Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Bias Warning Header Possible

the whole article and even some stuff on this talk page seems to be sarcastic creationist propaganda. I just read this article and i can barely remember anything about the hypothesis or theory (whichever it is) about abiogenesis, just paragraphs of criticism and the faux fob off onto a panspermia hypothesis to suggest abiogenesis has been declared a failed hypothesis.

81.86.60.118 15:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC) may I ask why you will not let me mention the scientific odds of spontanious generation of even the most simple lifeform?

Fixed Grammar and "Smiley Interjection"

I fixed the presentation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics criticism section. Also, I removed the smiley looking phrase under Yockery's criticisms: "(:-Yes, quotes about omitting millions of years/steps in the process are appropriate.-:)" This seemes like something the author should have placed here instead. --Rec Specz 01:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to sign :( --Rec Specz 01:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Creationists placing links to "answers in genesis" on the front page

I have removed the answers in genesis links on the front page, they have no relevance to the discussion of abiogenesis. Let them place their links in the "creationism" discussion or whatever.

And tip the balance in favor of evolution, breaking the NPOV policy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.97.37.231 (talk • contribs).

No. Please read WP:NPOV#Undue weight. -- Ec5618 06:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I support evolution and everything, but a page refuting claims made against creation-- even if it uses fallacies-- would seem pretty relevant. ~Kazu 19:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? Answers in genesis is well-known for half-truths and wonky non-science - why on earth would we want to send readers to a site that we know tells porkies? --Charlesknight 19:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

After a very quick glance through (I didn't want to lose too many brain cells) I agree. No reason to have that here. ~Kazu 01:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Plus, in any case, this is about abiogenesis, not evolution. Let's not slip in to the very same confusion AiG makes. Giving them a voice is bad enough.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.92.173.186 (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2007

Merged some material with origin of life article

I think this article should this be merged with origin of life. The historical part can easily be part of that article, and the modern stuff overlaps with what is on that page right now in any case. --Lexor 19:25, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I have modified my position. I think it should probably be left as a separate page, since it is a slightly more general concept and has a history of its own. I have taken the liberty to move most of the "modern abiogenesis" stuff which is almost exclusively about the origin of life and merge it with the origin of life article, but have left a summary and a Main article: pointer here.

--Lexor 12:05, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Paragraph removed by anonymous IP address (not by me). --Lexor|Talk 10:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If abiogenesis is found impossible, this would seem to disprove both evolutionary and religious explanations of the origin of life, and would support the idea that life has always existed. The only remaining point would be whether or not life is modified by nature, as claimed by evolutionists, or not, as claimed by many religions

Proposal to Merge this page into Biopoiesis

I would like to know how you folks feel about merging abiogenesis into biopoiesis. This term carries less historical baggage and seems to be favored over abiogenesis in some situations. --Viriditas 11:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I prefer to leave it abiogenesis where it is (it gets around 18,000 hits: Google), and I think that biopoiesis should be merged with origin of life, it only gets 91 hits on Google: Google. With two sentences I can't really see it being expanded. --Lexor|Talk 11:45, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Google_test. "...the google test checks popular usage, not correctness." For some good links on the history and differences between the two words, see this link and this link. Biopoiesis has been used in place of abiogenesis by a number of researchers involved in origins related work. OTOH, abiogenesis has connotations of spontaneous generation, and it currently bears the weight of two different definitions, thus leading to ambiguity. I am therefore suggesting that abiogenesis should refer to spontaneous generation while biogenesis should be used to refer to its current definition regarding the origin of life.. IMO, I doubt that a google hit ranking will reflect this difference in any way, as most of the journals, articles, and textbooks that use these definitions are not online. When I have some more time I will try to present some further evidence for the proposed merge. In my proposal, the article for abiogenesis would still exist but it would not refer to the more modern implication of biopoiesis, just spontaneous generation. Thanks in advance for your response. --Viriditas 01:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Abiogenesis is by far the most common term for this, so I think biopoiesis should be merged here instead. (It's not our job to push new terminology.) — B.Bryant 14:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that aiopoiesis may belong here. However, spontaneous generation is sort of different and might belong in a separate article; abiogenesis is related to origin of life, but spontaneous generation usually (especially historically) means the continual emergence of life from non-life, rather than a one-time or few-times event in the distant past.--ragesoss 23:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is better to keep some distinctions between a general view (abiogenesis) and have references to other theories that are more specific within the general view (like biopoiesis/biopoesis ... which is right?)

I would like to see the article on biopoiesis/biopoesis expanded to discuss the several (successful) experiments on self-replicating molecules that have been done, rather than using the Miller\Urey experiment (that was only amino acids after all), and to include the finding of amino acids on meteors and in space.

That way biopoiesis/biopoesis can focus on the science and abiogenesis can contend with the creationist/ID crowd paul 01:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Im a guest, but these are two completely different things. One from inorganic molecules, and one is an ancient idea explaining decay etc... Dont merge them, it is FAR to innacurate

This is contradicted by the introductory paragraph. Abiogenesis is the name for the idea that life came from non-organic material, and so it also applies to the scientific hypothesis by the same name.

Well, that, and I honestly don't understand what you said.~Kazu 04:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Biopoesis

Moved the following discussion up under Proposal to merge with biopoesis to keep these discussions together.DLH 12:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose The fact that abiogenesis wins the Google test by a landslide should speak for itself. Biopoesis, as I gather, is a different term. I won't bother reiterating what's already been said a bunch of times in the "oppose" votes below.~Kazu 04:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I support this. Alienus 03:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Conditionally Support - So long as all of the information is merged in, the abiogenesis article references Abiogenesis as another term for the same thing, and that the biopoesis article becomes a redirect to abiogenesis.

• If they really do mean the same thing then I support the merge and redirect. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 11:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• support.--Deglr6328 08:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• oppose Abiogenesis is not the same as biopoiesis. But merging it with chemical evolution might be a good idea. 62.245.210.87 05:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• oppose Abiogenesis and biogeneis were originally used to describe the division that existed in the Spontaneous Generation era. Biogeneis held that life would arise from life or materials derived from life, independent of parents e.g. internal parasites (how else did they get there?). Life was thought to contain a life force and this magical force could make more of itself e.g. the electricity used to boot-up Frankenstein’s Monster. Whereas, abiogenesis was opposed to biogeneis and offered a mechanistic view of life. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) was one of the first to propose abiogenesis. Biopoiesis began with Oparin and Haldane in the early 20th century, it is modern study of life’s origin Diamond Dave 23/02/2006 19:14

• oppose The two are close but not identical. Biopoiesis has an emphasis on theories of self-organization that are either merely implicit or unexplored in Abiogenesis work. We have no diskspace shortage here and it hurts nothing to include separate writeups on closely allied terms. Jim Tour 00:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• more or less I was not even aware of the article "chemical evolution". I think that a series of articles on the topic of origin of life need some sort of management and better planning. I think that part of that would include the merging of biopoiesis in something about chemical evolution, but I think that it could be in the "origin of life" article, and the chem evo article would focus more on the other sense of the term, and have something in the sense of a disambiguation linking to "origin of life". I think that biopoiesis still fits on abiogenesis well, even if it refers more specificaly to self-organization, since abiogenesis means origin of life, and thus whatever is under the label of biopoiesis meaning origin of life by means of self organization, is still under the abiogenesis umbrella. However, I think that still could be a larger biopoesis article making clarifications on its specifics; the same way that there is a "origin of life" article, and various articles for different theories of origin of life (RNA world, iron sulfid world, Oparin hypotheis, etc). But the last time I checked, biopoiesis was nearly a stub that made it look like a synonym with abiogenesis. (Semantically, I guess it is, despite of some difference that may exist to what actually is referred by the term). --Extremophile 00:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• oppose - keep abiogegnesis

Keep the primary discussion under abiogenesis as almost all people search for that term. Only a few specialists would know to distinguish the other terms. Propose subsections detailing the biopoiesis and its differences etc. If these become large enough, then give them their own breakout page with a summary here.DLH 12:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Umm, what's this discussion about? I merged (as requested by someon else, don't know whom but this can be checked) biopoesis (and biopoiesis) into abiogenesis on June 6th, 2006. Currently, biopoesis is a redirect to abiogenesis. How are we supposed to merge an article into its redirect? Basically, there is nothing to merge: either we switch (abiogenesis redirects to biopoesis instead of the current reverse), or we split the articles again (which I oppose, as there is no clear difference). Fram 13:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

scientific view?

Brig Klyce proposes Cosmic ancestry which is a theory that intelligent life, through some natural mechanism, effectively began at the same time as the universe.

How is this a scientific view? It seems like a fantastic hypothesis. -- Temtem 16:12, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

May we need a section titled "Philosophical Critique of Abiogenesis." -- Temtem 16:16, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

More like "fantasies about the origins of life". Also notice that Klyce proposes an idea, not a theory. At any rate, I removed mention of both Klyce and Crick, since the paragraphs offered their opinions about origins, but didn't actually offer any criticism of the theory (as per the name of that section). — B.Bryant 17:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm putting this here because it's the only mention of Crick on the discussion page. Crick is cited as endorsing the cosmic origin of life (or primitive organic material, anyway), but no cite is given. Could one be added? I ask in part because I was unclear that this was a firm scientific conviction (as opposed to that of Cairns-Smith) rather than a bit of speculation. For what it's worth, in his review of "Expelled" (the recent ID movie) Dawkins as an aside suggests that it was "semi tongue-in-cheek" on Crick's part, but gives no support for that claim. Anthony Mohen (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the above section (Creationist Response)

I really do not mean to be rude, and I have to admit I find the above debate rather interesting; but would it be possible to move this debate to some other forum? I will admit I am new to Wikipedia in general, but it seems to me this particular page acts as an area to discuss what should and should not be included in the article it is attached to (abiogenesis). Any debate held here would revolve around content that should be added or removed, or possibly to discuss whether or not a neutral point of view is maintained. In short, it is an area to discuss the reasoning behind revisions or reverts.

In that case I propose that we add something about the fact that all living organisms consist of homochiralic proteins, while nature has yet to produce any yet (so far as we have observed, of course). We also probably should add something about the fact that Miller's little experiment only produced 13 of the 20 basic amino acids, and that scientists since then have not done any better. Shall I go ahead an add this or wait for a consensus / vote?

Randy

Hey again! I would say the first thing to do is to create an account. Either the one you had prior or another. It is just easier to work with other people if you are registered. You get your own page where you can put a bit of stuff about you and an additional page where people can leave you messages. It is much easier for colaboration. My page is here. And my talk page is here. After you are registered, anytime you leave comments on a Talk page like this one, you can add three of these ~ symbols or four of these ~ symbols in a row. That will automaticly sign the doc with a link to your page and the current time. Just like this: Knoma Tsujmai 03:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have done that, and it is --Truthteller 17:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) -- and includes a summary of what I believe and why I believe it.

Beyond that, there really isn't any voting per se. The Wikipedia works very different than a lot of other things in life. To be involved in Wikipedia is to agree to be edited mercilessly. People don't really vote on articles as much as they discuss them and constantly change them. Opinions vary widely, but more often than not some level of agreement is met and a neutral point of view is maintained. Once you get an account and sign in, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if you want help creating a section in here proposing changes. Again, you can just go ahead and make any changes you want anywhere in Wikipedia at any time, but finding some way to work through and represent the opposing opinions will likely help your revisions to stick. Knoma Tsujmai 03:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I read once that there are really three general categories of communication. We either:

• Communicate to Inform
• Communicate to Persuade
• Communicate to Entertain

The Wikipedia needs to be as much about the first as it can. It is hard to write without a slant and to only present facts, but that is the goal. Knoma Tsujmai 03:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

So again, sign up and start outlining some changes. The Sandbox is a great place to try out formatting text. I look forward to hearing about the additional information you think would be relevant for this document, as well as at what point you think it makes sense to link to other documents or data. But you really do not need to wait for me or anyone else to authorize changes, just be cognizant that anything you contribute here can be edited by another at any time. I think that is what fascinates me the most about all this. The Wikipedia started in my lifetime, but will likely survive on this Earth much longer than I. At the same time, "The Wikipedia" does not really exist at all as it is edited multiple times every minute and is never the same. Here's to hoping that both you and I write an article or two that is useful, interesting and unbiased enough to survive long after we are gone! Cheers to that and welcome to Wikipedia! Knoma Tsujmai 03:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that, while this is a lively and interesting discussion, it might be best to move it to e-mail or some other forum.

Again, I'm glad we've come to a general consensus around the current content, I look forward to further refining the entry, and I don't mean to interrupt what looks to be a lively, interesting, (albeit long running) debate on the theory itself; but I am wondering if it would make sense to collapse the above section, archive it to the history and move the debate to another forum external to the Wikipedia.

