Talk:Abiogenesis

Latest revision as of 16:02, 9 May 2012

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

	This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biology portal

Abiogenesis is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

Paleontology portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Earth sciences portal

Abiogenesis is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Creationism portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

Abiogenesis received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives
Much of the content of Abiogenesis was merged from Origin of life. For discussion of that page preceding that merge, see here. Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

[edit] Separating facts from faith.

I found it a little odd to read the following statement, "For views on the origins of life outside the natural sciences, see Creation myth" Yet it seems much of what I read in this article is also akin to a naturalistic creation myth, in that much is believed yet not demonstrated and taken on faith. I also think that there is some clever writing, yet the article should be a little more clear for the uninitiated, such the following statement which seems a little ambiguous "Abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth is thought to have arisen" I agree with the second sentence but the first is unnecessary and shows a certain bias. I would also like to see at least a significant part of the article speak of the pre biochemical logistical nightmares involved in the process of creating a living cell through human intel much less through random or unguided forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BENNY BALLEJO (talk • contribs) 23:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

50 years of research and no artificial life, therefore god did it. And just where is the research on that then? Have we recreated god creating life in the lab; if that was more plausible it would be easier to do than messing about with random processes. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 06:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure we shouldn't beat that dead horse just a little harder? 209.6.28.116 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Arose or thought to have a rose?

I reverted a change from "arisen" to "thought to have arisen". The article is obsessively PC as it is, and we don't need all that pussyfooting, especially when it is meaningless; if life turns out to have arisen by being quickened by the finger of a creator, then the study of that process by which it arose is by definition the valid subject matter of abiogenesis. Otherwise we wind up replacing every single verb in the article with "thought to have ..." as in "thought to have thought to have thought to have arisen" or something thought to have amounted to that. JonRichfield (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The sentance reads as "In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth has arisen", however it is not entirely certain life did arise on Earth as oposed to ariving in a preexisting organised state through panspermia or exogenesis. These are less plausible origins than the emergence on Earth but not so implausible that we should discount them as having never happened without further evidence to entirely falsify them. It is a bonus but not the aim that young earthers read "thought to have arisen" as a concession to them, as it keeps them docile as they go about living their delusional bronze age fantasies. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 21:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

<Gronk!> OK, OK! I suppose... I won't change it back, but I won't make difficulties if someone else does. <mttr... mttr...! Stone heads in bronze ages... Gronk!> JonRichfield (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

I personally think that current definitions of life are a bit too restrictive. I've even heard from a few places that life has to have DNA to exist. In my opinion, life should simply be anything and everything that can reproduce more of itself, if given resources to do so. For instance, viruses would be alive, as when given resources (host cells), they can produce more of themselves; self-replicating machines would be alive because, when given resources (materials such as steel, silicon, wires, circuits, etc.), as they can produce more of themselves; and perhaps even stars would be living, as after a supernova a nebula could form, which is a common birthplace of additional stars. I think that it is possible that we could discover extraterrestrial life, and not even recognize it as such. Carnivorousfungi (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

According to your definition, computer viruses would also qualify as living beings, as they contain instructions to copy themselves. And stars? Come on, such a definition is not usable in practice. Would a rock rolling off a mountain qualify too? Because it can induce other rocks to also roll down. Let's just stick to common sense definitions that everyone understands, because such broad categories are only confusing. -- Lindert (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the Wikipedia article is to be anchored in reliable sources. Abiogenesis and life need sourced definitions. It is interesting that what seem to be components of life can be generated; but not a living, growing entity. drs (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I sympathise with the inclusive definition until such time as we have worked out a definitive basis for discriminating between different phenomena that could be described as life in some sense and context, I must agree with those who would not accept crudely mechanical situations such as rolling rocks or snowballs, nor even trypsinogen cultures and the like. Viruses? Borderline. Best accept them in appropriate contexts and exclude them in appropriate contexts. For the rest, till further notice, in appropriate contexts I point out that for most practical purposes, we are discussing organic, information-coding, largely spontaneously generated, life of forms that occur or have left evidence for having occurred on Earth. Context is very important in educated discussion of this sort; let's respect it accordingly and thereby waste less of our own and each other's time. That question of the definition of life belongs in another article. JonRichfield (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This thread is kind of off the topic of Abiogenesis here. A self-replicating machine is not subject to abiogenesis as it is designed by a person using the knowledge they have come up with. A star is not life as it does not pass on any usefull acquired encoded information after going supernova. Viruses are life (same common ancestor as every other life form on Earth, as far as we know) as they contain the variation of matter encoded information that has been selected for its ability to reproduce itself. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 21:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Evolutionary biology edit

