shouldn't all POV be taken under consideration for an article with this title? I think this is going to be problematic for you. Best wishes! Hanely 17:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems that the Urantia book makes several claims that fundamental science disagrees with, and several more that even Christianity disagrees with, so either way, it looks like this book is hemmed in on every side. It claims something about ultimatons being inside electrons which I don't know how they try to prove, an age of the universe that i've never seen any side in that particular debate ever throw out before, there's something in there about some super fast evolution theory by Hugo de vries which it says was widely discredited, is extremely racist in it's claim that black people is the product of inferior strains of man, (Origin of Species on steroids? :/) Claims that one side of mercury always faces the sun,(Not a chance) claims that sunlight is comprised of electrons, (It's pretty much provable in Quantum Physics that it's made of photons, which aren't even totally particles, if it was electrons then I don't see how atoms could exist in any degree of stability) claims that Jesus was a man named Michael of Nebadon, (If this is Michael the Archangel, then that's just Jehovah Witness belief and extremely un-Biblical) claims that God has some sort of big brother mechanism which comes into children's lives at the age of six,(Not even close to Biblical) says something about Jesus resolving a dispute between Lucifer and Satan, (Their the same thing) and says something about Jesus being guided by a "mother spirit", which sounds very mormon-esque. (And therefore, not Biblical) and is very universalist when it comes to Hell. Basically, this seems like a book of wild guesses, and although it appears very imaginatively written, I don't see why it should be in this origin of life article....though, admittedly, I don't exactly know what this article is supposed to be covering either. If the Origin belief article had, say, a list of as many different origin beliefs as possible in it, then I don't see why this Urantia book can't go there, but personally, I don't see why it should go here either, it's just too random a book that has no real support on too many fronts. Homestarmy 19:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing Title of Article
Hi Editors,

This article has had other editors suggest renaming it due to some editors who want it to be modern science specific and want to exclude alternative POV. What if you were to name it "Scientific Research on the Origin of Life", or "Biological Discoveries and Theories in the Origin of Life", or like was suggested before "Origin of Life, Science"?

Or something else?

Would "move this article" to a new name be the thing to do?

Hanely 14:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Since it would be against consensus, you'd probably have to drag some moderators or someone in here for dispute resolution, and besides that, doesn't the Urantia Book article already show the PoV of the Urantia book? Homestarmy 16:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Homestarmy, sorry I misspelled your nomer in another edit! The Urantia Book article on those matters is still in process of being written. I appreciate your kindness and decency here to explain that. Where might I find where a consensus was reached and how to ask for another review? I'll be away awhile. Hanely 18:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well consensus doesn't necessarily have to be in a particular, rigid format where editors take a long time to review ideas, it simply has to be a matter of the most popular opinion. so far, it appears there are 2 for changing this article to help the Urantia book (You and that I.P. address), and 3 opposed, I think. Honestly, I don't see what all the fuss is about, but I don't see how adding in the Urantia Book link really helps this article in any large degree, and I don't see how it's worth changing the title if it's not in here, because if you change the title you have to go back and fix all the links to this article and...bleh, it's too much mess for too little a thing. Homestarmy 18:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the article is appropriate where it is now. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 19:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Knowledge seeker, !ahem! Knowledge seeker? How could you find all you needed to know at this article? You wouldn't.


 * The title of this article is inappropriate for encyclopedia users to find full information about the various, numerous theories and research being done on the origin of life. And all this despite what books are listed in "see also". Hanely 15:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a link to origin belief. Guettarda 16:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As per KS - agree with the title. Guettarda 19:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See what I wrote to knowledge seeker above. Title is not specific enough for the article, whatever it's intention is supposed to be, it isn't to cover world views on the origin of life. Hanely 15:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No need to change; the article makes its point clear. -- Ec5618 19:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It may make it "clear" when you finally find something to make it clear, but it is cumbersome, irritating, generally misleading and needs clean up. Title should change. Hanely 15:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Leave as is. Samsara contrib talk 15:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Im sorry Hanley, but it looks like its 5 to 1, encyclopedia articles can't possibly list all the different beliefs on everything anyway, you'd have to get the personal opinion of everybody on earth and the size of the article would be increadibly long :/ Homestarmy 16:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep title as is. Vsmith 16:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as is. This article is about the origin of life itself (and thus the best attempts to understand, document, and describe the origin of life), not about beliefs regarding the origin of life, for which there are already numerous articles. Sociology and theology should not be confused with biology and chemistry. A similar practice exists for countless other scientific articles, like heart (which explores the biology of an organ, not historical and cultural beliefs regarding the heart, which articles like heart (symbol) handle) and ultimate fate of the universe (which discusses a cosmological topic, not a sociological one, which instead falls under eschatology). We should always be clear on whether an article is chiefly about a subject matter itself, or about common beliefs regarding a subject matter (which could even include common superstitions and complete misunderstandings, not just things that are actually accepted by people who are knowledgeable, well-versed, and credentialed in the field). -Silence 17:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well said. Guettarda 19:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * For now, OK, but your article is far from being about life itself. It is about the material mechanism, very old organisms, and other biology, geology etc. It doesn't address LIFE or the origin, but something from history that is scientifically interesting and connected. All the best to you all. Hanely 22:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

God?
You people, obviously athiests are forgetting one thing. THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE ON EARTH DON'T BELIEVE YOUR CRAP! 5 billion people on earth profess a religous or religous beliefs, thus, making you, im sorry to say- a minority. You need a disclaimer on this page that says that other theories exist- because this is on a minority viewpoint. Common sense points people to the idea that something- not just chance- was behind this world. I am putting in a disclaimer. If you wish to rewrite it- go ahead- but at least put somewhere that other theories exist. Oh, and if you want numbers on my staticstics, look in the 2005 world almanac- it says the following about religous adherence world wide: Baha'is - 6 million Buddhists- 350 million Chineese folk religons- 381 million Christians- 1.9 billion Confucanists- 6 million Ethnic religons- 225 million Hindus- 799 million Jains- 4 million Jews- 14 million Muslims- 1.15 million New Religonists- 100 million Sikhs- 22 million Spiritists- 2 million Other religonists- 1 million Members of no organized religous belief - 750 million Athiests- 300 MILLION