Just a thought. Knoma Tsujmai 17:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. And there should be no troll feeding. Joe D (t) 17:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I have put it in Archive1 along with 2002 material, eventually the section will be deleted/overwritten as future material is archived. This section will be archived shortly as well. Welcome to Wikipedia Knoma Tsujmai; you have good instincts. :'D - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Critics

Two of the three main critics of abiogenesis are deceased, which means they cannot be aware of any recent scientific research. Shouldn't we also mention that Erwin Schrödinger achieved fame for his contributions to quantum mechanics, while Sir Fred Hoyle was an astronomer? I'm not sure how this should be made clear, without it sounding like criticising the critics, though. -- Ec5618 12:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think a paragraph before the names could read something like:

It should be noted that despite the success these scientists have had in their fields of study, they do not have expertise in biological systems. Leading biologists point out assumptions in their arguments which have little to no bearing on abiogenesis theories or research.

Just a draft. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The modern concept of abiogenesis has been criticised by scientists, notably by Sir Fred Hoyle, Erwin Schrödinger and Hubert Yockey. It should be noted that despite the success these scientists have had in their respective fields of study, they do or did not have expertise in biological systems. Leading biologists point to assumptions in their arguments which have little to no bearing on abiogenesis theories or research.

Another draft -- Ec5618 18:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Minor thoughts/tweaks:

The modern concept of abiogenesis has been criticised by scientists, notably by Sir Fred Hoyle, Erwin Schrödinger and Hubert Yockey. It should be noted that despite the success these scientists have had in their respective fields of study, they do or did not have expertise in biology. Leading biologists point to fundamental assumptions in their arguments which have little to no bearing on abiogenesis theories or research.

Third draft. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with it. Ideally, we would find a few more notable critics, though. Still, let's insert it. -- Ec5618 06:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Coo, inserted. Another win for Wikipedia! Huzzah! - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Schroedinger

Hello. I would like to see reference to this paragraph :

"This argument is generally understood to assert false presuppositions, namely that that Earth is in a closed system, which it is not since it receives energy from the Sun."

Unless it's referenced, the claim within it counts as original research. Stefan Udrea 23:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll add that I'm not a religious fanatic and I'm willing to be cooperative.I'm not trying to start an edit war or something...I just want to know which scientists spoke against Schroedinger's book

Stefan Udrea 23:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right in saying it isn't referenced, however, this shows a clear misconception of the nature of the second law of thermodynamics. It's probably not referenced, because most people find it obvious. I'd think we would have a hard time finding a source to state such an obvious thing. -- Ec5618 23:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It's obvious that the Earth is not a closed system and Schroedinger didn't presuppose the contrary ;but this isn't relevant.The issue is much more complex than that.I will replace your rebuttal of his work with a more serious one that I've just found.

Stefan Udrea 09:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately the piece I found is copyrighted . I asked for permission to copy just a small paragraph ,please be patient. In the hindsight maybe "what is life?" doesn't belong in Abiogenesis at all. Stefan Udrea

If you have a source, quote or paraphrase it. We don't need to 'use' any copyrighted material. I'm not sure 'what is life?' should stay, though life, as seen from the perspective of abiogenesis is a viewpoint that should be mentioned. -- Ec5618 16:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Permission was granted. Stefan Udrea 06:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:How to edit a page, for a guide to Wiki-markup. Also, you seem to be implying that I had written the line suggesting Schroedinger was wrong because he thought the Earth was closed system. I assumed that the line was correct, and suggested that it was not attributed, because it was obvious. I didn't know Schroedinger hadn't made the claim.

That said, I don't quite like the wording of the new paragraph. It doesn't fit into the whole of the article, and uses unexplained terminology. It also talks of a 'we', which is against Wikipedia policy. Assuming you feel qualified to reword the paragraph, could you please do so? I'm willing to give it a shot, but I'm not quite sure what it is that is being said. -- Ec5618 14:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is a direct quote from the website linked, I have added indent and itallics to it. Either paraphrase to better explain or add explanatory material to suppliment and tie it in for the rest of us. Vsmith 15:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you both for the suggestions.I'll try to paraphrase that quote.

Stefan Udrea 19:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm far from being satisfied with my section's current state;it's because I know some physics but little about biology.Now I'll go play in the sandbox :)

Stefan Udrea 20:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

This section sound embarassingly wrong. Anything I found on the web on "what is life" gives a different account of the book including the link at the end of the section.

I will check out the book at my university tomorrow and will talk to a friend of mine, who just passed an exam on biophysics. 62.245.210.87 05:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the definition of life disputed too? It might be better to say something along the lines of "life can be defined as x" and provide a citation, then maybe add a contradictory definition (with citation) after that. ~Kazu 19:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Panspermiites

Do the panspermia advocates really fit as critics here. They simply pass the buck to elsewhere and don't really say much about abiogenesis. Hoyle's specific arguements against chemical evolution and abiogenesis perhaps, but not the panspermia bit. I reorganized the section to put the panspermians together, but really think they should be cut. Vsmith 22:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for grouping the panspermites together. As the article now clearly reflects, panspermia itself doesn't offer anything on abiogenesis, except in locating it far away, so it's less a criticism than a fairly uninterested hypothesis. We know that some of the basic organic chemicals can form in space, but there's little support for the process getting much further than that. We also know that, in principle, it's possible for single-celled life to be transferred to another planet by catastrophic events, but have no reason to think this happened. In short, it's boring. However, Hoyle's version is different. It's basically the same broken idea as Steady State, only applied to life. As such, it's an alternative to abiogenesis, but a really dumb one. Alienus 00:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I was thinking of expanding the panspermia section to include some of the recent findings of organic molecules in space -- so the seeding may not be from life but from the building blocks of life. Thus the "Primodial Soup" doesn't need to generate amino acids so much as assemble them.

Meteors may also have played an important role in making rare atoms available on the surface, and the ices may have helped form the first protocell structures.

The other alternative is to put this information in the biopoesis article and expand on the specific scientific discoveries there.

Merge with Biopoesis

I support this. Alienus 03:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Conditionally Support - So long as all of the information is merged in, the abiogenesis article references Abiogenesis as another term for the same thing, and that the biopoesis article becomes a redirect to abiogenesis.

• If they really do mean the same thing then I support the merge and redirect. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 11:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• support.--Deglr6328 08:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• oppose Abiogenesis is not the same as biopoiesis. But merging it with chemical evolution might be a good idea. 62.245.210.87 05:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• oppose Abiogenesis and biogeneis were originally used to describe the division that existed in the Spontaneous Generation era. Biogeneis held that life would arise from life or materials derived from life, independent of parents e.g. internal parasites (how else did they get there?). Life was thought to contain a life force and this magical force could make more of itself e.g. the electricity used to boot-up Frankenstein’s Monster. Whereas, abiogenesis was opposed to biogeneis and offered a mechanistic view of life. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) was one of the first to propose abiogenesis. Biopoiesis began with Oparin and Haldane in the early 20th century, it is modern study of life’s origin Diamond Dave 23/02/2006 19:14

• oppose The two are close but not identical. Biopoiesis has an emphasis on theories of self-organization that are either merely implicit or unexplored in Abiogenesis work. We have no diskspace shortage here and it hurts nothing to include separate writeups on closely allied terms. Jim Tour 00:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• more or less I was not even aware of the article "chemical evolution". I think that a series of articles on the topic of origin of life need some sort of management and better planning. I think that part of that would include the merging of biopoiesis in something about chemical evolution, but I think that it could be in the "origin of life" article, and the chem evo article would focus more on the other sense of the term, and have something in the sense of a disambiguation linking to "origin of life". I think that biopoiesis still fits on abiogenesis well, even if it refers more specificaly to self-organization, since abiogenesis means origin of life, and thus whatever is under the label of biopoiesis meaning origin of life by means of self organization, is still under the abiogenesis umbrella. However, I think that still could be a larger biopoesis article making clarifications on its specifics; the same way that there is a "origin of life" article, and various articles for different theories of origin of life (RNA world, iron sulfid world, Oparin hypotheis, etc). But the last time I checked, biopoiesis was nearly a stub that made it look like a synonym with abiogenesis. (Semantically, I guess it is, despite of some difference that may exist to what actually is referred by the term). --Extremophile 00:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Part, Keep part I argue in an entry at the bottom of this discussion page that the term abiogenesis is incorectly used in this article. The combining several sources, the correct definition is the one closest to its original use. It is "the discredited theory that some relatively complex organisms can spontaneously form from inanimate matter". Of course, this is not at all what evolutionary biology says occurs since it never claims that fully formed "organisms" form in a single generation. In the sense of the correct definition of abiogenesis, it is distinct. In the (incorrect) broader sense that this article proposes, it IS identical to origin of life or biopoiesis, etc. I would say move all the material that is identical to origin of life to origin of life and keep the material that relates only to the (correct) narrow definition under abiogenesis.Hubbardaie 14:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed extraneous links

I removed some extraneous links from the main article using the Wikipedia Manual of Style as a guideline. If you object, please don't simply revert the changes, but rather, comment in here which links should be re-added and give justifications. --Cyde 04:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Good Idea:--Wavesmikey 20:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hoyle and abiogenesis

Wouldn't be interesting to mention that Hoyle had his own idea of natural abiogenesis too, that it would occur in space?

His idea is briefly described here.

The article and what is gerenally said (and quotes) of Hoyle on the subject always gives the idea that he either supported a supernatural explanation or that life existed forever ago, without ever having an origin. As he defended steady-state it would be partly true anyway, life would have existed forever; but it would have had multiple, infinite, natural origins along the eternity.

_{Sorry if I made some sort of mess, I'm not familiar with participating in wikipedia discussions/editing....}

"proved" is not NPOV

This article frequently uses the word "proved" with respect to the history of the abiogenesis/spontaneous generation issue; this is somewhat problematic. For example, while Pasteur's arguments did indeed carry the day and convince the majority of the scientific community (and won him the prize set for the issue), there were some scientists who didn't consider it settled. In general, saying "proved" with regard to science is basically always somewhat of an exageration. Established or some other more neutral word should be substituted.--ragesoss 23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What about linking the word "proved" to an article that explain what is (and how it was, in earlier times) considered a scientific proof? I think that totally avoiding (except in math) this word wouldn't be NPOV, but a "extremely relativistic" POV. I think that a neutral point of view shouldn't try to make appear that the dispute is matched, by omission or extreme care in the expositon of facts, to not make seem that any side is the "loser". Other possibility (not mutually exclusive) is, in this case, add that there were some scientists who didn't consider it settled, along with their reasonings.--Extremophile 14:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I think this article is somewhat problematic. I've improving the version of the article in portuguese, and, during the research, I'm founding very interesting points that I think that should be in this article. I'm describing much more detailed the history of the debate about spontaneous generation, and to my surprise, the version I knew, which I think is the "classic", stereotypic version, is very simplistic, painting all in black and white whilst in the true history there was shades of grey. I've written a sketch and translated it to english, so it's there, just in case someone wants to add something to the article, it can give some ideas about what could be added, and even serve as a sketch to detail a bit more the historic part. --Extremophile 01:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Critics section

Schrödinger in fact said the complete opposite of what is claimed in this section. In fact he showed how life is compatible with the second law of thermodynamics. A quick look on http://www.hubertpyockey.com/ raised suspition that this may also be the case with Yockey. I therefore removed this section for now from the article. I will write up what Schrödinger says in What is life? tomorrow and I will also research the claims on Yockey. 82.135.0.9 02:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The claims on Yocky seem in general to be ok. So I will put them back on the article. 82.135.0.9 09:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Schrödinger

In 1944, physicist Erwin Schrödinger, in his book What is life?, asserted that the mechanism of genetics defies the laws of thermodynamics, since a relatively small number of molecules, which form the genetic material, have such a huge influence on so many other molecules. Although not direct criticism of abiogenesis, Schrödinger's book asserts that life can't be explained by the laws of physics, thus implying that it can't be created from lifeless matter.

Today, scientists believe that the distinction between large numbers and small numbers is eminently important to understand biological systems, because they are small number systems rather than the convenient large number systems that physicists prefer. What thermodynamics (which Schrödinger based his book on) describes as a random fluctuation is a signaling process to cell biology. Hormonal signals depend on the behavior of small systems, where fluctuations can push a system beyond a threshold level where a chemical reaction suddenly becomes spontaneous; as opposed to, say, a balloon filled with gas, where a fluctuation (for example, a change of speed) of a few hundreds of molecules will not change the state of the gas in the balloon as a whole (for example, it will not change its temperature). [1]

Yockey

Yockey's given a great deal of prominence here. But I've never heard of him. Is he really such a world-recognised authority? PiCo 13:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that he's notable only for being one of those people that Creatonists like to reference. Frankly, his ideas aren't particularly sound, and I've seen no evidence that they're taken seriously by others in his field. Alienus 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably because most people don't welcome holes being poked in their favorite theories. His work is sound enough for Cambridge University Press to publish his book. Suggest you read it. Yockey actually opposes Intelligent Design (but missunderstands it).DLH 13:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

To give some substance to Yockey, propose referring to his most important publication and citing his actual summary statements:

"Yockey extensively reviewed the scientific literature on the origin of life and concluded: “the status of research on the origin of life is still, Omne vivum ex vivo.” Yockey, Hubert P. (2005). Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-80293-8. {{cite book}}: Text "p148" ignored (help) "No code exists to send informtion from protein sequences to sequences in mRNA or DNA. Therefore, it is impossible that the origin of life was "proteins first" from Haeckel's Urschleim." From mathematics and information theory, Yockey holds that “the origin of the genetic code is unknowable” and “the process of the origin of life is possible but unknowable.”