In response to the change and request, I am not much fussed about the edit, but I do have serious philosophical reservations about the distinction between the emergence of life and the role of Darwinian evolution once independent organisms, cellular or otherwise, with Mendelian reproduction had become established. The entire basis of the emergence of precursors to unambiguous life forms is strongly heuristically selective (though not specifically directive, of course). Stochastic selection would not have worked; it is a popularly misunderstood misconception and irrelevance that creationists keep getting hung up on. Does this affect your views on the heading etc? Cheers JonRichfield (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I am just concerned that laymen will see the template and their misconception that evolution explains the origin of life will be strengthened. While abiogenesis and evolution are closely tied, it may be interpreted differently. Evolution by natural selection is a process distinct from abiogenesis which acts on existing organisms, it doesn't create them. Maybe its best if we just leave out this template, it shouldn't hurt the article. Cadiomals (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Abiogenesis lead

User:Harizotoh9 recently reverted one of my edits which added a sizeable lead to the article, saying that it "seems too long" now. The lead I created for Abiogenesis is more than adequate. It may have "seemed" long to Harizotoh9, but is is actually the perfect size in proportion to the rest of the article. Every article needs an adequate lead that summarizes the contents and gives an introduction to the topic, not just a quick definition. Depending on the size of the article a lead should not be more than 4 paragraphs, and for an article as long as Abiogenesis the lead size was perfect. Look at the leads for evolution, the history of life, and history of the earth and you will see that these articles are long and SO the leads are fairly sizeable in proportion. Please also see -- Cadiomals (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked whether any of the items in your version of the lead do not occur in the rest of the article. On a superficial reading I do not see anything that you have said as unnecessary, and would want to see them all in appropriate form in the body. I also have read what you said about the lead size balancing the size of the rest of the article, but there I fall out of the bus.

I also read WP:LEAD and I think there are some badly confused ideas there. First let us imagine as an academic exercise, an article with NO lead, right? At the start there would be a heading, say "Overview" or "Introduction" or "Why we wrote this" or "Did you know?" or something similar. In such a section we might write little or much. It might contain four paragraphs or four subsections of four words, and not many readers would be in a position to complain about the article quality as a result.

However! Lots of people have a certain inertia about getting into a body of reading. Others may be looking for something and skimming article after article in a hurry. They don't want your Intro or lead that extends over a page or so, be your eternal truths never so true or your prose never so deathless. Such people (and they are many) want to see in a short, simple, definitive sentence, what the article is about. At worst, it should fit into the floating window that we can invoke by holding the cursor over a link. It does NOT have to be a dictionary or textbook definition, but at the same time it does NOT have to balance the rest of the article, either in logic or in length. It does not have to summarise anything. It is NOT an abstract, a synopsis nor a part of a balanced literary exercise. Suppose that you do decide that a synopsis is desirable; then why is it desirable to deny it a heading and call it a lede or lead? It is at its most functional when the reader knows within ten seconds exactly why he should read on or not, even if he does not yet have any idea about the structure or the content. That is the sort of thing he can get from the introductory section, whatever its title, as long as it is competently written. The lead is not an introduction, or should not be. If it is written as such, it does no one any favours. The introduction should indeed have a proportion and structure proper to the rest of the article, but that is a totally different matter.

