Talk:Abiogenesis
 | Abiogenesis has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 7, 2022. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abiogenesis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Abiogenesis received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on February 2009 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Some users have noted that many of these questions should be included in the text of Abiogenesis. The reason for their exclusion is discussed below. The main points of this FAQ (Talk:Abiogenesis#FAQ) can be summarized as:
More detail is given on each of these points, and other common questions and objections, below.
Q1: Why won't you add criticisms or objections to abiogenesis in the Abiogenesis article?
A1: Our policies on Wikipedia, in particular WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, require us to provide coverage to views based on their prominence within reliable sources, and we must reflect the opinion of the scientific community as accurately as possible. While there are scientific objections to hypotheses concerning abiogenesis, general objections to the overall concept of abiogenesis are largely found outside of the scientific community, for example, in religious literature and is not necessary to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate, per WP:NECESSARY. There are articles covering some of those religious views, including Objections to evolution, Creationism and Creation myth, but we cannot provide significant weight to religious opinions within a science article, per our policies.
Q2: Why is abiogenesis described as though it's a fact? Isn't abiogenesis just a theory?
A2: A "theory" in science is different than a "theory" in everyday usage. When scientists call something a theory, they are referring to a scientific theory, which is an explanation for a phenomenon based on a significant amount of data. Abiogenesis is a phenomenon scientists are trying to explain by developing scientific theories. While there isn't one unifying theory of abiogenesis, there are several principles and competing hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred, which are detailed in the article. Wikipedia describes the phenomenon of abiogenesis as a fact because the reliable sources from the peer-reviewed scientific literature describe it as a fact.
Compare it with the theory of gravity, by Isaac Newton. It explains how gravity works, and it was superseded when Albert Einstein provided a more complete explanation. That doesn't mean that the factual existence of gravity was ever held in doubt. Q3: But isn't abiogenesis unproven?
A3: The scientific evidence is consistent with and supports an origin of life out of abiotic conditions. No chemical, biological or physical law has been discovered that would prevent life from emerging.
Clearly, abiogenesis happened, because life exists. The other option is that life is a product of a supernatural process, but no evidence to support this has been published in reliable sources. There is plenty of evidence that nearly all the components of a simple cell can and do form naturally, but it has not yet been shown how molecules eventually formed self-replicating protocells and under what environmental conditions. Q4: Abiogenesis is controversial, so why won't you teach the controversy?
A4: Abiogenesis is not controversial according to the reliable, published sources within the scientific community. Also, see Question 1.
Abiogenesis is, at best, only controversial in social areas like politics and religion. Indeed, numerous respectable scientific societies, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences, have issued statements denouncing creationism and/or ID.[1] In 1987, only about 0.15% of American Earth and life scientists supported creationism.[2] Thus, as a consequence of Wikipedia's policies, it is necessary to treat abiogenesis as mainstream scientific consensus. Besides panspermia, there are no scientifically supported "alternatives" for this view. Q5: Has abiogenesis ever been observed?
A5: No. How this happened is still conjectural, though no longer purely speculative. Q6: How could life arise by chance?
A6: Based on the cited peer-reviewed scientific research, it is thought that once a self-replicating gene emerged as a product of natural chemical processes, life started and gradual evolution of complexity was made possible – in contrast to the sudden appearance of complexity that creationists claim to have been necessary at the beginning of life. Life did not happen just because there were huge intervals of time, but because a planet has a certain range of environments where pre-biotic chemistry took place. The actual nature of the first organisms and the exact pathways to the origin of life may be forever lost to science, but scientific research can at least help us understand what is possible. Past discussions For further information, see the numerous past discussions on these topics in the archives of Talk:Abiogenesis: The article is not neutral. It doesn't mention that abiogenesis is controversial.
The article should mention alternative views prominently, such as in a criticism section. Abiogenesis is just a theory, not a fact. There is scientific evidence against abiogenesis. References
|
| This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
 | Complaints about the lack of young Earth creationism, intelligent design, or similar points of view are inappropriate content for this talk page. For an overview of how Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy applies to creationism or young Earth-related topics, please see the FAQ at Talk:Evolution. |
 | Text and/or other creative content from Origin of life was copied or moved into Abiogenesis. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
 | On 1 July 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Origin of life. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Over-stated lead sentence
editI understand that this page is constantly subject to unscientific vandalism and distortion. However, to refer to "THE natural process by which life ARISES" is an inaccurate summary of scientific knowlege. We do not understand the chemical processes of abiogenesis or whether there can be only one such process, and we have no evidence that it occurred more than once. Perhaps it was inevitable and life exists on many planets, perhaps it was just very good luck and Earth is unique. It overstates our knowledge to say that life naturally arises.
To emphasize the uncertaintly about the chemical processes, I propose:
- Abiogenesis is
thea natural process by which life arises from non-living matter,
Or to emphasize the historical question of how it happened on Earth:
- Abiogenesis is the natural process by which life
arisesarose from non-living matter, - It's not your or my place to temper what we feel to be an overreaching on the part of the reliable sources. To be frank, your revisions only introduce awkwardness to the prose borne from an apparent lack of engagement with said sources. Remsense ‥ 论 14:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Quebec data
editThe last paragraph of the introduction of the article states in part "Fossil micro-organisms appear to have lived within hydrothermal vent precipitates dated 3.77 to 4.28 Gya from Quebec..." It seems to me that this statement is based on findings from one group of researchers, concerning the Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt, that are not widely accepted. (In contrast to the data from Australia which are widely accepted.) If so, I would suggest that this statement about the findings in Canada could be changed to indicate that this is not widely agreed upon. For example, it could be changed to say "Some studies have suggested that fossil micro-organisms may have lived within hydrothermal vent precipitates dated 3.77 to 4.28 Gya from Quebec..." T g7 (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree; if it is not generally accepted then it should be qualified. Zaslav (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- do you have any sources that explicitly disagree with the Quebec data? Just because research is singular does not mean it is controversial. Remsense ‥ 论 03:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301926822001723?via%3Dihub 01:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC) T g7 (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Remsense ‥ 论 06:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301926822001723?via%3Dihub 01:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC) T g7 (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
"Habitable" Earth in top figure
editIn the figure, the "habitable world" picture is today's earth, which has little in common with the habitable earth of 4.x billion years ago. I think it would be better to show a picture that plausibly depicts an initial habitable earth (which, of course, would be deadly to most current life). I'm not able to arrange this myself; sorry. Zaslav (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- The image is similar to the image in the research paper cited in the caption [1]. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- The image is not meant to be "Earth when abiogenesis took place", but rather an "habitable planet" as a concept. Modern Earth gives the idea better than a hellfire ball would. Cambalachero (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Very true. But I get the reason why it was brought up. Ramos1990 (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)