---

DLH 13:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Where does this come from "The principles of Yockey's argument seem to be effective for a variety of creative disciplines, such as the writing of computer software, where FOSS seems to play the social role of an Intelligent Designer while traditional computer programming methods seem to take the role of traditional chemical evolution." (last in the Yockey section). I find it really wierd to write that. The only source I know of that refers to ID and evolution re FOSS is Linus Torvalds: "Linux is evolution, not intelligent design", a quote that has stuck. While some people disagree with this I don't. Either way I don't think that a comparison to FOSS should be done at all in this article. I removed it, it's not NPOV. -- JohanViklund 14:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Re-structuring article

I've tried to give the article more of a structure by concenrating on the science history acpect - the origin of life article doesn't need to be re-hashed here, and if this article is to justify its existence it needs a theme. I'll continue of otbher editors think this is going in the right direction (at the moemnt I've gotten as far as the Urey-Miller experiment in 1953, but a lot has happened since then). Any comments ? PiCo 11:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw that, but I've made a huge sketch that may be a source of information for the improvement of the article in this sense. I want to eventually add something about Spiegelman and the RNA monster, I think it hasn't yet, but I don't remember, it has some time since the last time I saw it. But one point I think that would be interesting to made was to deiconize Pasteur as the ultimate debunker of spontaneous generation, mentioning the oposition of Pouchet, and the works of Tyndall and maybe of Cohn too. I also think that the critics section may be almost entirely go away, part to the origin of life article, and part to panspermia article, or even articles of the respective persons mentioned, since the oposition made by proponents of panspermia could also be inserted in a hystorical context (as it is in the sketch). --Extremophile 17:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't find your sketch. I agree that this article has huge problems. The biggest is deciding what it's trying to be. I'm inclined at the moment to think it should be about the philosophical side of the question of abiogenesis - Aristotle said it was a self-evident truth, then Pasteur showed it wasn't, but he simultaneously showed that Darwin must be be wrong on theoretical grounds. Kelvin drew attention to a second theoretical obstacle to Darwin, the 2nd law. Miller and Urey (drawing on Oparin and Haldane) then demonstrated that the 2nd law is not an obstacle to the spontaneous emergence of complex from less complex systems. But I'm not sure where to go from there. Some mention should be made of information theory, which is simply a restatement of the 2nd law. I agree that the critics section should go - it's peurile. Not go to any other article, just go. Panspermia in this article I'm not sure about - it's an argument about the details of where life mayn have originated, not whether it could originate spontaneously from non-living matter, which is what I currently see this article as being about. Interesting that Kelvin believed in panspermia, as a possibility. Funny man, Kelvin - no great scientist has ever been so wrong so often. About Pasteur, I think we need to keep this article simple; the nuances of Pouchet et al should be kept for some other article. (Or am I oversimplifying this article?) I'm leaving Wiki now, won't be back, so up to you to do as you wish. PiCo 10:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Humm... sad that wiki losts collaborators... my sketch was here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Extremophile/Abiogenesis), anyway. I´m not so assured of my english writing abilities, so I will still just let it there as a reference or source for anyone who would be interested in doing that.

About what the article could be, I think that would be better to this one to be mainly hystorical, with the phylosophical/scientific details being dealt in more specific articles, with the hystorical part, if needed, in a more summarized way; I think that something in the way you´re saying could be in the history section of "origin of life", though. Then the Pasteur vs. Pouchet part of the history would be mentioned here in some extent, but I think it doesn´t even need to be mentioned somewhere else, for example, in the "origin of life" article. I also can´t think of somewhere else it would fit, nor where else it would be more appropriate, since I think it paints a less simplistic version of the history, without distortions such as Pasteur being the ultimate debunker of the idea of spontaneous generation, "the clear won of the hero, the platonically perfect icon of the scientific method against the pseudo-scientific crackpots with tendentious experiments".

I think that panspermia could be mentioned, but very briefly. In my sketch it is mentioned just twice, first at the "british debate" section:

William Thomson (later, Lord Kelvin), around 1871 theorized that the Earth was only about 100 000 000 years old (what later was shown to be wrong), and believed that it didn't left time enough for natural selection guided evolution. To avoid the problem of the origin of life, he suggested one theory of panspermia - the ida that the life was originally from space. Wilhelm Preyer, professor of University of Jena, also defended panspermia. To him, there was no logical problem with spontaneous generation happening in the present day, supposing it had happened once in the distant past; he thought that if that ever happened, would abound evidences of its occurrence, since it would still occur in the present day. He objected the idea that life could have arisen only under a highly different environment in the remote past, reasoning that life wouldn't survive such radical changes from the environment that originated it. He supposed then that the universe and life were eternal.

And later, when is stated that nowadays is known that the some of the chemistry needed for life somehow forms in space, then it increases the likelyhood of extraterrestrial life, and of panspermia, to Hoyle and others. For while this is on the last paragraph, and I don´t think it´s a very good ending of the article, but as I said, it´s just a sketch/second hand source.

I think that it´s interesting in the hystorical point of view, since it shows that various ideas were being presented, rather than the overtly simplified version of "spontaneous generation; spontaneous generation refuted; Oparin-Haldane abiogenesis stabilished". In fact there were some sort degree of overlap between the acception of the hypotheses, the changing of ideas were more gradual than how it´s usually depicted. And the hypotheses themselves were not always clear-cut distinguishable from each other. For example, without the present knowledge of microbiology, was not so easy to see how the primordial chemical origin of life could be so different than spontaneous generation happening in the present day. If the first ever happened, the latter probably could happen even today. Haeckel, and/or others, thought cells were just simple "protoplasm" inside a cellular wall, without something much complex within it, that took long to evolve. Also there were lesser known distinctions such as from life originating from organic matter and inorganic matter.

Perhaps the most interesting example of the oversimplification of the history as generally presented is that, second the historian John Farley, Pasteur believed that parasitical worms originated spontaneously, and also, that microbial life itself could be spontaneously generated, but he engaged against the defenses of that for political reasons and scientifical bias - his patrons were "pro-biogenesis", and he thought that only he was in the right track of discovering how life originated because of clues in his works with crystals.

--Extremophile 20:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the current Origins of Life article should be rehashed here. The Origins of Life article deals with the "current scientific thought," which is, as of now, abiogenesis. That could (theoretically) change, though; and if it does, the Origins of Life article would change to follow it. This page wouldn't change, though; being that it's not tied to "current scientific thought" -- and therin lies the difference between the articles. --DominionSeraph 01:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It makes some sense. However, "abiogenesis" is not a "absolute" synonym of how the origin of life is seen today, but the distinction with spontaneous generation was a blurred in the past. And etymologically, spontaneous generation is abiogenesis. I´m not arguing against it, anyway, as long as each article has some short introduction with links or even a real disambiguation, that should be okay in either way. --Extremophile 17:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems abound

"Pasteur had demonstrated that Aristotle was wrong. And he seemed to have demonstrated simultaneously that Charles Darwin was also wrong."

To whom did it seem that way?

I guess it all has to do with creationist sources on the reccent additions to this text. Aristotle was no longer the point, as there were more "recent" proponents of spontaneous generation; if Pasteur did demonstrated that Darwin was wrong, he did it in a very specific way, since it refers just to spontaneous generation, not to common ancestry or natural selection. And as far as I've read, Darwin did not said much on the subject, on contrary, he said something in the sense that was a field prolific to the obscurity of thought. --Extremophile 14:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Lord Kelvin was quite right: the second law prohibited the spontaneous emergence of life.

Or so, on theoretical principles, it would seem."

Again, seemed that way to whom?

Also, we have a categorical assertion that Kelvin was right; followed by a qualification; followed by another that puts it in the realm of mere perception.

Again, as far as I´ve read, Kelvin did not opposed a primordial abiogenesis per se, but rather that it occurred on Earth. He was an early proponent of a form of panspermia, in which life does not necessarily existed since forever ago. I do not know if that was his opinion, however, but as he asserted that there was no time for life arising on Earth, seems that he thought that it would be possible to happen in different conditions. I also think it had not much to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the sense that creationists (mis)use it today, but by reasoning that the planet was supposedly too hot nearby its formation, and that life appeared short after, or something in these lines. --Extremophile 14:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"The second law had been breached, or so it appeared."

Appeared that way to whom? --DominionSeraph 00:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes this article seems to have become a (more of a) mess due to recent additions - it needs a significant rewrite (by the way useful if you sign your comments). --Charlesknight 12:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have wondered if a previous version of the primordial soup section was not copied verbatim from some unnamed source. Dan Watts 18:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that a more or less recent version of this article incorporated much of an old article from Britannica, which was already in public domain. --Extremophile 18:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to step up to the plate to fix this article. --Percy

I swear, everytime I see Entropy used as an argument against Spontaneous Generation my nervous twitch gets worse. Entropy deals specifically with an increase in disorder in a CLOSED SYSTEM. The earth, being constantly bombarded by solar energy, is NOT a closed system. Ergo -- Lord Kelvin's comments are in error. Isn't there already a WP article covering this? Elecmahm (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Improving the abiogenesis article

We're trying to coordinate improvements to the abiogenesis article at Wikipedia, I'm trying to gather interested parties at:

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1358&m=1

--Percy

On the "racemized" comment

I found two places in the "primordial soup" hypothesis where the wording made it look like "racemized" somehow meant that a racemic mix is somehow not really a precursor of life. A completely racemized mixture can definitely be said to have an abiotic origin. The experiment was designed with abiotic origin, so this is expected. However, the racemic character has no bearing on what the mixture could become. "Racemic" means only that both L and R isomers are present in the mixture. Most known proteins are L isomers, thus, the necessary precursors were present.[2] Therefore, the "but racemized" doesn't really illuminate anything. So I worded it in a way that made it not sound like a contradictory outcome.

Primordial Soup

One of the changes I made while cleaning this section up I'm not entirely sure about the consistency from before and after the chances.

I changed: "These droplets could then "grow" by fusion with other droplets, "reproduce" through fission into daughter droplets, and so have a primitive metabolism in which those factors which promote "cell integrity" survive, and those that don't become extinct."

To the current text: "These droplets could then fuse with other droplets and break apart into two replicas of the original. This could be viewed as a primitive form of reproduction and metabolism. Favorable attributes such as increased durability in the structure would survive more often than nonfavorable attributes."

Is the modification at least as accurate as the original? I think it is, but can't say for sure. GromXXVII 01:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

bringing up justification for article's existance again

I see that there has been discussion before about just why this article needs to exist, but discussion seems to have died out without reaching a conclusion. Whatever the philosophical justification for this article existing, in practice it looks to me like every part of it duplicates some other Wikipedia article except the part about spontaneous generation. I suggest we rename this article "spontaneous generation" (which already redirects to here), and remove all the other parts of the article. --Allen 02:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and then I suggest we redirect "Abiogenesis" to Origin of life. --Allen 02:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough, but as a historica philosohical belieft it should stay. Enlil Ninlil 05:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Enlil Ninlil, but could you elaborate? Are you saying no action should be taken, or some of the article should be removed? --Allen 18:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Origin of life is a broader term: I'd think it a bad idea to load that article with the task of throughly handling abiogenesis as well. Spontaneous generation is even more specific. This article is small enough right now that it can have an entire section on Spontaneous generation. I'd say the pieces about the actual theories of it; as well as an intro piece about what it is conceptually should be expanded: but not removing the article completely. GromXXVII 10:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

But exactly how is "origin of life" broader? It seems to me that "origin of life" potentially encompasses three areas: religious explanations, abiogenesis, and scientific hypotheses involving life having always existed. The origin of life article specifically excludes religious explanations (per the disambig line at the top), and I'm not aware of any scientific hypotheses involving life having always existed. So what is the task of origin of life, if not to thoroughly handle abiogenesis? --Allen 18:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Origin of life page is better than this one. I can't see much which is worthwhile in this article. Redirect to Origin of life looks like a good plan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.24.144 (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Spontaneous Generation

The section states "Pasteur's experiments were limited to a closed sterile system." Is the pre-biotic earth also defined to be sterile? Dan Watts 20:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Does sterile also mean free from materials needed? Perhaps sterile might not be the best word choice since it usually means free from microbes, but limited may be better defined since it's such a small system and pre-biotic earth would have the whole planet or resources even if it just needs the right conditions. If life needed just the right settings,

I'm finding the sentence as inaccurate:

Pasteur had demonstrated that Spontaneous Generation was wrong, and he also seemed to have demonstrated that any concept involving the generation of living matter from non-living matter was also wrong.