Now, consider the short lead. It is a pity if anyone should use vague expressions like "seems long enough", that is a pity because it offers no objective or even nearly usable criteria. You think it is too short he thinks it is too long, and the readers just want a route marker. The needs to be met are not yours, but your readers'. If you want to balance or structure your article, then the headed sections are the place to do it. If you want to tell the reader why to read on or drop the matter, and do so more helpfully than the title can do it, then the lead is the place. That is what to put at the top, with no heading beyond the article title.

But what of WP:LEAD you say? What indeed? Nothing the article says demands that you write ten words or ten thousand, so you are able to use your own good judgment, not about how long it is, but about what should most usefully appear in the lead and what in the headed sections. And don't forget what appears in the floating windows and the first page together with any leading illustration. No explanation, argument or justification is needed there. To put anything of the kind of into the unheaded lead rather than the headed initial section is a confession of inadequacy. That sort of thing should go into the article structure, and there is no reason why the article should start with an unheaded section. The fact that other long articles have long leads is no recommendation; it is an indictment. IMESHO of course... ;-) JonRichfield (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow you wrote a really long response. I did actually read through it and you bring up some good points. However, my rationale remains.

This lead existed for a very long time before some user removed it and replaced it with a two sentence, unsatisfying definition and transferred and rearranged the lead material to a new section. A major change was made without discussion that is potentially detrimental to the article. So actually I'm just reverting those edits and its up to that user to explain themselves, not necessarily me.
My reason for pointing to the evolution and history of life articles is the former is Featured and the latter is Good. That means something must have been done right with their sizeable leads, and Abiogenesis is a very similar article.
As for WP:LEAD, I do my best to comply with the Manual of Style. WP:LEAD in a nutshell says, "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." This entire quote lends support to the current lead: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

The lead in Abiogenesis is very adequate and complies with the guidelines. I'm aware that you and I have our own opinions but ultimately the Manual of Style is above that. Cadiomals (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Marc Tessera's "Is A n+1 Definition of Life Useful?" Inappropriate?

I believe Marc Tessera added the section "Origin of Darwinian evolution rather than origin of life" which contains a cite to his own work "Is A n+1 Definition of Life Useful?". This article is labeled "Commentary" and has not been subsequently cited (perhaps not unexepected as it was published earlier this year).

As best I can tell this has already been rolled back a couple of times, although not necessarily for this reason. (This is my first wikipedia edit and I'm still learning how to navigate the deltas.) I've asked Marc in another forum (talk.origins) to revert this. Is there any reason I'm missing that it should not be reverted? Garamond Lethe (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reverted it as far to recent to establsh weight. It also appears to be self-promtional. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dominus -- thanks, I appreciate the quick response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garamond Lethe (talk • contribs) 22:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Garamond Lethe is wrong when he asserts that I added the section "Origin of Darwinian evolution rather than origin of life": Decruft did it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Tessera (talk • contribs) 18:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No. You added it on Feb. 2. Decruft partially reverted you and edited the section. Your additions have been reverted by several other editors, including User:Lindert, User:JonRichfield, User:Wdanwatts and me. If you want the material presented here, you will have to discuss it and get consensus for any addition on this talk page. You appear to have a conflict of interest, and seem to be using WP to promote your recent paper. Please familiarize yourself with WP policies and guidelines, including WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:CON, WP:DE]] and WP:TE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am here to respond to a Third Opinion request on this matter. There is no question that Marc Teressa added the section in question, as evidenced here. I have not looked to see if this was the very first insertion of this section or who inserted it the last time it was inserted (it appears to have been reverted and reinserted several times) but there is no question that Teressa has done it at least once. As a side note to Teressa: As a newcomer, you may not be aware that the entire editing history of each article page and each user are publicly visible: see here for this article's history and here for your editing history. There is (almost) never any doubt about who did what at Wikipedia. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