So according to these figures, which I directly copied out of the almanac (although I rounded on many figures), YOU ARE A MINORITY IF YOU ARE AN ATHIEST. So therefore, do not press a minority view, that cannot be proven onto the rest of the world until you havve UNDENIABLE proof. Common sense tells most people (5 billion or more) that a higher power was behind this very complex world, so stop trying to press your views on everyone else. A disclaimer is necessecary. I dont care if it's rewritten- as long as you put thee basic point: no one is sure if what you are saying is right and that most people on earth believe to the contrary. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.150.147.138 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * Please use a civil tone in discussion. Making assumptions about others' religious beliefs is likely to be counterproductive. You confuse science with religious beliefs. Science does not propose that God exists; it does not propose that God exists; it simply states there is no evidence that God exists. I'm not sure if you read the article; the first line states: "This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For alternate uses, see origin of life (disambiguation)" which seems quite clear to me. If you would like to argue that atheists are a minority, you are welcome to do so, and will likely not meet much opposition; this would be relevant perhaps at Atheism or Religion. It really isn't relevant here. You make an assumption that everyone who believes in a religion does not believe scientific explanations of the origin of life. This is not true. Many editors here (including me) are religious, yet see no conflict between science and religion. Your argument that most people are part of an organized religion and therefore do not accept the ideas in this article is not correct. Nor is it relevant. For instance, the page on Christianity does not disclaim that most people do not believe in Christianity and that its views are false. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 02:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's true this article does only focus on scientific conclusions which most seem to use to justify evolution, though I don't see how all the screaming will change anyone's minds, and I also agree with Knowledge Seeker that this article has to necessarily only imply Atheist beliefs. Technically speaking, you can sort of be an evolutionist and actually be a Christian (Intelligent Design is often like that) though it does propose several Biblical problems to be sure :/. At any rate, you don't have to caps lock shout at people nor will it really do anything especially on Wikipedia, and especially when thier not all Atheists.....and besides, didn't someone add in a link to creationism or something at like the very very bottom awhile ago here as a comprimise? Homestarmy 02:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait, I don't believe this article does or should imply atheist beliefs&mdash;I'd say it's more agnostic. Atheists believe that God does not exist. Science does not say that God does not exist; it does not even say that God didn't individually create each animal and plant. What it does say is that there is a far simpler explanation for the origin of today's life, one that is based on observed patterns and interactions that have been previously observed. Perhaps God created life in those patterns (perhaps to mislead us, perhaps for purposes we cannot fathom); perhaps God created the patterns and interactions themselves and life evolved as we have observed it (and perhaps there is no God). Science does not say that either proposal is false, just that there is no evidence for it and there is a far simpler model. Many religious leaders have given support to scientific inquiry, most recently the Dalai Lama, if I recall. Several prominent Roman Catholic leaders have expressed support for evolution. There are many very religious people who do not see science as a threat to their belief, and I count myself as one of them. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 02:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait, what, why did I write it has to imply Atheist beliefs? Did my fingers type words not of my brains design? Im sorry Knowladge, I should of been agreeing that it wasn't Atheist, I dunno what happened :(. Homestarmy 02:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think consensus is that this page describes the scientific approach to finding the origin of life. As said above, this does not entail conclusions about the existance of God, and is "out of scope" of this article. The note at the top and maybe some "See also" links should suffice to direct the reader to other explanations based on popular beliefs, mostly invoking supernatural forces. Please, keep this section you are "pushing" out of this article. Awolf002 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

we don't vote truth!!!!!! yes science can't tell any thing about god BUT she could explane in a scientific way religious beleaf in people. And thus explane in a scientific manner ...why you don't beleave in the scientific explanation of the origine of life.(hahahahahahaha...,nead some aspirine?)--Ruber chiken 20:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Who what where now? Homestarmy 01:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

History of the concept
I re-wrote this section, with the aim of improving the structure and making it clearer for the average reader. No new material has been added, except a few small examples of what was once considered spontaneous generation. I also tried to include in here any relevant material from the separate article Abiogenesis, which merely erpeats this article and appears to be a POV fork aimed at giving creationists a platform for views critical of the scientific view of life-origins. PiCo 05:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Religion
Shouldn't something be mentioned on the religious views of the origin of life? RENTA FOR LET?  03:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Like the tag on the article says: "This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For alternate uses, see origin of life (disambiguation)." So, no, it shouldn't. PiCo 03:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are rock formations considered a precursor to life?
The premise of abiogenesis seems to be that there is insufficient time on the earth for life to have generated. It states that the time period between the first rocks in Greenland and the first evidence of life is a very short time. Why are rock formations considered a precursor to life? Obviously, the cooling of the magma is a factor. Couldn't life have evolved out of superheated liquid water, gas geysers, or some other environment that doesn't require rocks but might be sufficently cool? svanloon 03:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know that rocks are a precursor, however, ancient rocks contain the evidence. superheated liquid water, gas geysers, or some other environment that doesn't require rocks simply will not be preserved for us to find and investigate. The evidence is where you find it -- and old rocks is it. Precursor, dunno; Preservor, yes. Vsmith 04:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think another way of saying it is that if life evolved without rock formations, then it's not really possible to test. Therefore it's in the releam of belief/convictions rather than in science because there aren't any truly good theories or evidence that currently support it.  svanloon 10:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion on establishing context in this article
I think this aricle would be improved, for the lay reader, by a linking section or paragraph that explains how modern theories have developed in the context of Molecular Biology, a new field in the 20th century. This might be done by turning the last paragraph in the Aristotle section (Oparin) into a paragraph in the next section, and inserting a lead paragraph in front of it. --Metzenberg 02:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion. This article reads like a list of theories, with little to tie them together or organize them in context. For example, the theories of the origin of life really belong in several different categories.

1. Molecular Evolution a. How did the precursor organic molecules end up being here. b. What were the first forms of metabolism and genetic coding, and how did they get started and turn into an energetically self-sustaining and self-replicating system.

2. Where on Earth? a. What was the environment of early Earth like? b. In what micro-niche on Earth did an energetically self-sustaining and self-replicating system begin, from which all life must have evolved.

I would suggest that the article be organized with the "Where on Earth?" section first, followed by the Molecular Evolution section.

--Metzenberg 02:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit boldly. (Meaning, go ahead and have a try.) PiCo 12:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Not quite ready for that. I have to do some reading before I try. I really like the introductory material you have added. I think all the materials are here for a great article, but they need to be rearranged better. How would you like to contribute a context paragraph about Molecular Biology in the 20th century, or edit one that I write, if I rough it out. --Metzenberg 00:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I know nothing about molecular biology, or any other branch of science. The material I added was about science history, and was based on a single book, Paul Davies' "The Origin of Life". I'm pretty good at filleting a 250 page book and turning it into three paragraphs. But I have no expertise of my own to offer. If you want to write something, I'd be happy to have a look at it for style, but that's about as far as I can go. PiCo 05:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

mars not just panspermia variation
in Primitive" extraterrestrial life (at the end of the article) the mars theorie is shone like if it was just a variation of panspermia (so that the problem is moved but not solved).It was intended to EXPLANE why life apired so fast on earth,imediatly after she cooled down,pop thers life.thats strage ...the mars explanation is that since it s a smaller planet she cooled down very fast,permiting prelife evolution to take place at her pace at the time that earth was stil boiling (it s more than a billion years i think,this have to be checked) so earth was seeded imidiatly when she was wredy with alredy very evolved bacteria ,so ... no focil of any simplest form than a certen degree is possible to be fond on earth(thats very anoying for scientist) my english is terible so i don't wan't to put that cind of writing on the article(this or nothing) if some one could add the comlite theory it whould be very nice,it s seems to me a very "hum" cinde of theorie

Important new discovery Methanosarcina acetivorans
In a new article published recently in Astrobiliogy Magazine:

http://www.astrobio.net/newsn/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1961&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

James G. Ferry and Christopher House discovered that the microbe (archeum) Methanosarcina acetivorans uses a previously unknown metabolic pathway to metabolize carbon monoxide into methane and acetate (vinegar). This pathway is surprisingly simple, and has been proposed by Ferry and House as perhaps the first metabolic pathway used by primordial microbes. They further hypothosize that in the presence of minerals containing iron sulfides, as might have been found in sediments in a primordial enviornment, acetate would be catalytically converted into acetate thioester, a sulfur-containing derivative. Primitive microbes could obtain biochemical energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) by converting acetate thioester back into acetate using PTS and ACK, which would then be converted back into acetate thioester to complete the process. In such an environment, a primitve "protocell" could easily produce energy through this metabolic pathway, excreting acetate as waste. Furthermore, ACK catalyzes the synthesis of ATP directly. Other pathways generate energy from ATP only through complex multi-enzyme reactions invloving protein pumps and osmotic imbalances across a membrane.