Pasteur showed that in a contained material not even microbes, they could detect at the time were undetected. This isn't conclusive that any form of spontaneous generation. Is it just me or is this whole page one of those POV forks? --Tsinoyboi 07:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Correction to the second law of thermodynamics section

I corrected some physically incorrect statements in that section. For details, see the articles about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. Dan Gluck 21:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the statement that work consumes energy.--RobinGrant 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Information entropy

Removed the following unsourced bit from article:

However what the law does imply is that the information (in a sense the opposite of entropy) contained in life had to exist from the very beginning of the universe, since the information content of an isolated system only decreases over time.

Seems it needs sourcing at the very least. Vsmith 01:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

hypothesis rather than theory

How can we expect non-scientists to understand what the word 'theory' means, if we misuse it in an encyclopedia article?

I am replacing "theory" with something else, usually "hypothesis". If I am completely wrong and abiogenesis is indeed well-proven and accepted, feel free to revert.

Trishm 03:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Clay Hypothesis

"Clays can also include other atoms and molecules in their structures, and would have evolved including more and more complex structures..." Is this what Cairns-Smith meant? Dan Watts 14:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove clay hypothesis?

What's the division of labour between this article and Origin of life? If it is as I understand it, then it's appropriate that clay hypothesis is covered there (as it is) but it doesn't have a place here any more than any of the other theories over on the other page. — ciphergoth 11:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization and creationist bias

In a scientific context, I would consider origin of life and abiogenesis to be synonymous. On wikipedia, what is the intended distinction between the two?

Relatedly, much of the content of this particular article is in gross violation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Most egregiously, the external "criticism" links to trueorigin.org fail the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources criteria, so I have removed them.

Perhaps we should consider a cross-topic reorganization:

• what topics do we want to cover?
• what are the current related terms?
• how do we want to associate the covered topics with those terms?

--manifolds 09:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I also believed that abiogenesis is a creationist POV since it is usually the strawman argument used by creationists. However, I can see how the article would be valid if, as the article claims, the word "abiogenesis" is now used in a broaders sense (the eventual spontaneous generation of any life) than it was originally used (the spontaneous generation of relatively evolved, complex life, even mice). If this is really not true (I did not investigate it, myself) then the entire article is flawed. If so, then the article about abiogenesis should just be about 1) the orginal use of the term and 2) the use of it as a strawman argument in creationism. Its a strawman argument because a creationist will often say that "abiogenesis has been disproven, therefore evolutionary theory has been disproven" when, actually, the original concept of abiogenesis was absolutely nothing like the modern theory of evolution.Hubbardaie 12:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with this, assuming I understand things correctly (which I very well may not). Abiogenesis was, originally, the idea of organisms springing forth from inorganic material, dealing principally with macroscopic organic systems. The modern theory of evolution follows the same, albiet a more complex, ideological path. It might be said that this is a gross oversimplification, but it's the idea of 'this thing which is alive' developing from 'that thing which is not alive' that causes the analogy. And it appears, at least on a conceptual basis, to be valid. J. David Sargent (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Theory vs. Hypothesis

The issue of theory vs. hypothesis is characterized incorrectly in the lead. A theory need not be "accepted" to become a theory. If we don't want to characterize abiogenesis as a theory, it should be because the loose collection of hypotheses are not sufficiently structured to deserve "theory." For reference, here is the Merriam Webster definition: "5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>." Gnixon 14:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

fixed this. Gnixon 22:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

The "2nd law" section could use some work on NPOV tone. Currently the article presents the (flawed, weak, etc.) 2nd law argument against abiogenesis, then explains how it is "refuted." Instead of giving the refutation directly, we should quote it from a reliable source and say something like "Joe Bob has countered that [... (quote)]" or "However, the argument seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the 2nd law. Joe Bob, a [biologist/physicist/other qualification], has pointed out that [... (quote)]." Gnixon 15:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

fixed this. Gnixon 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thermo

User:Hubbardaie objected to me cutting the following from a section on "2nd law" challenges to theories of abiogenesis:

Furthermore, the concept of entropy in thermodynamics is not identical to the common notion of "disorder". For example, a thermodynamically closed system of certain solutions will eventually transform from a cloudy liquid to a clear solution containing large "orderly" crystals. Most people would characterize the former state as having "more disorder" than the latter state. However, in a purely thermodynamic sense, the entropy has increased in this system, not decreased. The units of measure of entropy in thermodynamics are "units of energy per unit of temperature". Whether a human perceives one state of a system as "more orderly" than another has no bearing on the calculation of this quantity. The common notion that entropy in thermodynamics is equivalent to a popular conception of "disorder" has caused many non-physicists to completely misinterpret what the second law of thermodynamics is really about.

There are two problems with the material:

• (1) It doesn't obviously pertain to Pullen's "challenge" since he is never described as using the "disorder" interpretation of entropy---rather it simply says he believes entropy is violated;
• (2) Even if that interpretation is the basis of his objection, this article isn't the place for a lecture on thermo. The attributed source Rosenhouse has said there is no violation of entropy. If readers need more information on why entropy isn't violated, they should read Rosenhouse or the entropy article.

The material above does not pertain specifically to abiogenesis, and since the reference to Rosenhouse covers that he doesn't see a violation of entropy, the material amounts to a long digression on thermodynamics (longer than the direct discussion of the relevant issue it's trying to clarify) Gnixon 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for explaining your position. Here are my responses:

(1) I might concede that it "doesn't obviously pertain" since Pullen never explicitly uses the word "disorder". This is because it doesn't explain why Pullen thinks the 2nd law is violated by abiogenesis. However, Pullen must necessarilly, like all who make this claim, be presuming that "entropy" means "lack of order or complexity". Otherwise he has no objection. He is certainly not showing a calculation that shows that a system with mammals, for example, actually has more entropy in units of "joules/kelvin" (the actual physical units of entropy in thermo). I've assumed nothing more about Pullen's argument than that he must be using the common layman's defintion of entropy that everyone who ever makes that argument uses. I think one sentence would suffice to make my point obviously pertain to Pullen's objection. Perhaps I should have said "Pullen's argument implicitly presumes a common non-technical definition of entropy as 'disorder' or, by extention, 'lack of complexity', not the identical use of the term by physcists".

(2) I could concede this point with the qualifier that if this response is not appropriate here, then neither would the Roundhouse argument. I would say they both go or both stay, although both could be edited down. If anything, I see the point I make as even more fundamental than what Roundhouse is saying. This addresses the same error as irrational numbers or imaginary numbers are irrational or imaginary in the common use of these terms. Or that quarks have "flavor" or "color" in the same sense as those words are used to describe food or wallpaper. They just aren't talking about the same thing and the use of such terms by physicists have caused untold confusion and irrational (in the non-numerical sense) claims in the general public.

I agree that the argument is probably redundant here. Both points - Roundhouse's response and the one I made - could be just breifly mentioned in a single sentence and moved under a topic heading more specific to these points. Even as I wrote the section user:ConfuciusOrnis refered to, I felt it was probably redundant with points made elsewhere. Perhaps the entire section could simply be replaced with links to another article with the sentence "This position has been refuted by those who point out that 1) Earth is not a thermodynamically closed system and 2) that "entropy" in thermodynamics has little to do with popular notions of disorder or lack of complexity." Each point in this statement would link to the article on creationism, evolution, thermodynamics, or whatever.Hubbardaie 11:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with someone else. ornis 11:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I meant Gnixon....Hubbardaie 14:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree things should be trimmed. Regarding (1), your proposed rephrasing would solve the logic, but assuming Pullen means something that he hasn't said explicitly constitutes WP:OR. Again, for complying with WP:NPOV, it's okay to say that Rosenhouse says the guy is wrong, but not okay for Wikipedia to explain why he is wrong. Likewise, it's not okay for us to say Rosenhouse has "refuted" the guy, because that also takes the side that Rosenhouse is right and the other guy is wrong. It should be entirely sufficient to quote Rosenhouse saying the guy is wrong, and count on our readers to decide who is more reliable. Moreover, it's our policy to do so. I totally understand how tempting it is to simply adopt the POV of the guy who's "obviously" right, but we have to stick to the letter of the WP:NPOV law here. By the way, I think it would be quite useful to link to some article that describes the common "disorder" misconception, as long as we can mention it in a neutral way. Gnixon 06:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

yes this article is a mishmash, i too suggest rewriting it solely as spontaneous generation

the origin of life wiki looks like a nice review of the topic of abiogenesis that is hypotheses on how the early biogeochemical earth could have produced (or can) life. this wiki: abiogenesis has a good description of spontaneous generation, but everything else in it is kind of muddled. The origin of life wiki also does a good job of discussing Oparin, Miller, and Urey. so all in all i don't think there is much more than spontaneous gen that is special to this article.

the paragraphs on criticisms to abiogenesis are not in the origin of life wiki. that's true. Perhaps as with the Objections to evolution wiki there should be a separate wiki for criticisms of abiogenesis.

furthermore the opening paragraph does not realy make it clear what this wiki is precisely about.Wikiskimmer 23:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I also don't know why there have to be two articles, 'abiogenesis' and 'origin of life', if abiogenesis is understood in the modern sense of 'life from non-life', not the Aristotelan 'mice from garbage'. Modern abiogenesis is per definition 'life from non-life' and thus 'origin of life'. Many paragraphs could just be duplicated. Thus this article here might just recapitulate the history of the concept. Modern abiogenesis hypotheses then should redirect to 'origin of life'.

I would be very much against a separate article 'objections to abiogenesis'. Normally, criticism is part of the main article. If not, it would open a whole can of worms. Northfox 13:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I find no evidence that there is this "modern sense" of the term abiogenesis. When I search on dictionary.com, I find definitions from six sources, none of which show a more general modern usage and all of which use the aristitilian sense. The dictionary.com definition is "the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation". Every other definition listed refers specifically to organisms spontaneously arising from non-living matter and none show any broader use of the term as "life from non-life". The key word in every case was "organism", no just "life". In the Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary (perhaps more authoritative on this than general dictionaries) defines organism as "an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being". It is only this type of life that abiogenesis ever refered to. Furthermore, since abiogenesis was concevied before the invention of the microscope, it clearly refered to macroscopic life forms. It also apparently refered to a process which was extremely fast compared to the processes described in modern evolutionary science. If someone cannot show that abiogenesis is used authoritatively to mean the broadest possible sense of any life at all eventually forming from non-living matter (and not simply be creationists using the strawman) then that assumed definition should be deleted.Hubbardaie 14:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article is focusing on the concept of abiogenesis, rather than the 19th century scientific theory. And the current theory of evolution appears to advocate abiogenesis, but through intermediary steps.

From Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary:

abio·gen·e·sis (A-"bI-O-'jen-&-s&s)
n.
the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter called 
also spontaneous generation

From American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary

or·gan·ism (ôrg-nzm)
n. 
an individual form of life, such as a plant, an animal, a bacterium, a protist, or a fungus; 
a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the 
various processes of life 

I hope those definitions, when used in conjunction, are enough to convice of the plausibility of using the term "abiogenesis" to describe what is advocated by evolution; or, perhaps, to reclassify what is advocated by the theory of evolution under the term "abiogenesis."

Interesting etymological note:

Abiogenesis: a - without or against; bio - life; genesis - beginning 

One could argue that this term, regardless of previous associations, could be used to refer to any concept in which something alive comes from something not alive, based purely on its etymology. J. David Sargent (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Returning to the original post, is it fair to summarize that User:Wikiskimmer would like a Merge of the article with Origin of life? I note that Spontaneous generation currently redirects there. I think that merge would be a good idea. Gnixon 06:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've placed the "mergeto" and "mergefrom" tags on this article and Origin of Life, proposing this one is merged into that one. Gnixon 06:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

primordial sea vs primeval soup

Orangemarlin Confucius Ornis reverted a couple of time my edits. Primordial sea (or the redirect of primordial soup), refers to the hypothetical state of an ocean that already contains life. My change was not about soup or sea, but about the different meaning of primordial and primeval. Thus I think primeval soup would be better. Am I right? Northfox 13:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't thought about definitions, but "primordial" is definitely the term generally used in this context. Gnixon 20:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Then the original primordial sea article has to be amended. Even though wiki is not a primary source, the articles should at least be consistent. Oceans not containing life, oceans containing single cellular life, and only oceans (and not solid land) containing life are described by the single term primordial in different wiki articles. That's confusing. Northfox 00:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hoyle is misplaced here

This article continues to confuse the Aristotilian theory of abiogenesis with the modern theory of evolution. Evidence of this again is in the section that stated (I changed it) that Hoyle's point about panspermia was to reject abiogenesis and chemical evolution. Actually, all scientists at Hoyle's time and today rejected abiogenesis (the spontaneous formation of complex organisms). As I and other's have tried to make clear, the modern theory of evolution is not the same as Aristotle's abiogenesis. Furthermore, Hoyle did not specifically reject chemical evolution, as the article claims. His alternative theory of panspermia still depends on "chemical evolution" but argues that it must have taken a longer period of time than the age of the Earth (or at least longer than the period of time when Earth is inhabitable) and, therefore, argues that chemical evolution happened on other planets first.