In thruth there is no question that I took the initiative of proposing the section "Origin of Darwinian Evolution rather than Origin of Life". However the final version was written by Decruft from my publications and accepted apparently by the editors who did not agree with my first versions. Well, formally, I agree I was likely wrong but is the question only formal? At the heart I think there is the following more important question: is the idea presented in the section in question worth scientifically speaking and could be presented in the chapter "Other models" which is dedicated to other and possibly new approaches? If no, then I was wrong. If yes, I think it is a pity to censure it.Marc Tessera (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. As to your question: is the idea presented in the section in question worth scientifically speaking. As best I can tell from scholar.google and from reading the paper, the "n+1" paper is a "Commentary" piece that's never been cited by a peer-reviewed publication. This tells me that other scientists working in the field don't value this paper, at least not yet (and the paper probably hasn't been out long enough to receive that kind of evaluation).

In contrast, look at the other papers that are cited in this article. The PAH-world hypothesis is probably a pretty marginal theory, yet García-Hernández's paper has already been cited 12 times and just came out in 2010. Hartman's 1998 multiple-origin paper has been cited 49 times. Both of these were peer-reviewed. That's not to say that peer-reviewed publication and lots of citations are sufficient for a theory to be included in an encyclopedia, but I do think it's a necessary condition.

In short, don't try to make an argument that you have a good theory. Make an argument that a lot of other people think you have a good theory.Garamond Lethe (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] hypothesis or theory

It seems to me that many of the places that the words hypothesis and theory are used in this article they are used interchangeably. I don't wish to step on any toes if i am incorrect and am not an avid user of the edit function in wiki so i hope someone who keeps this page up to date will look into it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.168.141 (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The use of the word theory by the general public is equivalent to the word hypothesis as used in the science community. Scientists use the word theory to refer to well developed hypotheses (backed up with facts) or to scientific papers written by theoretical physicists, the general theory of relativity for example. Pterodactyloid (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please replace the code {{Help me-helped}} on this page with {{Help me}}, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

- At The Moment - Seems Lankenau Is Making Substantial Edits, Citing His Own Publications (WP:COI?), To The Main Abiogenesis Article - Lankenau Claims His Edits Are Not "vanadalism," - afaik - Such Substantial Edits, Of Possibly Contentious Material(s), Are Usually First Discussed On The Talk Page(s) Of Main Articles With Other Wikipedia Editors - And A WP:CONSENSUS Reached - *Before* Actually Adding Such Material To The Main Article - Has This Usual Wikipedia Policy Changed In Some Way? - Or - May Not Apply To The Lankenau Edits For Some Reason? - In Any Case - Thanks In Advance For Your Comments - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Citing your own work is absolutely fine as long as your work is a "reliable source". This is not the case in this situation though. I think rather than vandalism it would be original research with WP:COI possible. There is a fine line between having knowledge vs. a conflict of interest. It is most certainly not vandalism because it seems to be done in good faith. You don't need to go to the talk page to edit if you don't feel it's neccesary. My guess is he saw the article, put his stuff in, and thought he improved the article. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

@Hghyux - Thank You *Very Much* For Your Time and Comment - It's *Very* Much Appreciated - I *Completely* Agree w/ Your Comments In *All* Respects - I Had Also Thought "Original Research" (As Well As A "Good Faith" Edit) Might Apply In This Instance - Thanks Again - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Calling it vandalism is going too far. I warned Lankenau over a similar comment in his edit summary for not assuming good faith. Regarding the content of the edits WP:UNDUE possibly applies here with the conflict of interest being a WP:NPOV problem.