I think this is an important new discovery in the origin of life and I'd like to add it to this page. Considering the new metabolic pathway is alot simpler than other known pathways it could explain the seemingly "miraculous" autogenesis of life. Other metabolic pathways are much more complex and require a bigger stretch to suppose they arose out of nothing.

Conisdering all the discusion here I thought it wise to propose this here first.

Oops, forgot this Rich.lewis 16:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Some cleanup
On the short intro to the RNA world theory, I've performed some cleanup and added some information to support the RNA world hypothesis. Firstly, because *all* claims in this arena are somewhat speculative and tentative, and that problems occur with all of them, it seems unnecessary to overemphasize the problems without additionally giving the reasons why the RNA world hypothesis was considered in the first place. I've hence added a list of compelling reasons to believe that RNA held an important role in the origin of life, such as its universal ubiquity in the expression of the genetic information - while keeping the valid criticisms. --163.1.176.68 19:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Under the Wächtershäuser's hypothesis section I have added an internal link to the article on redox reactions. Hope this is alright.BFKate (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

==

What of the chrystal theory?
what of the theory that early life evolved from crystals? i have no knowlege of it what so ever but i was wondering if someone else does ... XD

I'm with you on this one. It's the first I've heard of it :)

References for the idea: http://originoflife.net/cairns_smith/

NPOV/"Atheistic views"
This page only presents atheistic geological/evolutionist views on the origins of life, ignoring completely the intelligent design/creation theroys. Whil;e these are a minority view and are in all likelihood false, they still msut be presented for a neutral point of view.


 * This page intentionally deals with scientific opinions (nothing atheistic, evolutionist or "geological" about it...) and research. It says so right on top: This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For alternate uses, see origin of life (disambiguation). It also says where to find other views. --Stephan Schulz 09:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * While true that the article certainly leans clearly in one direction, I don't see how its necessarily atheistic, see Theistic Evolution. But it seems that its been decided (See last archive) that this article should specifically reflect just reaserch by scientists and the like. Homestarmy 17:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is not even a mention givent o any other theroies. That si why it violates the NPOV policy. I'm nto saying it has to bend over backward, but it should At least emtnion the other possibilities. This is even mroe important as it is the only page that comes up when origin of lfie is typed into the search box.


 * Name a noteworthy theory that is not listed on the page. Name a single one. -Silence 03:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I added one, autocatalysis :) Joegoodbud 10:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ther is no mention to the Indian sound theory, which states that sound waves were responisble for the ordering of life, or to any degree of an intelligent design theroy. And before you say it, you cannot discredit those beliefs without making an opinion, that they are not valid. They must be stated for a non opionated article.


 * The first one is a) not notable and b) not a theory. The second is also not a theory, and is handled via the first sentence and Origin of life (disambiguation). --Stephan Schulz 06:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of "notable", is the "Bubble Theory" really all that notable? I see only one book is referenced. PiCo 07:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The onyl reaqson you say they are not theroies are because you do not believe in them. I dare you to point out why evolution is a theory and intelligent design is not. And try to be intellignet abotu it, and not a typical bible-bashign jag-off.


 * Intelligent design fails criteria for a scientific theory on a number of counts:
 * It is not falsifiable (as "the ways of the designer are mysterious")
 * It makes no testable predictions
 * It fails the principle of parsimony (who designed the designer?)
 * In as far as its proponents try to misappropriate math and information theory, they fail in a way that makes the whole even inconsistent
 * Any one of those points would be enough to disqualify ID as a scientific theory.--Stephan Schulz 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please use the talk page to discuss changes before making them. And, please see theory, which states that "in science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."
 * As ID makes no predictions (and arguably suggests that no accurate predictions are possible, as the designer is unknown or even unknowable), ID is not a theory. -- Ec5618 07:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And jsut how exa clty do you "experiment" the random theroy of evolution. That is nto possible. You know why? Because any experiment you set up has a variable not present during alleged evolution: the scientist. Any experiment done to "test" evolution would be worthless, as the mere fact that a scientist orchestarted it means that there was an intelligent force at work. As a side effect of this paradox, intelligent design can indirectly be suggested to be valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.140.25 (talk)


 * Since the theory of evolution describes the fundamental "change over time" process, it is possible to establish a given state (pre-test) and examine after time for those changes that define the process. For a specific example, a recent study showed that by observing a certain species of butterfly mating, the resulting progeny began to exhibit traits characteristic of a different species.  Beyond that, these progeny would selectively procreate with only those other progeny that exhibit the same trait.  This observation is the fundamental idea behind speciation as part of the theory of evolution.  It does not involve any influence by the scientist to observe this phenomenon and therefore there is no "intelligence" exerting any "force" on the system.  Hope that helps clear up your question.  ju66l3r 08:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. That proves an entirely different principle, adapation. Yes, this is a part fo evolution, but form the context of an origin of life, it doesnt have a thing to do with it.


 * You asked about the "random theroy of evolution" (sic). If you want to keep moving the "finish line" then we won't get anywhere.  Also, I spoke (and linked to) speciation, not adaptation.  These are two different concepts and one does not require the needs of the other to occur.  Finally, I discussed an experiment which does not fit your premise that testing evolution is "worthless".  As per my example, scientists can be simple observers without any influence on a system as well as examining the evidence left behind by evolution events of the past without having been there to influence the events.  You wouldn't claim that a forensic investigator is partly responsible for a murder simply because they were examining the evidence of said murder in order to define a theory on the modus operandi of the attacker, right?  Therefore, since your premise is flawed, there is no definite paradox and no supposition of validity for "intelligent design" as a result.  Beyond that, the disproval of one of two theories does not strengthen the alternative theory.  It must stand on its own and meet the criteria for a scientific theory, which intelligent design does not. ju66l3r 08:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It would help greatly if you would read evolution, as evolution is anything but random. It is selective. Adaptation is a major part of evolution, as you would be aware had you read the article.
 * I have little to add to ju66l3r's post, except to ask you to please check your posts for typos before submitting. Thank you. -- Ec5618 08:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The scientific community as a whle, not to mention the US judiciary, also seem to have doubts about ID's claim to be regarded as science: "The debate over whether intelligent design produces new research, as any scientific field must, and has legitimately attempted to publish this research, is extremely heated. Both critics and advocates point to numerous examples to make their case. For instance, the Templeton Foundation, a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that they asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted. Charles L. Harper Jr., foundation vice president, said that "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review."[71] At the Kitzmiller trial the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing." (Found this on the talk page of the Intelligent Design article). PiCo 10:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering how much heated debate surrounds the topic of Intelligent Design being taught alongside Evolution there was not so long ago and that hundreds of scientists do believe it is a valid theory to consider, I think ID is worthy of being mentioned, briefly, in the article. To disregard the opinions of scientists because they are in the minority is just as bad as what was done to Galileo when his opinion was in the minority. (Concerning the 400 scientists who showed up to defend ID check ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petercksun (talk • contribs).