But, as is widely understood now, Hoyle made two critical flaws in his calculation. Effectively, Hoyle computed the likelihood of the DNA of an entire complex organism (e.g. humans) in a single instance. However, this mischaracterized the nature of evolutionary theory. First, he ignored the number of "trials" of the individually unlikely event. For example, a one-in-a-trillion chance event will most likely eventually occur if there are 100 trillion trials. Each gram of water containing certain protiens in all the oceans on all the planets in all the galaxies for every second of billions of years is a "trial". Also, modern evolutionary theory does not assume that complex orgamisms formed in one improbable DNA combination. Instead, they argue, the initial random event only need to produce the first (and much simpler) self-replicating and mutating molecule. After that, future forms of greater complexity become much more likely.

Abiogenesis is not synonymous with evolution, as many creationists claim. It is an attempt to say that "Here is another, more primative theory, that has been discounted. It sounds sort of like evolution. Therefore evolution was discounted and every argument against abiogenesis is an argument against any kind of evolution." Abiogenesis said nothing about evolution and evolution says nothing about abiogenesis. The original abiogensis proposition did not say anything about the spontaneously forming maggots, for example, continuing to evolve. It was a one-time, one-generation, leap from inanimate matter (skipping past generations of self-replicating molecules, bacterium, and symbiotic colonies) to organisms with differentiated organs. And abiogenesis was never described as a process that takes millions of years, but weeks or even days. Evolution is a process of slow change from one generation to the next over millions of years.

There is still a strong creationist agenda in much of this article. Its time to clean it up and clarify the topic.Hubbardaie 14:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted "Peanut Butter Counterproof"

The section and its source misrepresented evolution as abiogenesis. Furthermore, the video which the section linked to is provided by a YouTube user who calls the views in the video a "misunderstanding of evolution" and therefore is not a reliable source. Given the source and the title of the section (which is not used in the source), it seems as if the section was included to satirise the creationist viewpoint rather than provide serious criticism.
Fluffy654 17:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Source

I'm not sure about http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/ It really looks like a homemade website. I'm unable to find any information about who owns or created the sites, what organizations they're involved with, or what authority they have to speak to the subjects. It doesn't look scientific at all, even compared to something like Talk Origins. --Vital Forces 02:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and removed. Seems to have been a site promoting an ID book for sale. Site states: Copyright Intelligent Design Books. Vsmith 02:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Merged from Origin of life

Per consensus on Talk:Origin of life I have made an effort to ensure that useful information from the previous revision of Abiogenesis was merged into the much more detailed Origin of life article, which I then moved and redirected here. If anyone thinks some good stuff got left behind, please feel free to either post it here with your thoughts, or be bold and at it directly. Cheers ⟳ausa کui ^× 14:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the pre-scientific theories of abiogenesis (the ones present in "spontaneous generation" in the pre-merge) should still be included, but they were unsourced originally, and I have no sources for it now (shouldn't be in without a source). Someguy1221 (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll put that here so they don't get lost in the history GromXXVII (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

two sections are now lost in the new article, the one below and the Primordial soup, I think they should be restored. V8rik (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

restored Spontaneous generation . On second thought the Primordial soup section is already covered so no need to restore that bit V8rik (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this section is entirely unsourced. It really should have been sourced before its reintroduction into mainspace, per WP:V. I will template it in the meantime, but if it cannot be sourced quickly it will be liable for removal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A better option is to use fact tags to target controversial material see Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. Also validation and citation belongs in the specialist pages for example for Girolamo Fracastoro's views it see that article. There is really no point having the same citations in several articles at the same time. Also there is no point in using italics for the word quickly because there is no time limit. V8rik (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fracastoro appears to be the exception rather than the rule in terms of the "specialist pages" confirming this section's contents. Further, "all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source" (per WP:V) and the Alexander Ross quote is uncited. Also per WP:V, "[t]he burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would further point out that Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines applies to statements of (modern) scientific fact, not to the viewpoints (often rejected by modern science) of historical scientists and proto-scientists, as is the case in the section under contention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Spontaneous generation

Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat.

According to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, alligators and crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so forth. In the 17th century such assumptions started to be questioned; such as that by Sir Thomas Browne in his Pseudodoxia Epidemica, subtitled Enquiries into Very many Received Tenets, and Commonly Presumed Truths, of 1646, an attack on false beliefs and "vulgar errors." His conclusions were not widely accepted, e.g. his contemporary, Alexander Ross wrote: "To question this (i.e., spontaneous generation) is to question reason, sense and experience. If he doubts of this let him go to Egypt, and there he will find the fields swarming with mice, begot of the mud of Nylus, to the great calamity of the inhabitants."

In 1546 the physician Girolamo Fracastoro theorized that epidemic diseases were caused by tiny, invisible particles or "spores", which might not be living creatures, but this was not widely accepted. Next, Robert Hooke published the first drawings of a microorganism in 1665. He is also credited for naming the cell which he discovered while observing cork samples.

Then in 1676 Anthony van Leeuwenhoek discovered microorganisms that, based on his drawings and descriptions are thought to have been protozoa and bacteria. This sparked a renewal in interest in the microscopic world.

The first step was taken by the Italian Francesco Redi, who, in 1688, proved that no maggots appeared in meat when flies were prevented from laying eggs. From the seventeenth century onwards it was gradually shown that, at least in the case of all the higher and readily visible organisms, the previous sentiment regarding spontaneous generation was false. The alternative seemed to be omne vivum ex ovo: that every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing (literally, from an egg).

In 1768 Lazzaro Spallanzani proved that microbes came from the air, and could be killed by boiling. Yet it was not until 1861 that Louis Pasteur performed a series of careful experiments which proved that organisms such as bacteria and fungi do not appear in nutrient rich media of their own accord in non-living material, and which supported cell theory.

Primordial soup

From 1860 onwards Charles Darwin maintained in On the Origin of Species that "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one", but in a private letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker in 1863 he regretted using the term of creation, "by which I really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." In 1871 he wrote "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

In 1936 Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, in his "The Origin of Life on Earth", suggested that organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere, through the action of sunlight. These molecules, he suggested, combine in ever-more complex fashion until they are dissolved into a coacervate droplet. These droplets could then fuse with other droplets and break apart into two replicas of the original. This could be viewed as a primitive form of reproduction and metabolism. Favorable attributes such as increased durability in the structure would survive more often than nonfavorable attributes.

Around the same time J. B. S. Haldane suggested that the earth's pre-biotic oceans - very different from their modern counterparts - would have formed a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds, the building blocks of life, could have formed. This idea was called biopoiesis or biopoesis, the process of living matter evolving from self-replicating but nonliving molecules.

In 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemist Stanley L. Miller working under Harold C. Urey carried out the famous Miller-Urey experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks a racemic mixture, containing 13 of the 21 amino acids used to synthesize proteins in cells, had formed from the highly reduced mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life, they demonstrated that more complex molecules could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals. The environment simulated atmospheric conditions as the researchers understood them to have been on the primeval earth, including an external energy source in the form of a spark, representing lightning, and an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen. Since that time there have been other experiments that continue to look into possible ways for life to have formed from non-living chemicals, e.g. the experiments conducted by Joan Oró in 1961. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GromXXVII (talk • contribs) 18:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Section removed

The following material was removed by User:ScienceApologist originally on an ad hominem argument despite one of the authors having a Ph.D. in Chemistry and when who was making the argument was removed as original research. It was removed by User:Orangemarlin when the authors were readded with Fazale Rana who has a Ph.D. in Chemistry.--Jorfer (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The section below is being worked on and is thus not the original version: --Jorfer (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis of nucleotide bases

In Hugh Ross' and Fazale Rana's book Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off, Hugh Ross points out research from the Journal Nature and the National Academy of Sciencesthat he claims hurt the argument for the formation of nucleotide bases in a primordial soup. The National Academy of Sciences research shows the ingredients adenine and guanine require freezing conditions to synthesize, but cytosine and uracil require boiling temperatures. In order for all of them to synthesize at once requires the primordial soup to freeze and boil at the same time. This however goes against current models of the early earth. --Jorfer (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Has references for entire talk page:

Response

These are creationists. Creationists are not reliable sources for mainstream science. See WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:REDFLAG. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on this new information the argument can easily be made that abiogenesis is unscientific, and thus your mainstream argument is not pertinent to this discussion. --BETA 04:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you choose to take this one book from a creationist and believe it cancels out everything else, what you said is true. What a groundbreaking book! It had to have been #1 the world over. Too bad it wasn't and OEC criticism is not warranted. The policies apply. You better re-read them first though. And new comments are supposed to go at the bottom. Baegis (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Using a noted OEC and his criticisms about a topic he already does not believe in is highly suspect. The information would be much more useful in the OEC article. I see that SA has already weighed in on words to this effect. Baegis (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Another source

Problems with formation of nucleotide basis are well known:

• http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=20907

--Jorfer (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't indicate any problem to me. It's more of a parameterization with how life had its beginnings. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Typical misreading of the article. Sounds like an interesting theory on how life may exist on a frozen world. Might be useful for outer planet studies. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Presupposing that the current frozen state has been a constant since the planet, planetoid or moon developed. Then there's Europa. Not that the link belongs in any of those articles either. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I need to thank the Creationist for pointing me to a great article about formation of life. What if life developed on Europa too? Creationists will have massive coronaries everywhere. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

100°C, the growth temperatures of the hyperthermophiles, the half-lives are too short to allow for the adequate accumulation of these compounds (t1/2 for A and G ≈ 1 yr; U = 12 yr; C = 19 days). Therefore, unless the origin of life took place extremely rapidly (<100 yr), we conclude that a high-temperature origin of life may be possible, but it cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine, or cytosine. The rates of hydrolysis at 100°C also suggest that an ocean-boiling asteroid impact would reset the prebiotic clock, requiring prebiotic synthetic processes to begin again.

We show here that the rapid rates of hydrolysis of the nucleobases A, U, G, C, and T at temperatures much above 0°C would present a major problem in the accumulation of these presumed essential compounds on the early Earth.

At 350°C, the half-lives for hydrolysis are between 2 and 15 sec, and at 250°C they are between 1 and 35 min. These rates are so fast that it would be impossible for these compounds to accumulate to significant levels, making a heterotrophic origin of life at these temperatures highly unlikely.

At 100°C the half-lives for the decomposition of the nucleobases are still very short. The half-life for A is 1 yr, G is 0.8 yr, U is 12 yr, and T is 56 yr. C is shortest of all with a half-life of only 19 days. Therefore unless these compounds were used immediately after their synthesis, an origin of life at ≈100°C is also unlikely.

Even at 25°C, the rate of hydrolysis of the compounds are fast on the geologic time scale. The half-lives for A and G are ≈10,000 yr, whereas that of C is only 340 yr.

At 0°C, the half-life of A is 6 × 105 yr, G is 1.3 × 106 yr, U is 3.8 × 108 yr, and T is 20 × 108 yr. These rates are comparable to the present rate of destruction of organic matter in sea water as it passes through the hydrothermal vents every 107 yr (29). This has been cited as a major limiting factor in the build-up of organic molecules on the early Earth (30, 31), and suggests that at 0°C, A, G, U, and T are sufficiently stable for a low-temperature origin of life. The case for C, however, is different, and is discussed below.

We are not suggesting that short-term, high-temperature processes (≈100°C) such as those that may have occurred in lagoons or on drying beaches did not play a role in the origin of life, but that the temperature of most of the Earth could not have been much above 0°C. However, even small portions of the Earth at high temperatures can lead to the rapid overall decomposition of organic compounds. For example, if 5% of the ocean is at 100°C and the remainder at 0°C, then assuming rapid mixing, the overall half-life for the decomposition of A will be ≈20 yr instead of the ≈106 yr at 0°C.