From WP:UNDUE: Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

So if valid & reliable sources are provided we shouldn't have a problem. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 15:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

@SkyMachine - I Agree - Also - Thanks For *All* Your Help - And For Noting WP:UNDUE - As Well As The Jimbo Wales (paraphrased) Quote (new to me & *greatly* appreciated) - Thanks Again - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the subsection per Drmies at AN/I and because of the good referencing. Scientific views do change, and I see no reason not to include a summary of this hypothesis, which the subsection explains and relates to prior hypotheses. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's reach a consensus before adding this info back to the article. As far as I can tell, this hypothesis fits squarely into the "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" category referenced in Jimbo's quote. Am I missing something here? I'm not sure it warrants any mention at all, let alone the thorough discussion being added.JoelWhy (talk)

I'm pasting this from the Admin board, as it seems like a more appropriate discussion to have here:

Mislabeling edits as vandalism is, in theory, fixable - and not a threat. Yes, it's bogus, but if they don't get told the difference between their definition of vandalism and Wikipedia's definition, how do they know to stop? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. If anything is a bad edit, trout-slappable even, it's this one. Dirk Lankenau adds information to the article, referenced to six articles published in academic journals, and someone has the moxie to call it original research? "Oh yes but he has a conflict of interest and blah blah blah"--so f***ing what? He is not forbidden from adding articles he wrote or co-wrote, and Lankenau's name is not found in all of those articles, nor is that of his partner in crime (well, in science, for crying out loud). Even Drbogdan's revert, with the "COI" edit summary, is incorrect: the linked guideline doesn't forbid any editor from adding a reference to their own work.
I want to see some editors re-read the original research section, esp. the part that says "if it's sourced to published sources it's not original frigging research", and I want to see humble pie eaten and hairshirts worn. I'm not even kidding. "Original research"--I'll show you some original research, Google Scholar style: [1]. We got a scientist who has kindly come to help us out, and we treat him like this? Drmies (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed completely with Drmies. This is legitimate source material, well referenced, from secondary sources (peer-reviewed book chapters), in a niche area that very few of us know anything about, added by someone who is knowledgeable on the area (as evidenced by even a simple Google Scholar search on their name). We should be encouraging addition of this content, not rolling it back in one fell swoop with allegations of OR. -- Samir 05:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no OR, but WP:UNDUE may be an issue here. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 05:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What I see here is a new, enthusiastic, and very competent wikipedian. Who just might be a little out of their depth in a content issue, to put it bluntly. OK, we've identified the problem, now lets look for solutions. I would like to think I've started that here--Shirt58 (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Me, too; this is an editor who can be a real asset to the community. All they really need is to understand what is not vandalism, and they'll be fine here! Pesky (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hyhgux, please trout yourself a few times for not reading WP:OR properly and mishandling the situation. Blackmane (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point (or, at the very least, I need some more convincing.) I'm not disputing that this guy is a legitimate scientist. But, I would caution you all on giving too much weight to that fact. I could point you to at least half a dozen Nobel prize winning scientists who then went on to become fierce advocates on one form of pseudoscience or another. I'm not saying that's the case here, just that we can't simply rely on the fact that he's a professional in the field to conclude that his hypothesis holds any weight within the field. I have searched on Google Scholar and I frankly am getting the impression that this is hypothesis has not been accepted by many in field. His work has not been cited by many others in the field, and I can find no references to "ZN-world theory" by anyone other than him. The language in the Wiki article also made me very skeptical of this. I mean: "The Zn-World theory of Armen Mulkidjanian is the most realistic. sophisticated extension and improvement of Wächtershäuser´s pyrite hypothesis." Really? Maybe it is, and I certainly am NOT an expert in this field (nor am I a scientist.) But, this sounds like self-promotion more than it sounds like science.JoelWhy (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"I have searched on Google Scholar and I frankly am getting the impression that this is hypothesis has not been accepted by many in field" - You are free to express scepticism of the hypothesis by providing reliable academic sources which refute it. But I would like to note that we do not remove information just because it's not true, we remove it if it is unsourced. The paragraphs that have been removed are clearly sourced reliably. —Dark 14:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, my hesitation to accept this is not whether it's true or not -- it's whether it's noteworthy. There are probably a million hypothesis related to abiogenesis (and every other major theory in the sciences.) We don't include all of them (even when sourced.) We include those which are noteworthy. If this is a hypothesis that is accepted by an insignificant fraction of those working in the field, it wouldn't be included. I'm not sure that this is the case, here, but based on my search into the issue, it sure seems that way. That being said, I really have no stake in this game. If I am wrong about that, I would be happy to support the addition.JoelWhy (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree the subsection could do with a little tightening up/rewriting for neutrality, but in a survey of hypotheses, one with as many references as this should be included. (And the edit was a nice clear explanation, in that respect very encyclopedic. I note that Google Scholar gives either 19 or 20 citations for the 2009 article, that the book only came out last year, and that the citations are all to reliable sources and involve more than one or two authors. The best person to explain why we should cover this hypothesis is Lankenau, but I think too much weight is being placed here on numbers at Google Scholar (and possibly also on Zn-world rather than Zinc world?) If it has good sources, it's not undue weight to mention it, and the sources are good. The onus is on someone who adds something to provide sources - but sources have been provided. I suggest that those who think it's being given undue weight condense it and tweak the wording. But IMO it's safely over the threshhold for inclusion. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - for my part, please understand that I had no problem at the outset w/ the proposed Lankenau *content* per se (others may however) - my own primary concern was *procedure* instead - that a discussion (& consensus if possible) of such (possibly COI?, possibly contentious?) material seemed indicated (appropriate? worthwhile?) - *before* actually adding such material to the main article - perhaps my related edit summary could have been clearer? - in any case - hope this present clarification helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the addition as COI - he's a co-author in what, 2 out of 7 cited works? Hence I cannot see a justification for submitting it here first rather than the normal BRD cycle, which starts with boldly adding it to the page. In any event, I'm not seeing a consensus forming for keeping it out, but indications that it should be tightened up a bit. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that WP:BRD may have worked in this instance after all - although the process could have gone better in some ways I would think - nonetheless, for my part, I have no objection for the material to be re-added to the main article - esp if there is consensus for this among others - in any regards - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I have accordingly reinstated the edit with Maxim's changes plus some phrasing changes to avoid undue weight, and corrections to the referencing in a couple of cases (ISBN, co-authors, etc.) I suggest further edits tweak it further; there seems no remaining objection to including it. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The last line of this Zn—World paragraph refering to his book for further reading should really be in Further reading section or a footnote. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 09:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I put it here, because these citations include the causal link between the Zn-world theory and the "protoribosome" (and beyond) published by Ada Yonath and colleagues (Davidovich, C., M. Belousoff, A. Bashan, and A. Yonath. 2009. The evolving ribosome: from non-coded peptide bond formation to sophisticated translation machinery. Res Microbiol 160:487-92.) That citation may be added as well - but matters may become too complex to be followed by the general reader.--93.204.95.180 (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)--Lankenau (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I had the same feeling that that amounted to an informational note, so I have made it into a long reference, and added that further citation to it. Anyone is of course welcome to revert that change. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriateness of "Evolution before genes" cite?