 * First of all, that Discovery Institute statement that you referenced was not a statement in support of Intelligent Design Creationism. Here is what the statement says: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." As has been pointed out, that is a very weak statement in favor of philosophical skepticism, the very basis of the scientific method, which any scientist would affirm if the signatures weren't being used as a propaganda device. Second, only about one quarter of the signers are biologists. Third, many signers admitted that they did not sign based on scientific grounds, but purely on religious (supernatural) grounds.
 * Because this article is a scientific article (see the first line of the article, "This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For alternate uses..."), it does not deal with supernatural claims.
 * By the way, Peter, I recommend you read Finding Darwin's God by the Christian biologist Kenneth Miller. (Available here.)
 * Finally, Galileo's situation is not comparable. Galileo was placed under imprisonment and then house arrest for the entire remainder of his life, his book was banned, and the Inquisition forced him to recant his heliocentrism. Nothing of the sort is being done to Creationists. They are allowed to believe as they please and roam free amongst civilization. To claim moral equivalence with Galileo amounts to a rather disgusting exaggeration, and is an insult to the memory of a man who was truly wronged. Please keep your hyperbole in check. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 03:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

To insert my two cent into this debate, my beliefs in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are not represented either. It should be mentioned in this article as much as ID, evolution, and any other theory.Hihellowhatsup 22:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that a comprehensive, encyclopedic article on the origin of life should mention the political controversy over ID. This article reports the science very effectively, but it doesn't approach completeness where our cultural and political climates are concerned.  I have no desire to engage in a debate about the merits of any of the theories discussed here or, for that matter, the flaws of ID (as science, as politics, as common sense), but there is something to be said for addressing the politically and culturally polarizing realities of this subject.  A huge majority in the english speaking world (particularly in America) believes that there's a God who directly created life on earth and to address this subject purely as science is blindness to the facts of opinion.  You could add a section that mentions the fact that there is political controversy, or alternately provide a disambiguation link dealing with the controversy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.124.38.29  (talk • contribs).


 * I rather doubt your "huge majority" for direct divine intervention by a god, even in the US. However, there already is a disambiguation link, at the very top of the page: This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life, including the heterotroph hypothesis. For alternate uses, including intelligent design, see origin of life (disambiguation).. --Stephan Schulz 09:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Schulz--Religion is given a link before the article even begins. To those that would disagree, notice that this article is very developed and very long. Remember that scientists decided that Pluto is not a planet in our solar system, because if it were included the guidelines of size and distance from the sun would make thousands of other planetoids also considered planets in our solar system. In the same way, the size and distance of Intelligent Design from an article on the scientific origin of life would entail that, in fairness, the article would include thousands of slightly bigger, slightly closer notions that are still very small and not very relevant. Wikipedia has a suggested page size, and that kind of inclusion on this page would be a blatant disregard of that.160.94.28.165 16:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ultraviolet Light Paper Worth Consideration
Please see "Ultraviolet Light And Its Role In the Origin Of Life" http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/U/UV_origin_of_life.html --Musea 02:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Invisible friends
I think a specific paragraph in the article pointing out that ID is rubbish would be useful. It'd stop the deluded clowns from trying to repeatedly insert lies while claiming to address the point. 83.70.29.62 15:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The goal is to describe ID fairly. If ID truly is rubbish, it should already be obvious to readers, so there's no reason to do as you suggest. -- Ec5618 15:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Revised Dating of the Origin of Life
4 billion years ago the Archaea branch of life began with cyanobacteria as is evident in the banded iron formations. Also, coacervates formed from lipid aggregations and hydrophobic interactions and were probably the first step toward cellular organization that prokaryotes formed from. Shouldn't this be ample evidence to push the date of the origin of life back to ~ca. 4.0 Ga? Valich 09:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wiki is a community project: if you have a good source that says life originated then, make an edit and add your reference. PiCo 05:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

what about Haldane's hypothesis?
J. B. S. Haldane's name is not even mentioned, here not in the primeval soup article. Other interesting thing to be mentioned is that the autocatalytic idea comes from as back as 1914, by Leonard Troland. --Extremophile 23:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

bringing up the existance of the article abiogenesis again
It looks like discussion at Talk:Abiogenesis has died out regarding that article's reason for existing, but I am trying to bring it up again. Please see that article's talk page if you're interested. --Allen 02:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

History section
Shouldn't the History section come before the contemporary theories section rather than after? PiCo 04:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

RNA world paragraph and the cell membrane
The paragraph on the RNA world mentions a theory where "early cell membranes could have formed spontaneously from proteinoids" - but if so, and if that is a prerequisite for this model to work, wouldn't that actually mean that the cell membrane actually came first, even if it was not a cell membrane of today's construction? This version is not mentioned in RNA world hypothesis either. // habj 13:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Lipid World
The section headed LipiD World is a bit embarrassing - it consists of just this sentence: "A theory that ascribes the first self-replicating object to be lipid-like. See [3] for more." It really should be either expanded or deleted. Anyone want to take a decision?PiCo 05:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's better to have a stub than nothing. I'll add the section stub tag so it's clear that this isn't "finished work." — coe l acan t a lk  — 06:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

redirect?
Wouldn't it make more sense to have the page default to the disambiguation than to the science page? It might come off as a little pov, but maybe that's just me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheSonofSerenity (talk • contribs).
 * The disambiguation page does not resolve a naming conflict in this case, but points to alternative. I think the vast majority of users looking for "Origin of life" are looking for a scientific page, so I think the current setup serves its intended purpose well.--Stephan Schulz 08:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't new life being created by nature now?
Given that the Earth now has very favourable conditions for sustaining life - does that mean that life is being created afresh somewhere on a regular basis (e.g. deep in the earth, at an ocean vent, in a damp puddle)? If not, why not? The chemical composition of the Earth in many places (deep underground) has not changed that much, so why can't new life emerge now?
 * Please direct such questions to the Reference desk. The simple answer is that we do not know. Perhaps the curent living organisms have changed the world so greatly that the formation of life is almost impossible. And perhaps life continually forms. What we do know is that all currently known life uses DNA (or RNA if you consider viruses to be alive), and genetic testing stongly suggests that all known life has a single ancestor. -- Ec5618 12:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's not true to say that the Earth has 'very favourable conditions for sustaining life': not only is there massive competition for niches, but every currently existing form of life on Earth has evolved to defend itself against the countless other forms of life that want to break down its organisation and steal its molecules for their own use. A newly emerging replicator would quickly become food for something more complex, without ever reaching an evolutionary stage where it looked like 'new life'. HTH. M.D.

some signs of new life appearing are evident, the organism responsible for BSE for instance.
 * Is there any evidence to suggest that BSE is a new life form having been created from matter, as opposed to from some previous, unknown, possibly even more primitive ancestor?
 * In light of the Extra Terrestrial origin of life

theory yet to be disproved, why not BSE be yet another decendant of said unknown primitive visitor from outer space, having been inactive or even un-noticably evolving, to arrive to be BSE today? --Ohadaloni 23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Owing to the above question, i thing that life is being created everyday. the Galapagos offer a very vivid clue. it is just that the globe is big and man cannot cover its entirety. many of the new life created are mostly under water. marine research is not as prominent as the terrestrial research. even in some extreme places where man cannot go; problably owing to depth, or the presence of deadly gases, life stil trive.We should not over look the adaptability power of life to exist in any condition. Every thing created and that will evolve is built to survive in any environment it finds itself.life is the only thing that can take to the form of its environment. (ife. 4/12.07)