In one scenario, organic compounds would be stored at low temperatures (e.g., 0°C) and may be brought into higher (≈100°C) temperature regions (i.e., hot rocks, drying lagoons, low-temperature hydrothermal vents) for brief periods of time (<10 yr). Areas of extreme temperature, such as the hydrothermal vents (350°C), may be excluded from this view because of the very rapid rate of decomposition at these temperatures.

Most atmospheric models generally predict a warm early Earth with high levels of CO2 or other greenhouse gases. In the absence of greenhouse warming, however, the Earth’s oceans would have been frozen because of a 30% less luminous sun (62). Our kinetic data on the stability of the nucleobases indicate that a cold or frozen early Earth would be more favorable for the accumulation of the nucleobases and therefore for the origin of life. An early frozen Earth may have been melted numerous times as a result of a large meteor or comet impacts (63). However, very large impactors could boil the Earth’s oceans. The rates of hydrolysis at 100°C, for all of the nucleobases measured, suggest that an ocean-boiling impact event would completely decompose the nucleobases in addition to a number of other biologically important compounds. This would require the whole prebiotic process to begin again. Ocean-boiling impacts therefore are more damaging to prebiotic chemistry than to an early biosphere (64–66), where the survival of a single organism (e.g., in a crustal environment) would be sufficient to reestablish the entire ecosystem.

Other stability problems also point to a low-temperature origin of life and early evolution in the pre-RNA and RNA world. These include the stability of ribose (67), the decomposition of nucleosides (28, 68), and the hydrolysis of the phosphodiester bonds of RNA (23). Similar stability considerations would apply to any alternative pre-RNA backbone, e.g., peptide nucleic acids. All of these factors point to a low-temperature accumulation of organic compounds on the primitive Earth and a low-temperature origin of life. Therefore, atmospheric models suggesting a cool early Earth (≈ 0°C) rather than a warm one (12, 13) need to be considered.

I don't know what article you are reading, but it is definitely not this one. This does not seem to indicate a primordial soup on the earth at all. It is more like a primordial block. You can read whatever you want. It is pretty clear that Matthew Levy and Stanley L. Miller give a harsh blow to abiogenesis occuring on this planet. Now you can believe in miracles all you want, but since miracles are not scientific, I guess we can't include them on a scientific article (not that I think that the abiogenesis material be removed, but that I felt like using irony as a rhetorical effect).--Jorfer (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

They are stating that the Earth may have had to be colder than originally supposed. Don't intentionally misinterpret articles, it's not becoming. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand why you're jumping on this article. Creationists have jumped on this article as a proof against a chemical beginning of life. Sorry, but Levy and Miller (who's now dead, I believe) are scientists that are trying to determine how Abiogenesis occurred, they aren't trying to disprove it. Typical of all scientific theories, one proposal is made, then another, then testing, then an adjustment to the theory. I know you Creationists don't understand that, because Creationism is anti-science, but in fact, these two are refining how Abiogenesis started. First, they have determined a hot earth would not have allowed RNA to form, but they propose alternatives to RNA that was discarded by evolution. Or they theorize the earth could have been cold at that time, allowing for RNA to form. Jorfer, you need to quit being so tendentious. It's unbecoming. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

JEF writes, "It is pretty clear that Matthew Levy and Stanley L. Miller give a harsh blow to abiogenesis occuring on this planet." This grossly misrepresents the article. Please stop it. First, it is clear that Levy and Miller consider abiogenesis to be reasonably feasible under cold conditions. If you want to disagree with them, fine, but I submit that they're in a much better position to assess the implications of their own article and research than you are. But the root problem with your misrepresentation is that at best, the paragraphs you quoted indicate potential problems for the "RNA-first" scenario of abiogenesis, which indeed requires prebiotic synthesis of the components of RNA. However, if you had bothered to read the Abiogenesis article you're attempting to edit, you couldn't possibly have remained unaware of the fact that the "RNA-first" scenario is only one of many competing abiogenesis scenarios, and isn't even the totality of the many variations on the "RNA-world" scenarios. As such, you are being entirely out of line by claiming that this paper "gives a harsh blow to abiogenesis occuring on this planet", as if it somehow poses an insoluble stumper for ALL abiogenesis scenarios, when it most certainly does not, and you are even further out of line to snottily dismiss consideration of abiogenesis as being akin to "believing in miracles", when there is much evidence indicating that it did take place, even if many of the details of exactly how it took place are still unclear. --Ichneumon (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I was simply responding tit for tat to your lightly veiled ad hominem attack "Actually, I need to thank the Creationist for pointing me to a great article about formation of life. What if life developed on Europa too? Creationists will have massive coronaries everywhere." I guess only when I respond to you in the same way you respond to me it is WP:TEND. Since Stanley Miller's research is a critical part of this article, then there is a lack of a good reason not to at least include his own criticism of the idea of a primordial soup producing life. Preferrably the criticisms in the section I attempted to add will be included, but if not then at least this criticism on the accumulation of such material in the environment currently favored by scientists to produce life in order should be to conform with WP:NPOV. You say "Sorry, but Levy and Miller (who's now dead, I believe) are scientists that are trying to determine how Abiogenesis occurred, they aren't trying to disprove it.", but they do criticize the currently accepted ideas on abiogenesis in the article even if they believe in abiogenesis in general. Rather than the three of you being honest and straightforward about what the article says, you choose to spin in to make it fit confortably with what you believe and use it to attack an editor with jest. This article not just indicates "the Earth may have had to be colder than originally supposed." but necessitates freezing conditions under any realistic widely recognized chemical pathways scenario.--Jorfer (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the Levy and Miller source. There is something wrong with claiming it represents a "problem" for abiogenesis. It is a parametrization, nothing more. By the way, it is pretty much assumed that not all bases were present in the first lifeform. One of the ways we know this is true is because Uracil is found in RNA and not DNA. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So because of the replacement of a hydrogen with a methyl group in a nucleobase for DNA, it is fair to conclude that the predecessors to modern RNA had very different chemical properties than the current nucleobases?--Jorfer (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

JEF writes, "[Miller's] own criticism of the idea of a primordial soup producing life." Again, Miller's article wasn't even criticism, it was an analysis of some particular scenarios, to determine which conditions would be more or less favorable to only those scenarios, it wasn't a critique or analysis of *all* possible ways by which one might consider "the idea of a primordial soup producing life". Again, read the Wikipedia article itself. Since you seem to be quite unclear on this, let me explain in more detail -- prebiotic synthesis of the components of RNA is only a requirement for abiogenesis scenarios in which RNA itself is the *first* "living thing" to arise. That was a reasonable scenario to explore, but for reasons given in the Wikipedia article itself as well as several references discussed in this Talk page, upon analysis that scenario seems rather unlikely. HOWEVER, and this is the point you don't seem to be grasping, that is hardly the same as saying that the apparent difficulty of RNA components forming "spontaneously" somehow rules out abiogenesis, period, as you keep trying to imply. The reason is that many other possibilities are still open, including ones with an RNA-world as a *later* stage, after a different "easier" biotic system (of a non-RNA type) was the first to arise, evolve further, and eventually produce the necessary components of RNA via *biosynthesis*, not *prebiotic* synthesis (the latter being the *only* kind examined in the Miller paper and other papers cited in this current discussion). There are vast numbers of other abiogenesis possibilities to explore by which life as we currently know it could "bootstrap" itself from much humbler beginnings, most of which do *not* rely upon the need for prebiotic synthesis of RNA precursors, and nothing presented or cited here has done anything to put any kind of silver bullet through all of them at once, sorry. Finally, even though the "RNA-first" scenario is looking pretty unlikely at the moment, even there you are overstating the finality of papers like Miller's -- all they can do is observe that no currently envisioned conditions would be suitable for prebiotic RNA synthesis. What they can't do is rule out the possibility that we may eventually realize some not yet considered set of local conditions on the early Earth which might have unexpectedly produced near ideal conditions for RNA formation. True, that's not the prudent way to bet at this moment, but the point is that organic chemistry is complex enough that no one's in a position to conclusively rule something out once and for all (for reactions which we know are physically possible because they occur in living systems), and you shouldn't treat any source as having done so, especially when the authors themselves aren't rash enough to jump to such a conclusion. --Ichneumon (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

On the section to be included

Science, as science, doesn't have "problems"... it's an open-ended investigation that follows the data wherever it leads. It neither assumes that life was spontaneously generated on Earth, nor assumes that it was put together by a designer. Now a scientist with either one of those two assumptions can run into problems if the data doesn't correspond to his assumption (just like Einstein's assumption was that the universe always existed, yet Lemaître showed how Einstein's theories - and subsequent empirical data - implied a big bang happening at a finite time earlier).

The article shouldn't take either side with one assumption or the opposite. It should just reflect all the data on the subject, and articulate all the parameters we know are necessary for each step. The only problem I see with Jorfer's edit that was removed was the part "that hurt the argument for the formation of nucleotide bases in a primordial soup." That might be Hugh Ross's conclusion, but not science's. The article needs to note the evidence, but should remain impartial and not draw its own conclusions. David Bergan (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that should be edited to say "that he argues hurts" rather than "that hurt".--Jorfer (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Correction

Here's how I would handle it:

One puzzle alluded to in research by the National Academy of Sciences is that the ingredients adenine and guanine require freezing conditions to synthesize, but cytosine and uracil require boiling temperatures. In order for all of them to synthesize at once requires the primordial soup to freeze and boil at the same time.

Kind regards,

David Bergan (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't quite work. The second source, for example, does not support the second sentence. Not much of a puzzle, either. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

SA makes a point here. It seems Jorfer was twisting the source in order to make that point. Fascinating article though. I am much more well informed about decomposing whale bones and the acoustic thermometry of ocean climate than previously. Baegis (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I made a mistake in citing (the citations are found in the back of the book). The correct citations are in the version under the request for comment now.--Jorfer (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources backing up the boiling and freezing statement

OK, here is probably what the authors singled out "Without ice-melting bolides, life may not originate even though the conditions were otherwise favorable." It is the last sentence of the first source for the sentence about the primordiel soup freezing and boiling at the same time.--Jorfer (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Then the second reference for the boiling and freezing claim shows that the only situation Stanley Miller can seem to envision for life to form on early earth does not reflect current models: "But as noted by atmospheric chemist James Kasting of Pennsylvania State University in University Park in another talk at the meeting, most geochemical models still point to an ovenlike early Earth, blanketed in greenhouse gases--with 'oodles of carbon dioxide'--for several hundred million years. 'Then the whole planet is close to 80 or 90 degrees [Celsius],' he says--and there would be no 'cold refugia' to harbor the sorts of frigid reactions that Miller envisions." It goes on to say "Worse, the early Earth weathered frequent comet and meteorite impacts, some of which could have heated the oceans to full boil and wiped out all nucleobases." Finally as for User:ScienceApologist argument that "...it is pretty much assumed that not all bases were present in the first lifeform. One of the ways we know this is true is because Uracil is found in RNA and not DNA." the article states "But if another self-replicating compound set the stage for RNA, it thus far has eluded the best efforts of researchers to find it." Hugh Ross seems to just be reflecting what the scientific literature is saying.--Jorfer (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Ross is still not a reliable source. What's next, Answers in Genesis ref's on every statement? Baegis (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Simply an ad hominem attack. Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana do not need to be reliable since all his information is coming from secondary sources. If they are qualified to make such an argument (which they are as this statement involves bolides which is within Hugh Ross' domain and chemical biology which is within Fazale Rana's domain), there is no reason why the authors can't be included as well with the source information.--Jorfer (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not "simply an ad hominem attack", as Baegis is correct -- Ross is not a reliable source, as an examination of his track record clearly indicates. You know something's wrong when a creationist's claims about science get ragged on even by other creationists: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/hugh_ross.asp You write, "Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana do not need to be reliable"... Well it would sure help. As for "all his information is coming from secondary sources", it'd be much better if they came from primary sources. And you write, "If they are qualified to make such an argument", but this falls down when one looks at the argument and it becomes obvious that apparently they're not qualified to make such an argument, because their argument is fallacious. Thus it is not the case that "there is no reason why the authors can't be included", unless you're including them as an example of how not to go about analyzing this topic. --Ichneumon (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to the request for comment

Hi! I showed up here because of the request for comment, but I'm not sure exactly what I should be commenting on. I do see quite a bit of ad hominem attack above, and am having a hard time finding the actual disputed facts through all of it. A particular source is not necessarily reliable just because someone with a Ph.D. wrote it; the source should be peer reviewed in the appropriate field and not self published. I have checked one source; the "Meeting Brief" written by Robert Irion published in Science in 1998 does not in any way say or imply that "In order for all of them to synthesize at once requires the primordial soup to freeze and boil at the same time." Instead, it says that NONE of the RNA nucleotides do well at warm temperatures, or even do well outside of cells at cold temperatures. However, I'm generally very hesitant to cite even meeting abstracts, much less meeting summaries written by people other than the authors of the ideas at the meeting. Ideas at meeting are NOT peer reviewed, and so, to me, don't count as reliable sources at all. It looks like Matthew Levy did publish his findings, though, so if you want to use his RNA base stability research, it seems that "The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life " by Matthew Levy and Stanley Miller, published in 1998 in PNAS 95;7933-7938 would be the thing to cite. I haven't read the paper, but the abstract clearly indicates that cytosine is the least stable RNA base outside of a cell environment, and that, even at freezing temperatures, much less boiling ones, it doesn't appear to hang around long enough for a protracted origin of life. This paper is cited 77 times on ISI's web of knowledge, including a 2007 review that appears at first glance to be good source for this article "The first steps of chemical evolution towards the origin of life" by Bernd M. Rode, Daniel Fitz and Thomas Jakschitz in Chemistry and Biodiversity, 4;2674-2702. It appears to me that the abiogenesis research community sees Levy's research as evidence that it was a protein world before an RNA world, not that there was no such thing as abiogenesis. When citing references in text, it's pretty awkward to say what journal they were published in; cite the authors, and then, in the references, include the full citation, including the source of publication.