Evolution before genes.

This paper came out in 2012 and has only been cited once (per scholar.google.com). Can anyone comment as to whether this has sufficient weight to be listed in the external links section? Garamond Lethe (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not, if I understand you correctly. On a hurried scan of the paper, it seems to be a thoughtful and informed discussion of some pertinent points relevant to the subject. It is not cited in the WP article as an authority in establishing a disputed position, but as suggested reading. As for which disputed points it might be expected to support or dispel, I should have to see examples before commenting, but as things stand I have no problem with its presence at the end of the article. JonRichfield (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair. Thanks! Garamond Lethe (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It is almost a joke that this piece of nonsense has so quickly found its way into the article whilst Marc Tessera's interesting contributions have met so much hostility. Zarcoen (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually do have a problem with inclusion of this article. For the record, I haven't read the article, and see no need to. There are literally scores of articles about abiogenesis. Why on earth would we include an article that has only been cited once?? Granted, an article that came out this year is not likely to be cited more than a few times (given that it takes some time to write and publish subsequent papers.) So, I am not at all indicating that this article is faulty, suspect, etc. (As I said, I haven't read it, as reading it would not modify my point one iota.) I would simply argue that virtually any article that has just been released shouldn't be included for further reading, when other articles which have been thoroughly vetted, discussed, etc (above and beyond the standard peer review process, in the sense that its been cited repeatedly, meaning that its really made an impact on the field.) The only possible exception to this rule would be a highly notable article that really turns the field on its head and garners significant coverage.JoelWhy (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind replacing this with a better-cited paper that handles pre-cellular evolution. Do you have one in mind? Garamond Lethe (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Spoken Version