 * Oparin and Bernal dealt with this in their books on the Origin of Life. It would appear that life could only have evolved in an Anoxic environment, and as most environments have been thoroughly penetrated by oxygen, onoxic environments are very limited.  Secondly, life evolved from the accumulation of large numbers of complex molecules.  Any accumulation of such complex molecules today would be a freely available food source for life which currently exists and would thus be consumed.  As a result, the Earth has now become an unfavourable environment for the continued repeated origin of life. John D. Croft 06:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you sure ? As i'm wondering new viruses do evolve and arise in the soup of our carbon life molecules. On the boundery of dead chemical those molecules replicate and some of them even replicate within the DNA of a host or evolved from them. To me this looks much the same as the early advanced type life. where molecules fed upon other molecules user:Peter-Art 23 oct 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 22:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Primitive" extraterrestrial life
I'm confused about this sentence: "Additional support comes from a recent discovery of a bacterial ecosytem whose energy source is radioactivity.[3]" Why is this support for exogenesis? Whatever the answer to my question, it needs to go into the article IMO as this is not clear now. — coe l acan t a lk  — 06:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Primitive" extraterrestrial life
Charles Darwin goes to great length explaining how a north pole plant can migrate south by means of ice ages, and claims if that were not the case, then the theory of evolution is false. From Evolution theory it is demanded that no two species can ever be formed separately on the planet. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter11.html) I see no reason this should not hold true with respect to the entire universe, as well as for life itself. Life, in my opinion, as I believe is derived logically from evolution theory, without any further research, was created once exactly in the universe. As the earth is only about the third the age of the universe, and much less in relative size, I see no reason to think it started on earth, unless research shows travel of primitive extraterrestrials is impossible. Otherwise, it is near fact for statistical reasons. This theory is not in contradiction with most theories regarding the origins of life, which have yet to compete for dominance, and hardly ever answer the question: why on earth? For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

ohad aloni talk Ohadaloni 18:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)ohadaloni


 * hmm the problem with panspermia ideas is that they dont focus on the start of life, they only say it started somewhere else; so it replacing to problem to a different corner but still there is this problem of how did it start.. user:peter-Art 23 oct 2007

RNA chirality
perhaps there should also be a mention of the chirality of the nucleotide in under the RNA world. A polymer needs to be of the same chirality, or else the information in the molecule will be lost.


 * The chirality issue is commonly brought up by opponents of Naturalist origins (particularly the big dogs: AiG, ICR, etc.). The thing they never mention is these two issues:
 * Levotorotary ("L" or "left-handed") and Dextrorotary ("D" or "right-handed") conformations are equally viable -- terrestrial organisms happen to all use the "L"-oriented variety. (If anything, this is further support for common descent!) But when organic enatiomers first began forming, the ones that ultimately survived just happened to be L-oriented; If everything on earth was "D"-oriented instead, things wouldn't be any different aside from that. (e.g. there is no inherent benefit to being oriented one way or the other anymore than there is an inherent benefit to being physically left-handed or right-handed. Our society just happens to be predominantly right-hand oriented, but for no specific reason).
 * The "L" orientation persists due to enzymatic synthesis of organic enatiomers. When enzymes act upon their substrates, the "L" conformation will be enforced because that's what they do.


 * The issue of physical chirality (i.e. whether you write with your left or right hand) is a great analogy for debunking the Chirality argument. (see reasons above). Elecmahm (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Chemical precursors
Carbon monoxide, more reactive than carbon monoxide and thus more easily combined with other chemical precursors of life, might have been even more suitable a precusor of pre-biotic chemicals than carbon dioxide.

Molecular oxygen and especially ozone that mist have been extremely rare under the conditions in which precursor chemicals formed would have been, and remained rare until photosynthesis began. --Paul from Michigan 09:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
2007-02-10 This page has been vandalized. If you view the article while not being logged in the article ends with "I hate you" and the headings are wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joe hill (talk • contribs) 13:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Almost definitely not. However, I suspect that the monobook.css of your IP address has been vandalized. Check Special:Mypage/monobook.css under your usual IP adress (if you have a static or semi-static one). This allows per-account customization.--Stephan Schulz 13:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The user that edited to the Creationism belief in the origin of life was 09grahas. The user sadly appologies on the vandilism and says that he would not do it again. He means no harm. peaceUser:Creation Christian.

you people obviously have not been reading Genesis
God created the earth 6000 years ago. This is what the article should say.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whyte88 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 February 2007

and you, my friend whyte88, obviously have not read your history textbook. How many times in the history of our religions on this earth have the many books of gods and godesses been modified and, for lack of a better word, evolved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elgatoloco (talk • contribs) 04:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I do think that this article should state the Creationism theory, I do not beleive that the article should state "The earth was made by god 6000 years ago". I think it should call both the big bang and creationism a theory. We cannot prove that creationist theory is true because we have no evidence. However, we can prove that the evolution theory is true. Yet both are still theories and so I think in respect to both ideologies, we should call them Theories.

From Theory, First off, ID and Evolution are not the same kind of Theories. ID is not scientific. "In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation." Secondly, we can prove things but that doesn't make them true (or it does depending on which version of the word "truth" you subscribe to). It seems with the mountains of evidence that Evolution is going in the right direction of what happened, but can we really say for 100% certain that is the way it happened. I am not trying to take anything away from Evolution, but who knows... Maybe those "crazy" Last Thursdayists are right. --Anphanax 00:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design
Why isn't this mentioned at all here?

--HideandLeek 08:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See the discussion above. "This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life." ID is not science. --Stephan Schulz 09:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. For that, start in fairy tales. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Svetovid (talk • contribs) 10:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Hypothesis for protocell formation
This isn't ready to be put on the main page (it appears to be original research), so I am posting it here as a heads-up. According to this page, protocells can be formed reliably by mixing thermal protein and a warm sodium chloride solution (see figure 2 on the page). This is impressive, but it has not, as far as I know, been duplicated by other scientists. As such, I am putting this here so that more people will know about it and so that, if and when this evidence is confirmed, the main page can be changed accordingly.
 * Player 03 01:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. These are not cells as they are not living. 2. Large proteins are extremely complex molecules which have no chance of forming by chance, so they can't be the starting point of life. Dan Gluck 19:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Inline citations?
There are very few inline citations in this article, and inline citations are mandatory for GA, A-class, and FA articles. For such a fundamental topic, this article should add more inline citations so that it lives up to (at least) GA standards. Jolb 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

the theory of creationism
Your article states that the galaxy created by the big bang. With respect to the writer of this article, Although I do not beleive in God, I do think that the creationism theory should be added and that the big bang statement should be called a "theory" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.177.11.143 (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC).


 * The statement at the beginning of the article states that it focuses on scientific perspectives. Creationism does not fit the criteria for a scientific theory and to use that noun would be misleading. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Creationism theory does not pass Occam's Razor and should not be added, as it cannot be proved by science.Meson man 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither belief can be proven empirically and Occam's Razor is irrelevant. --RucasHost 09:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The big bang theory has in fact been proven empirically, in the following sense: many unexpected implications of it were first predicted and later measured accurately. Among these are the growth of distance between galaxies, remnant radiation and abundance of light elements in the universe. See Big Bang for details. Dan Gluck 20:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ref
Just dropping this here for future use. Looks like a promising source of references.