In other words; research into the probability of RNA world should cite peer-reviewed articles, such as the ones I've listed above, should be integrated into the main article in the RNA world section or into a new section about a protein world, and should not be shuttled to a "criticism" section. I hope I'm addressing the issues that this RFC is about. - Enuja (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are addressing the removal of material and the statements in question which is what this is about. When attempting to include the section in question, I am not saying that it is reliable just because a Ph.D. in Chemistry co-authored it, but that it is a valid person to make an argument. The reliability is dependent on the sources the authors use rather than there own credentials in this case. I made it clear what the point of the Irion source seems to be above, and that is to show the disconnect with what Stanley Miller seems to view as the only possible explanation for the origin of life, and what seems to have taken place. The "Impact Melting of Frozen Oceans on the Early Earth: Implications for the Origin of Life" is the source that backs up the claim; it does so most clearly in the last line of the article: "Without ice-melting bolides, life may not originate even though the conditions were otherwise favorable." I made this more clear by editing the proposed section at the top of the section removed heading.--Jorfer (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

JEF writes, "it is a valid person to make an argument". Not if his argument is invalid, no. JEF writes, "The reliability is dependent on the sources the authors use rather than there own credentials in this case." No, not if the authors misrepresent or misuse those sources, as they have done here. JEF writes, "...is the source that backs up the claim; it does so most clearly in the last line of the article..." Context is critical -- that passage was referring to what might be necessary in a specific scenario, not making an assertion about the likelihood of that scenario. --Ichneumon (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional response to the request for comment

First, I'd like to second what Enuja wrote above.

Second, I'd like to support the removal of the proposed edit, because it is a muddled mess, and the claim by Ross/Rana is too goofy to be worth including. The edit is not up to Wikipedia standards.

Problems with the proposed edit (or at least in the form which is currently proposed above):

• It says, "The National Academy of Sciences research shows...", then gives reference 6, which is from Nature, not the NAS.
• I have just read the NAS reference, and it supports neither the claim that "adenine and guanine require freezing conditions to synthesize", nor the claim that "cytosine and uracil require boiling temperatures". Indeed, it doesn't even mention any of these four compounds.
• Nor does the NAS reference support any other claim or implication made in the proposed edit. In fact, it contradicts the attempted thrust of the edit (see below).
• I can't locate a copy of the Nature reference, but I have located several descriptions and critiques of it, which give the strong impression that the Nature reference doesn't support the above claims about nucleotide synthesis either. For example, in the July 1 1995 Science News, page 7, the cited Nature article is described as supporting the scenario of cytosine forming as a result of (quoting Robertson himself, one of the Nature paper's authors) "a tidal pool filled with water and urea. As the water evaporates, the urea becomes highly concentrated." Elsewhere in the same article this scenario is reiterated as, "seawater pools slowly evaporating under a hot noonday sun". That's a far cry from "requiring boiling temperatures" as claimed in the proposed edit. Similarly, in a critique of the same Nature paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 96, April 1999, "Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life", author Robert Shapiro describes the aforementioned Nature paper. While he does describe some of Miller/Robertson's tests as having been done in retorts at 100C, presumably for greater speed, he (Shapiro) also analyzes how quickly the same reaction would take place at 25C, again showing that the claim of a "requirement" of boiling conditions for such synthesis is wildly overstated and likely not supported by the Nature paper.
• I can find no cited support for the claim that "adenine and guanine require freezing conditions to synthesize". Indeed, there are abundant references to the contrary. For example, http://www.springerlink.com/content/tm04t33246308170/ states, "Our results indicate that the adenine yield is not strongly dependent on temperature."
• I have read the cited Science article which is cited as support for the claim, "This however goes against current models of the early earth." However, that article itself states, "Still, Kasting acknowledges, 'no one has ruled out a cold [early] Earth, because there are no data.'"
• I have read the cited NAS article, and it does not support the claim it is given as a citation for: "In order for all of them to synthesize at once requires the primordial soup to freeze and boil at the same time." On the contrary, it undermines the implication that such an apparently impossible condition would "hurt" certain abiogenesis scenarios, because in fact the NAS article points out the possibility of a frozen Earth being periodically struck by bolides of an appropriate size to produce local melting and/or boiling conditions while surrouding areas remain frozen, and/or (geologically) brief cycles of frozen/hot conditions on a planetwide scale, thus providing the aforementioned combination of cold and hot synthesis, even if both conditions were necessary, which the proposed edit has not sufficiently established in the first place.
• Similarly, while the Ross/Rana assertion of a requirement "to freeze and boil at the same time" makes an amusing soundbite, it is unfortunately the case that like most of Ross's "contributions" to real science, that's about all it manages to add to any serious discussion of the relevant science (and I say that not as an ad hominem, but as my considered opinion after reading his work over many years). I'm sure it gets his intended audience to slap their knees and think that Dr. Ross sure has put those egghead scientists in their place if they can't recognize the absurdity of such a requirement like Ross's audience can, but even a few moments of thought reveals that Ross's cartoonishly simplistic "argument" contains numerous fatal flaws. Even aside from the points made above concerning the wild overstatement of his claims about different compounds "requiring" temperatures at freezing or at boiling, there's the obvious problem that yes, Virginia, it is possible to have boiling and freezing chemical synthesis operations occurring near enough to each other for their products to mix. One obvious example, even leaving aside the bolide example which THIS PROPOSED EDIT ITSELF CITES but seems to fail to grasp, is the case of a geothermal vent and/or undersea volcano occurring under an iced-over sea or glacier, something that occurs even today on Earth. This would easily provide local conditions of boiling hot water and freezing cold water -- and every temperature gradient in between -- within close proximity to each other.
• Finally, even if true (i.e. even if the proposed edit or anything by Ross/Rana had managed to raise problems for the prebiotic synthesis of some of the four RNA nucleotides) it's hard to see what this would add to the article, since the article already mentions sticky issues with purely prebiotic uracil and cytosine synthesis, and mentions hypotheses regarding pre-RNA systems which might have given rise to RNA's components and assembly by means other than simple prebiotic synthesis. In short, few abiogenesis researchers are still proposing an "RNA-first" model (itself only a subset of many "RNA-world" models), which is the only thing the Ross/Rana comment could "hurt".

For these reasons, I must support the removal of the proposed edit. A badly cited attempt to include a misguided creationist soundbite is not a valid addition to the article.

- Ichneumon (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism subsection

The "Abiogenic synthesis of key chemical" subsection recently added (restored?) by Northfox appears to be a well-cited, encyclopedic criticism of the RNA world, not of Abiogenesis in general. As there is an article RNA world hypothesis with a subsection "Difficulties" that is tagged as needing sources, that looks like a good place to put this subsection. - Enuja (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

done. But I rather would like to keep the section here too, since it is not only about RNA world, but about nucleotide stability, which is important for abiogenesis in general. That criticism section in the main RNA world article really lacks substance. Will try and fix it when I have time. Northfox (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I really think it should be shortened and folded into the RNA world subsection. I tried to do it myself, but I need to read the cited articles to summarize them more concisely. It looks to me like the RNA-survival bit should be only in the RNA world article, but a short description of the synthesis problem (I haven't even scanned any of those papers) should go in the RNA world subsection of this article. - Enuja (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Law of Thermodynamics

The section currently assumes and implies that some people have a problem with abiogenesis due to the second law of thermodynamics. If there are reasonably sized/talked about groups that do have this problem with abiogenesis, they need to be specifically cited in this section. Currently, the section is not a criticism of Abiogenesis and so is out of place in the article. If no-one adds a reference here, I think this section should be deleted as not relevant. - Enuja (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I edited the section to look like this, but it was reverted by User:Orangemarlin. Then as you see below, User:ScienceApologist went further and attempted to erase the entire criticism section.--Jorfer (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The second law of thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy (dispersal of energy) will tend to increase in an isolated system as time continues and differences in temperature, pressure and density tend to even out. More strictly, the entropy of a system can decrease only if work is done, i.e. energy is transferred from outside the system. Creationists are quick to use this as an argument. Since many sources describe entropy as disorder, it is easy to state that abiogenesis would fail this due to the order of biological systems.

However, a decrease in entropy on the Earth does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because the Earth is not an isolated system, but an open system receiving energy from the Sun. Furthermore, the time scales in which large systems reach equilibrium can be very long, during which time local fluctuations in entropy are perfectly feasible, and may be observed all the time. Furthermore, the concept of entropy in thermodynamics is not identical to the common notion of "disorder". For example, a thermodynamically closed system of certain solutions will eventually transform from a cloudy liquid to a clear solution containing large "orderly" crystals. Most people would characterize the former state as having "more disorder" than the latter state. However, in a purely thermodynamic sense, the entropy has increased in this system, not decreased. The units of measure of entropy in thermodynamics are "units of energy per unit of temperature". Whether a human perceives one state of a system as "more orderly" than another has no bearing on the calculation of this quantity. The common notion that entropy in thermodynamics is equivalent to a popular conception of "disorder" has caused many non-physicists to misinterpret the true meaning of the law.

Critics are quick to point out that The Second Law of Thermodynamics is still applicable to open systems. John Ross is quoted as saying "…There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.", and Jeffrey S. Wicken is quoted as saying "The cosmological arrow generates randomness or disorder, whereas the evolutionary arrow generates complexity. A fully reductionist theory of evolution must demonstrate that the evolutionary arrow can be derived from the cosmological arrow." One site argued "Obviously growth cannot occur in a closed system; the Second Law is in fact defined in terms of a closed system. However, this criterion is really redundant, because in the real world closed systems do not even exist! It is obvious that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to open systems as well, since they have only been tested and proved on open systems!"

Elecmahm comments on the above

AiG and ChristianAnswers really aren't reliable sources to be using for a science article as both of them operate from the position that the Bible is an infallible source and thus they must always reconcile their findings with the conclusions presented in the Bible. It's the ultimate Ex Post Facto fallacy. And anyways -- the standard Creationist argument of Entropy as an opposition to the development of life is ridiculous. We see life (and non-life as well, in the form of chemical compounds) forming more complex configurations all the time. A spermatoza and ovum unite to develop into a human -- granted, it's with the assistance of nutrients from the mother, which would make it an open-system; But hey! According to Ross, entropy should apply to that as well! (pardon the subtle Reductio ad Absurdum there) The only thing that Entropy requires is that the total disorder of the UNIVERSE is constantly increasing. You can decrease entropy in one area (i.e. Earth and its organisms) as long as it is counterbalanced by an increase in Entropy elsewhere (i.e. the Sun slowly decaying). Elecmahm (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, Wicken's comment about Cosmological arrow vs. Evolutionary arrow is a misleading, although I don't know that I would fully call it a straw man. Evolution is not strictly an increase in complexity -- it's an increase in fitness due to selective pressures eliminating unfit variations. Occasionally, as in the case of the nylon bug, this involves increases in complexity. Again -- the presence of the Sun shining down on us is enough to dismiss ANY arguments regarding Entropy, just look at the calvin cycle: Water, Carbon Dioxide, and Sunlight is converted into Glucose; But all the energy for the reaction comes from the sun. If you are living on this planet then you are consuming energy that was originally borne in the Sun's fusion reactions. Elecmahm (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the formation of a human and the calvin cycle are biological and are thus a mute point in proving The Second Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevant to the question of Abiogenesis. Second, AiG and ChristianAnswers do not go far enough in explaining why the Second Law presents a problem. In the case of the sun, there is a known existing mechanism for overcoming The Second Law of Thermodynamics. There is, however, no known universal mechanism for overcoming The Second Law of Thermodynamics. There is no sufficient explanation why the universe would produce areas of localized areas of lower entropy such as the sun. The problem is not how the sun can produce abiogenesis without disobeying The Second Law of Thermodynamics, but how the universe can produce abiogenesis without disobeying The Second Law of Thermodynamics.--Jorfer (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to "overcome" Entropy for abiogenesis to occur -- as long as the universe AT LARGE is constantly increasing in disorder then everything is hunky-dory. I don't know what kind of science background you have, so I'm not sure which is the best way to explain this to you, but I'll use the sun as an example: When the sun formed it was (mostly) a bunch of whirling Hydrogen atoms. As time progresses, the Sun releases radiant energy (an increase in ΔS); Some of this radiant energy warms the earth, helping some reactions heat up to E_A -- this CAN result in a DECREASE in ΔS, depending on the nature of the reactants and the reaction itself.