At the time I made this recording in February, this article was, and still is, completely in-accessible to laymen. I explained or canned the ridiculously technical aspects and got to the point of them as well as the tedious repition and the self-serving name-dropping of the source of various studies used throughout. This is an encyclopedia, not Google Scholar. I didn't alter the actual text of the article.

[edit] RGA1980 and Trail's Nature Paper

Hi RGA1980,

I'm a little confused about your inclusion of Trail's Nature paper. First, while Nature is certainly a very good publication, this particular paper only tangentially relates to abiogenesis (and has only been cited once). Second, the Miller-Urey experiments are 60 years old now. It looked like you were treating them as though they were the current scientific consensus. Third, your summary of the paper sounds uses far too much jargon: "incorporation of cerium into zircon crystals", "oxygen fugacities", "fayalite–magnetite–quartz buffer", etc. Finally, suggesting that " If this research is correct then the "Soup" Theory would be undermined and alternatives such as Extraterrestrial origins would be necessary for Abiogenesis to have occured." appears to be WP:SYN. Is that the opinion of Trail et al. or your opinion?

Following up: I now have the Trail paper in front of me. The following is the sum of their comments on abiogenesis:

If a highly reduced atmosphere is required for the origin of life, then it may have occurred exceptionally early on our planet. However, pre-4,400-Myr outgassing of H2 coupled with slow escape may have resulted in an atmosphere out of equilibrium with Earth's interior. Alternatively, a 'late veneer' may have served as a source of pre-biotic molecules.

There's nothing about Miller-Urey and nothing about extraterrestrial origins.

I'd like to discuss this before you put your edits back up. Thanks! Garamond Lethe (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense & nonsensical refs

I have just removed the section on viruses in abiogenesis. It was extremely vague in its content and referred non-specifically to some of the worst nonsense I have seen since von Daeniken Someone or other PhD if you like! That should be pretty conclusive! Furthermore, would some concerned people inspect the article history? Someone seems to be using tactics to hamper inspection of the authorship and creation trails by inserting insertion edits by the dozen. I have had little to do with the article so far, but if this sort of thing isn't cleaned up pretty chopchop, we all will have egg on face. Gotta go. Back later. JonRichfield (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork 10 May, 2012

-
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abiogenesis&diff=491620035&oldid=490557868
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com

@@ Line 169: / Line 169: @@
    I'd like to discuss this before you put your edits back up. Thanks! [[User:Garamond Lethe|Garamond Lethe]] ([[User talk:Garamond Lethe|talk]]) 07:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
+   ==Nonsense & nonsensical refs==
+   I have just removed the section on viruses in abiogenesis. It was extremely vague in its content and referred non-specifically to some of the worst nonsense I have seen since von Daeniken Someone or other PhD if you like! ''That'' should be pretty conclusive! Furthermore, would some concerned people inspect the article history? Someone seems to be using tactics to hamper inspection of the authorship and creation trails by inserting insertion edits by the dozen. I have had little to do with the article so far, but if this sort of thing isn't cleaned up pretty chopchop, we all will have egg on face. Gotta go. Back later. [[User:JonRichfield|JonRichfield]] ([[User talk:JonRichfield|talk]]) 16:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Pages

insurance