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/21438

SheffieldSteel 01:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution
Reading this talk page, I see that a lot of people have shown up demanding that ID be mentioned in this article as a theory. It seems to me that the easiest way to solve this problem is to make it much more obvious that this article focuses on scientific theories and not others; perhaps a mention in the introduction instead of an italicized note would be in order. The Last Melon 16:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've clarified the italicised text, but to be honest it's made very clear. The first sentence, "In the physical sciences, abiogenesis, the question of the origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth might have evolved from non-life sometime between 3.9 and 4.1 billion years ago.", seems to make it clear that only science is considered... Verisimilus  T  16:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but it seems to me that a lot of people have simply skipped over this bit, passing it off as just another disambiguation notice. I'll confess that I almost did as much. The Last Melon 23:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Phospholipids?
I am positive that phospholipids are not suggested to be a prebiotic molecule by any means. also the fact that they form membranes is nice, but i think mentioning that they form vesicles or liposomes (cell like compartments) would be more exciting. currently amphiphilic molecules are the membrane-forming precursor to phospholipids. Fatty acids, long chain alcohols, acyl sulfates, acyl phosphates, and acyl amines are considered prebiotic and spontaneously form vesicles (10 carbons or more). If anyone agrees, i will work on changing it. Semaurer 18:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds interesting. Do you have a link to a good source? SheffieldSteel 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

this is a free article that talks of how fatty acids are simpler molecules: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/21/7965 it also lists prebiotic synthesis and that they have been found in meteors.Semaurer 03:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, amphiphilic molecules are found in carbonaceous chondrites, David Deamer did work on it. They may have preceded phospholipids in the first cells. Also, it is interesting to note that Monnard et al. (2002) found that salt water inhibits lipid bilayer formation, indicating that life started in fresh water e.g. ice vesicles.


 * As for the initiation of natural selection in lipid vesicles; Chen et al. (2004) found that the simple presence of polymerizing RNA in lipid vesicles causes increased osmotic stress and growth, and the lipid vesicles with the most efficiently polymerizing RNA grow the fastest, potentially the first rung on the ladder of evolution.


 * Lastly, it is also important to mention lipid chain length and membrane permeability. Modern phospholipds vesicles are completely impenetrable, that why todays cells have ion channels. But if you shorten the length of the carbon chain to the average length seen in carbonaceous chondrites, vesicles are vastly more porous; long chain molecules are bad for cell metabolism.


 * Monnard P.A., Apel C.L., Kanavarioti A., Deamer D.W., 2002. Influence of ionic inorganic solutes on self-assembly and polymerization processes related to early forms of life: implications for a prebiotic aqueous medium. Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2, 139-52.


 * Chen, I.A., Roberts, R.W. & Szostak, J.W. 2004. The Emergence of Competition Between Model Protocells. Science, 305, 1474-1476.


 * --Diamonddavej 05:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Late Heavy Bombardment
The opening statement, that the origin of life is limited to a 4.1 - 3.8 Ga window sounds odd. The Late Heavy Bombardment (4.1 - 3.8 Ga; caused by a change in planetary orbits messing up the Asteroid Belt ) may have completely sterilized the Earth, large impacts could have boiled the oceans or even melted most/all of the crust. Thus, it is incorrect to state that the origin of life is limited to the LHB, life may have emerged shortly after the LHB when conditions allowed. Life could have begun several times, and before the LHB, only to be repetitiously snuffed out by the impact of ~300 Km wide asteroids during the LHB. Hyper-thermophiles my have survived the hell of the LHB (from which all life descended).

So the period of emergence is between the first liquid oceans c. 4.4 Ga and shortly after the end of the LHB c. 3.8 Ga. --Diamonddavej 06:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replaced 3.5 Ga with 2.7 Ga for the emergence of life. Chemical biommarkers and isotopic fractionation of organic carbon at 2.7 Ga is accepted by consensus as the earliest evidence for life (and photosynthesis). Earlier dates ~3.5 Ga are based on doubtful fossils, conical stromatolites (that have not been explained by an abiogenic mechanism(?)) and isotopic fractionation, which could be caused by inorganic Fischer-Tropsch Type (FTT) synthesis. -Diamonddavej 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think an explicit discussion of the time window is needed somewhere in the article. The 3.5 Ga evidence, while not conclusive, needs to be mentioned and explained, as does the implications of the late heavy bombardment. There is a big difference between a 2 Ga time window and a 300 Ma window.--agr 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll add a section titled something like "When and where did life begin" near the start of the article. Its an important question, avenues of research are chosen based on the deduced conditions and location of life's birth. Best guess at the moment, hypertherophiles emerged in a deep-sea hydrothermal spring (oasis) and the tough little heat resistant bugs survived the LHB. -Diamonddavej 14:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds sensible but perhaps make the point that modern hydrothermophiles do not fit in near the "base" of the tree of life but are in fact very derived. Verisimilus  T  16:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've haven't been able to contribute as I'm busy with thesis corrections, I'll be free at the end of July. As for highly derived hyperthermophiles (Archaea), that is a minority view advocated in particular by Tomas Cavalier-Smith who places Archaea at the top of the of The Tree of Life in a group with Eukaryota that he has named Neomura, rather then at the bottom. One of his latest papers - Rooting the tree of life by transition analyses - includes 25 pages of critical discussion with journal reviewers; never seen that before. Diamonddavej 02:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Where'd that Darwin quote come from?
Do we have a source for the Darwin quote under "History of the concept in science"? The Last Melon 03:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I found the quote in Paul Davies' "The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin of Life". PiCo 08:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Update request
This article ought to be updated to include Banerjee et al.'s findings reported in Geology 35 (6): 487.

I am not yet thoroughly convinced by them but they merit a mention at least.

Thanks, Verisimilus  T  15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Here is a link to the abstract http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/6/487 --agr 02:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

excellent book to add to refs?
It focusses on thermodynamics and the properties of chemistry involved.

Morowitz, Harold J. (1992) "Beginnings of Cellular Life: Metabolism Recapitulates Biogenesis". Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-05483-1

Wikiskimmer 14:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oparin
until 1924 when Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin demonstrated that it was the presence of atmospheric oxygen and other more sophisticated life-forms that prevented the chain of events that would lead to the evolution of life.

What exactly did Oparin demonstrate? If the latter, did he do an experiment that showed that life emerged without oxygen? He did not, I think.
 * That oxygen prevents the creation of organic molecules that are needed to start the 'chain of events'?
 * That oxygen prevented the evolution of life?

Furthermore,
 * Could he show that the presence of life prevented the formation of organic molecules needed to start 'the chain of events'?
 * Could he show that the absence of 'more sophisticated life-forms' lead to the evolution of life? He did not.

This sentence in the article needs a source that shows what he exactly did (what kind of experiment), and what his conclusions were. Northfox 03:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The first part of the sentence is also a bit ambiguous: 'An experimental approach to the question was beyond the scope of laboratory science in Darwin's day'. There are several reasons why no research has been done in the field. Insufficient lab equipment could have been one, but lack of interest could have played a role, too. This part of the sentence needs a source. In case there are no reliable sources for the statements, I suggest shortening the sentence to

No real progress was made until 1924 when Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin experimentally showed that atmospheric oxygen prevented the synthesis of the organic molecules that are the necessary building blocks for the evolution of life. Northfox 06:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

other ambguities
It was once thought that appreciable amounts of molecular oxygen were present in the prebiotic atmosphere, which would have essentially prevented the formation of organic molecules; however, the current scientific consensus is that such was not the case.

