Template talk:Origin of life

Miller-Urey experiment
Somehow it is not working for this article. I fixed redirect and yet, it doesn't work. Maybe the Miller-Urey article needs to be "refreshed" or updated in order for the template to work... I'll check back here a little later to see what is going on. -- Loukinho (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All good. It works now. -- Loukinho (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hydrothermal vents and the alkaline-spring hypothesis
Needs to be added. Viriditas (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That is mentioned in the Abiogenesis article, which is included in this template. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Spontaneous generation
I noticed the recent addition and deletion; although Spontaneous generation was proven wrong, it was the leading explanation of the origin of life for a very long time. I think it does have a place in this template if only for historical reasons. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * But it wasn't seen as 'the origin of life' at all. It was rather that some forms of life (like sponges) were so low that they continuously emerged from non-living matter, to which they were close. There was no concept of change (let alone the modern kind of evolution): species were static. There was no suggestion in that view of "life .. having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one" and that hence a single "origin" of that one form was even in question. So putting spontaneous generation into the template is a category error, it's just completely askew from being "a hypothesis" for a mechanism—it was explaining something different entirely. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk)
 * I agree. It was more an explanation of [inanimate] reproduction than the origin of all life. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)