What is not the case? Northfox 06:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That appreciable amounts of oxygen was present?
 * That the oxygen would have prevented formation of molecules?

From protocells to living cells
I cut the following section as problematic and unsourced:
 * Another issue linked with abiogenesis is to determine the minimum number of parts that allows something to live. Biologists define life as the ability to metabolize and assimilate food, to respirate, to grow, to reproduce and to respond to stimuli. These criteria were developed by biologists to understand the process called life. Viruses, for example, are generally not considered 'living' since they need a host organism to reproduce.
 * The organism with the smallest known genome of any free living organism is Mycoplasma genitalium . It is 200 nanometers long and its DNA has 500,000 base pairs that contain 482 genes. In comparison, E. coli has 4,720,000 base pairs containing 4,253 genes. The first living organism is therefore believed to have been at least as complex as M. genitalium.

I know of no biologist who thinks that "the first living organism is therefore believed to have been at least as complex as M. genitalium" - in fact, I would consider that to be rather unlikely. To include this would need a reliable source. Without this part, however, the section becomes rather pointless. A definition of life might be useful, however, for that we should possibly just link to Life. --Stephan Schulz 13:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * agreed that we would need a source for the "the first living organism is therefore believed to have been at least as complex as M. genitalium".
 * But I think that the 'origin of life' article would stop short before it's goal by ending at 'protocells'. Why not take the next step and include models of cellular evolution? The article's title is 'Origin of Life ' after all. Mentioning the most simple life form we know would be beneficial for the article. Northfox 13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge
see below

there is also an abiogenesis wiki
this origin of life wiki looks nice. the abiogenesis wiki seems to be mostly historical but does not make itself clear about that. should it be rewritten to direct readers to this wiki for current theories and the abiogenesis wiki made to be clear that it is only about historical concepts? i.e. spontaneous generation? I'll leave a note there too.Wikiskimmer 23:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * oops, i totally missed the bit in italics at the top. The intro was not at all clear.  and the article still discusses more than it should.  should it be renamed.. i don't know, it's got a few odds and ends in it.  but i think the term abiogenesis is still used for the modern thought on the topic.
 * something should be tightened up.Wikiskimmer 23:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Abiogenesis should be merged into this article. This article is clearly about abiogenesis, so there is no need to have both. ⟳ ausa کui × 03:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Origin of life is more general than abiogenesis. Though this article seems to focus only on abiogenesis. If there is a merge, the Origin of life article should be merged into abiogenesis. GromXXVII 17:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. The article titles are synonyms. Verisimilus  T  19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge, but keep the paragraph of the historical notion of spontaneous generation in a separate article abiogenesis. Northfox 13:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we can just copy the 'criticism' section from abiogenesis and add it after the 'other models' section of origin of life. Then delete the rest, except the historic spontaneos generation. Northfox 09:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don’t see the desire to merge the two articles. They’re similar topics, but not at all the same thing. In particular someone trying to find information on abiogenesis may not be as inclined to consider reading an “origin of life” entry so much as an “abiogenesis” entry. The two articles shouldn’t try to fill the same niche, but the abiogenesis article should certainly exist. Perhaps as an introduction to the theory and history with links to the main articles. GromXXVII 12:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge, if this discussion is still live, but I think that the article should be at Abiogenesis rather than Origin of life. Tevildo (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion I think you guys should paste the content of this article to abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the appropriate term which would be much better for wikipedia's technicality. the page Origin of life can be redirected to abiogenesis. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I think this was the best implementation of everyone's suggestions, so I went ahead and did it that way. ⟳ ausa کui × 17:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

why
why did you redirect my page to this page that was the first one i made and i researched out OF A UNIVERSITY BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Breaking news: inorganic dust with lifelike qualities
I think that this should be added to the article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070814150630.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.27.168 (talk)


 * Excellent find! It's good to have a secondary source to interpret the research. Here is the primary source - the Institute of Physics. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 13:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fox's experiments "Need for cite"
Richard E. Dickerson, "Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life"

"Under the proper conditions the microspheres will grow at the expense of the dissolved proteinoids and will bud and fission in a most bacteriumlike manner" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.244.161 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A helicopter view of the creation of life
The problem with life is that dead chemicals don't change easily to a cell. Yet a cell is a hardware design we consider to be a life.

There must have been something before, I’m not thinking entirely in chemicals. But I’m rather thinking in math models. Not sure if people know the game of "GO" or "Reversi" (wiki:Game_of_go)/(wiki:Reversi) where two conflicting parties try to flip over coins of two different colors on a board under some rules. The game itself doesn’t show life but is a bit like a background for the story below.

Chemistry, especially corrosion type of chemistry tends to break down materials. To form lower energy states, of the involved materials. It might have have been that in such an erosion type or chemical "wounds" a dead chemistry contest evolved in which 'dead' molecules performed in a run of the fittest molecules to erode. In this contest some molecules where better in eroding then others. In modern chemistry we would call them good chemic catalysators.

Now considering earth’s early environment there must have been lots of those chemical wounds. So this world came overloaded with them some where better then others. And some would prove to be even better when working together. This corrosion process would act much like these games earlier described. Think of the playing board as their meal. Each coin as catalysators (but those are in different favors black or white) and by working together they might have got advantages to win the board.

So the game scenarios started. Still it’s dead chemicals but the playing-board is large; and there are in chemistry more combinations then the simple black and white stones of the games. Eventually the successful combination of coins benefit from working together. It is still dead chemistry but it follows rules of evolution. And important building blocks do arrive. Not all catalysators do self reproduce; however given time some variations will and they would still be dead chemicals but they can do polymerization under some conditions. While other catalysators, might replicate only their selves without polymerization.

Those basic building blocks still don’t have cellular walls; so they are all in the game together. And in this game some catalysators might even begin to work on other catalysators as their “food” source. An important moment because here a molecular language might arrive, as it is still a contest of the fittest. Even those catalysators would evolve "eating" others.

Some of them might harness external energy like sunlight and become self sufficient for replication with only a protected environment for their food. Some kind of boundaries would protect them against the earlier catalysators who eat others. Perhaps they used foam / soapbubles in the sea so they evolve and created a polymer film around them.

This goes on this process, and at some point their molecular language starts using RNA as a bleu print for catalysators building. There might have been other types but those were less sucesfully RNA types became ahead of other types and simply multiply like crazy, so a world arises of single cell organisms.

Some of those catalysators never invented cellular walls those we might call today virusses they often still use only RNA and no DNA to replicate. They work into our chemical language pool we call life, but they never evolved fully on their own to become independent of others. As basicly a a virus atacts add the biochemic language level. (a language of shape form and reactive chemics)

This text was created by Peter-Art a wiki user with some toughts about life, my own idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter-art (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This sounds a lot like the idea behind RNA world hypothesis to me: in that both work with similar evolutionistic principals to nonliving matter. I’m not too familiar with the RNA world hypothesis as to whether one of it’s premises is the existence of RNA, or if it also attempts to explain how it could originate.
 * Of course wikipedia articles are not for original research, but if you look in the right place I bet you can find something similar to what you’re saying that cleans up the details a bit. GromXXVII 21:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * well it was a thought expiriment; i've read those pages but i still miss the early stages; once RNA can replicate itself; as a self replicating virus. That's where the path of life became more easy say stable. RNA/DNA was a winning team in this chemical race. This page might go about ideas i tought of before those advanced molecules, i described a race.
 * Is it realy wrong to write something of your own? can one only be quoted at wiki,i'm new to wiki as a writer and i gues will likely never be quoted. user:peter-Art 23 oct 2007 0:27 gmt+1


 * I think I see what you mean: describing how RNA might have come to be having possibly competed with other chemicals/molecules to become dominant.
 * On another note, you state the seeming assumption ”there must have been lots of those chemical wounds” which surely would need explanation.
 * It’s not wrong to write something of your own. But as for what goes in the articles: keep in mind wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That means if you develop a theory or discovery, it’s not wikipedia material until it has been reviewed by peers in the field and probably published.
 * Most of the text of wikipedia is/are not quotations: but more of a synthesized understanding of knowledge, discoveries, inventions, theories, events, whatever the article is on.
 * Also, if you insert four “~”s at the end of your comments it will automatically insert your name/date. GromXXVII 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You understand what i've tried to write down, with "the chemical wounds" i mean a location where two chemicals can react using (a group of) catalysators; i used the term errode for this also. I tried to use easy words for this idea. I go on to describe it till the formation of cells, rather more in a GO game theory then a chemical theory (we ended up with dna rna/ but other solutions for this game might have existed once but well they lost the game. It might also be intresting for life outside earth, as it's not realy teared down to carbon chemics or DNA RNA.
 * Peter-art (is there a shortcode for date/time also?) (24 oct 2007 17:50) —Preceding comment was added at 15:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It IS wrong to write something of your own, please read carefully the following Wikipedia policies: No original research, Neutral point of view, Verifiability. Have a nice day. Dan Gluck 20:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * O yes Indeed i read it, hm altough i wonder as it's hardly research rather logic thinking. I didnt want to publish but rather explain; and thats done at a lot of wiki pages; where people are explaining. Well hmm okay i forwarded it to a friend at Seti so probaply within some time the text can be linked in, and have an external source. hmm probaply thats the difference between a painting artist like me and a scientist i'm allowed to publish paintings but no writings :)) Peter-art 10:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Peter-art, you mention the game of GO, but the example you cite (to explain it) is talking about Reversi / Othello. Go involves the use of black and white stones placed on the verticies (rather than the spaces), and there is no "flipping" -- a stone with no liberties is considered captured. Anyways -- you linked to the article, you should read it.
 * That said -- the remainder of your proposition would be refuted with a healthy dose of a college-level chemistry course. I recommend it, because it sounds an awful lot like you heard about chemistry on a television show or in a magazine, got a very rudimentary knowledge of it, and then imagined this world of "dead" chemicals and evolved chemicals. But it's not right -- it's not even wrong.
 * Lastly, you said Chemistry, especially corrosion type of chemistry tends to break down materials. To form lower energy states, of the involved materials. -- It's important to note that a "lower energy state" does not necessary equate to a less-complex compound. And I'm not quite sure what you mean by "corrosion type of chemistry" -- acids? oxidation? Acids don't necessarily break things down -- it really depends on what is acting as the base in the situation. Oxidation may "break down" organic compounds, but in the process it forms other complex molecules (ketones/aldehydes, carboxylic acids, alcohols, etc.). And anyways -- the whole issue of a reaction is HEAVILY dependent on the Energy of Activation being reached.
 * Anyways -- please read about this stuff first before forming wild-haired hypotheses (tm). A lot of your notions are easily dismissed with some basic knowledge of chem. Elecmahm (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well don’t get me wrong i had several years of chemistry and if you had more then me you should be able to see beyond the boundaries of the idea sketched. I refer to corrosion because that always goes to environments where there is energy which result in often very complex reactions. In such environments a catalysator chemical speeds up reactions. You should know that. Now having a mix of them it begins to look like a rat race, if there are differences between molecules some may perform reactions on neighbor molecules and given time (=many small changes caused by external influences like UV light, radiation, etc) others might even replicate, or replicate others. This is all before cell’s appear, and I even think that cells themselves where just beneficial to such a pool, and thus became part of it when cell-wands once where accidentally created they would be beneficial defenses. Of course most chemist like to hope to find a clean and simple predictive way to create RNA, but the principal described isn’t favoring RNA or DNA, it could end up with something else too. On earth RNA / DNA was merely a kind of winner of this rat race (and so many other proteins we see inside cells today) but if you think that’s normal to end with. Then wonder yourself left handiness and right handiness in chemistry; for sure such nature favorite can only be result from a winning type of biochemistry, that could have been differently also. I prefer an easy explanation also so people understand what i write even without chemistry background, your carboxylics behave differently then ketones of course; but i wasn't refening up to that level; because you also then go beyond a general process what lays behind it; that was what i described. And what i described might also work beyond earth and that might be interesting. Since this idea might widen a little bit the rules which we believe live is based on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.115.116 (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Be bold: find some reliable sources for your ideas, then consider including them in the article. But please remember that Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Smith609  Talk  10:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

the origin of life
This page should deal with the origin of life and not with the origin of cell-based life on Earth or early evolution. So in my opinion much more should be said about what life is and what actually was a first "living organism". For example, if I am curious about the origin of life I would expect an explanation like life being a self-replicating form of matter started when some molecules were spontaneously formed with an ability to replicate using the surrounding matter. The rest is evolution and when discussing the origin of life the formation of the first cell is almost as far from "the origin" as formation of the first homo sapiens.

Tommo, 31.12.2007

Creation myth
Someone care to explain this change? WikidSmaht commented "it is not reasonable to expect that people looking for information about the origin of life are looking for one over the other". Care to explain why that is "not reasonable?" Should every topic dealt with by a creation myth be a dab page? This makes no sense to me. Guettarda (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. "Creation myth" covers many topics, "origin of life" only one amongst them. Should Formation and evolution of the solar system also have a disambig page? A simple Google smell-test demonstrates that "origin of life" -> "abiogenesis", and the page should redirect there. Graft | talk 17:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because “Formation and evolution” by definition is a scientific topic. “Origin of the universe” on the other hand, SHOULD be a disambig, because the title does not have a direct tie to either science or religion. As for Google, just because there is more scientific than religious information posted online, that is no excuse to perpetuate bias. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This sounds like activism on your part. Redirects should reflect usage, not prejudice; there is no debate on usage for "origin of life". Graft | talk 13:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not reasonable to assume that, because it is unreasonable to assume that readers are looking for a scientific versus a religious explanation. I know there is a hatnote, but giving primacy to the scientific explanation is clearly NPOV. I believe in scientific origins of life and the universe, for the record. I just don’t approve of people who believe what I do giving our opinions priority over other beliefs. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case, it IS reasonable to assume that, because no one uses the phrase "the origin of life" to describe creationist perspectives. In fact the only creationist usage of that phrase is to discuss the scientific one, since the term gained vogue BECAUSE scientists provided an account of origins. I find it relatively unlikely that anyone would come to an encyclopedia investigating "the origin of life" to look for anything other than a discussion of abiogenesis.
 * Also, you should probably read Undue weight. There's already a hat on Abiogenesis leading to Creation myth; that's good enough. Graft | talk 13:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Graft - of course it's reasonable. Do you have any evidence that people looking for "origin of life" are looking for creation myths?  A quick scan of the couple hundred pages that link here suggests that few if any of them are links to "creation myth" - even the creationism-related links appear to be speaking about the actual origin of life.  Guettarda (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems entirely reasonable that somebody searching for the origin of life should be redirected to Abiogenesis, since these two terms are synonymous. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)