Abiogenesis is MERELY the byproduct of a series of chemical reactions that favored an increase in complexity. Bond dissociation enthalpies are equal either way (breaking or forming), which is consistent with the FLoT, and as long as the OVERALL (universe-wide) net entropy is increasing, it is certainly possible for a localized entropy to decrease. What is it about Abiogenesis that, in your eyes, is so different than the Calvin cycle or a zygote growing into a human? Both involve the relatively inefficient consumption of free energy to facilitate chemical processes that ultimately produce more complex forms. Where's your hangup? Elecmahm (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

JEF, your (mis)understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics ("SLoT") is so bad that you really shouldn't waste your own time attempting to debate it, much less ours. Please, go learn more about it (from reliable sources, not from creationist handwaving) before you make another attempt. First, the SLoT is about ENTROPY. Not "order", not "complexity", not "information". There are times when those things go hand in hand with entropy, but there are many times when they do not. Neither the SLoT nor anything else in science (or nature) requires that they do. Creationists frequently utterly fail to grasp these distinctions. Second, the Sun most certainly does NOT "overcome the SLoT". Nothing does. Nothing that has ever been observed, anyway, which is *why* the SLoT is a law of physics. If you think the Sun "overcomes" the Second Law of Thermodynamics, then you quite simply don't understand the SLoT. Third, you say that there is "no sufficient explanation why the universe would produce areas of localized areas of lower entropy". Wrong. The laws of thermodynamics very much do allow entropy to be lowered locally. The many processes which can achieve this perfectly mundane feat are well understood -- and this understanding is routinely used to successfully manufacture refrigerators, for example. What actually has "no sufficient explanation", however, is why people who keep misunderstanding thermodynamics think that there must be something impossible and/or supernatural about a local reduction of entropy, AND why they mistakenly think that abiogenesis or evolutionary processes would somehow violate any of the laws of thermodynamics. They don't violate thermodynamics. Period. If you think that they do, you're free to provide an actual mathematical analysis (NOT just a handwaving mumble about "order" or "entropy" without a rigorous analysis of the AMOUNT of net entropy you're talking about) that proves your amazing assertion, with full accounting for all thermodynamic quantities, which actually shows things out of balance in a way that is contrary to the laws of themodynamics. Go for it -- we'll wait... --Ichneumon (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

First, I did not even use the terms "order", "complexity", or "information", so your first argument is a straw man. Second, by overcoming The Second Law of Thermodynamics, I meant within the localized areas (such as the earth). I do not mean break it so this is also a straw man. Third, I am sure you would enjoy me trying to compute all the changes in energy across the Universe. I am humble enough to admit this is beyond my ability. The refrigerator example is also a bad one as this mechanism most often relies on electricity which relies on some other low entropy region such as the sun (which indirectly includes fossil fuels), nuclear energy, the earth's core, etc. . The argument thus an argument on the formation of planetary and solar bodies. The formation of these bodies would be the only true mechanism for decreasing entropy in a localized area (as all other mechanisms are dependent on this). Correct me if I am wrong, scientists give a vague attribution of this to gravity despite gravity being weaker that the other three fundamental forces and the universe's accelerating expansion due to Dark Energy. The question is than why the Universe has not already suffered heat death which has connotations for abiogenesis, rather than how abiogenesis can occur within the context of The Second Law of Thermodynamics within the context of the earth-sun system. In other words, there is no sufficient explanation reason behind localized areas of lower entropy.--Jorfer (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

JEF, again, PLEASE go educate yourself on the SLoT before you waste any more of your own time like this. I'm certainly not going to waste any more of *my* time on your misconceptions after this final attempt to help you understand that you're barking up the wrong tree. My first point was not an "argument", thus it can't be a straw man. I was explaining one of the most common ways of misunderstanding the SLoT. If you're not misunderstanding it that way, good, I didn't declare that you necessarily were. But your odd statements about the SLoT were unclear enough that it's hard to pin down exactly *where* you're misunderstanding it (but misunderstanding it you clearly are), so I thought I'd start out by clarifying one of the more common mistakes people make about it. Next, it's no "straw man" (you really need to discuss points and not rely so much on labels) to point out to you that no matter what you mean by "overcoming the Second Law of Thermodynamics", you're revealing your misunderstanding of the SLoT. Nothing "overcomes" it. If you think something is "overcoming" it, you're misunderstanding the situation. I was clear enough about this the first time around, please reread my original edit until that sinks in. Local decreases in entropy do not "overcome" the SLoT, they occur in perfect harmony with it. Next, the refrigerator example is a fine counterexample to illustrate the flaw in your claim, and that doesn't change just because you want to start moving the goalposts or talk about where the electricity comes from. And no, the "formation of these bodies would be the only true mechanism for decreasing entropy in a localized area". Sorry. Again, you're just exposing how little you really understand about what the SLoT does and does not say, and what kinds of processes generate local decreases in entropy. Next, you say, "correct me if I am wrong, scientists give a vague attribution of this to gravity". Okay, fine: Yes, you're wrong. In short, yes, there really *is* "sufficient explanation reason [sic] behind localized areas of lower entropy". Again, check your refrigerator. If you think that's not a valid example, it's because you're misunderstanding the SLoT. Furthermore, I certainly did not ask you to "try to compute all the changes in energy across the Universe". If you think that's how entropy analyses are done for a given process or system, this again only underscores how poorly you know what the SLoT is about or how entropy analysis is done. Until you are able to do at least a rudimentary numerical analysis of the entropy changes to a system, however -- something engineering and physics students do as a matter of course -- you really aren't in a position to make any declarations about the SLoT being any kind of problem whatsoever (either directly, or indirectly) for abiogenesis, much less attempt to somehow tie abiogenesis to the heat death of the Universe via the SLoT. You're just making word salad until you have an actual working knowledge of the ins and outs of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and entropy-changing processes, and you simply do not have that right now. Go get a good engineering textbook on thermodynamics and try again after a few months of self-education on the topic. But in conclusion, there's absolutely nothing inherent in the process of abiogenesis that would violate the SLoT, nor anything in the SLoT which would prohibit abiogenesis. --Ichneumon (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

First, by the word overcoming I mean that the local system with a mechanism to lower entropy will not be subject to the same increase of entropy as a system without it and may even lower it within that local area. Second, by "true mechanism", I mean a mechanism that decreases local entropy without an already existing source of lower entropy. Third, I believe if you wanted to prove that Abiogenesis does not violate SLoT in any way you would have to compute all the changes in entropy in the universe for abiogenesis to occur, and than if the sum of those changes has a negative value, abiogenesis goes against the SLoT. Than you would have to prove that it is not a flaw in the calculations, the values for entropy, etc.. In other words, it is beyond human capability. It is not enough to see whether abiogenesis violates the SLoT in the local area, but whether it violates it in the entire Universe. You seem to have forgotten the fundamental rule I have been told about proving a negative; it is basically impossible. It is impossible for you to prove that abiogenesis does not violate SLoT in any part of the process of forming life from non-life. I would use less lofty rhetoric than.--Jorfer (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This really is a stupendous red herring. Abiogenesis does not violate the 2nd Law because it does not take place in an isolated system. There's nothing further to debate. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Second Law language above

If this section does indeed survive, quotations not helpful here. Only the first two paragraphs look useful, and I'll suggest some changes if there is consensus to keep the general criticism section. - Enuja (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Before it was erased, I was going to add that Kauffman, a chaos and complexity theoretician and founding member of the Santa Fe Institute felt the need to propose a "fourth law of thermodynamics" to account for the rapid development of more complex organisms. He hypothesizes "a law in which diversity and complexity of the universe naturally increases in some optimal manner. User:ScienceApologist is right however that this is more appropriate for the Entropy and life article, but WP:Summary should be used due to the relevance of the subject.--Jorfer (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussions of "rapid" development of complex organisms should go in Cambrian explosion or should be about the development of Eukaryotes. First, there was an origin of life (you must simply assume that there is now life and there has not always been life to make this necessary), then, some living things became more complex. The speed at which "complexity" increased (complexity is a very, very difficult quality to define in biological systems) is not about the origin of life, which is what this article is about. - Enuja (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section totally removed

The criticism section included off-handed remarks from scientists who are not molecular biologists as well as claimed instances of "problems" that are actually not "problems". In point of fact, the entire section was a shill for creationist pseudoscience. I have removed it per WP:UNDUE. This is a science article, leave the quotemining and the original research by creationists to the pages devoted to that pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that problems with different abiogenesis hypotheses should be addressed in the sections about each hypothesis, not in a separate criticism section. The different hypotheses are very different, and the interesting, relevant (opportunities to do more research) issues with each should be addressed where the idea is introduced. I don't know what to do with the 2nd law stuff; creationists do bring it up, but I'd thought it was brought up in relation to evolution and not to abiogenesis. Essentially, I simply don't know enough about creationism to know if should be mentioned at all on this page, and if so how much. - Enuja (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict) I only came to this article because of the RFC above; after looking at it in more detail, and with the current header, this article is just about the science. All creationist criticisms are out of place in this article, so I agree with the complete removal of the section. - Enuja (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Creationism is iteratively irrelevant to this topic. Of course creationists would dislike any abiogenesis discussions as it directly disputes the idea of special creation of life by a creator. However, their attempts to arrange a "criticism" of abiogenesis through this kind of Hoyle, Yockey, et al. gathering of fringe opinions is not encyclopedic. 2nd Law stuff is already addressed at Objections to evolution or entropy and life. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that Yockey and Hoyle are not qualified to speak on abiogenesis, but Abiogenic synthesis of key chemicals and Homochirality are problems discussed within scientific literature, and should thus be kept even if it is not in a section titled criticisms.--Jorfer (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The abiogenic synthesis of chemicals and homochirality are not criticisms, nor are they, in point-of-fact, "problems". Rather they are simply things that must be accounted for in any abiogenesis model. We can discuss them in the article, but there is no reason to single them out like was happening before. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

They are two things that have not been able to be adequately explained by current models and are therefore problems. This is not saying that there is not a naturalistic solution, but rather that they pose a significant hurdle to scientists, and any scientists that doesn't admit this poses a significant frustration is likely not being honest. The Michelson–Morley experiment produced an insurmountable problem for aether theory and necessitated the creation of a more exotic explanation behind electromagnetic radiation. Had there been Wikipedia back then, I would expect there to be a Problems section in the article titled Electromagnetic Radiation after the experiment, but before a solution was found. Likewise, these may not be problems with the idea of abiogenesis, but they are problems with the idea of abiogenesis as has been proposed, which is all we can really evaluate. It is really hard to criticize what had not been thought up. I would really be surprised to find a criticism section on Wikipedia that included not just problems with how an idea has been put forward so far, but problems with how the idea might be put forward in the future (this would likely be removed as a straw man and crystal ball should it occur). Don't forget that one person used already existing science to come to a revolutionary conclusion. Albert Einstein was a fringe scientist at the time he wrote his grounbreaking paper. Today's fringe scientist could be tomorrow's nobel peace prize winner.--Jorfer (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that the origin of life on earth is a field lacking in questions. Instead, the questions are an extremely important part of this wide-open, hard-to-research field. Because of this, the questions should be integrated throughout the article, not stuck all together at the end. Questions are a not a problem for science. As long as someone can come up with a way to test hypotheses (difficult in this case, but there are some smart people out there), questions without answers are the very life-blood of science. They are not "problems." - Enuja (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

prob·lem –noun 1. any question or matter involving doubt, uncertainty, or difficulty.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Problem --Jorfer (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

By that definition all of science is a problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Your right, that definition is too broad for the context we are using it in. American Heritage definition on the same site is better in this context:

prob·lem n. A question to be considered, solved, or answered: math problems; the problem of how to arrange transportation. --Jorfer (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Still, by that definition, all of science and mathematics is a problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientists consider many problems solved. It doesn't necessarily mean that there is complete certainty, but that an answer is no longer viewed as needed, and scientists as a whole are no longer actively looking for possible solutions. All of science does not fall under that definition therefore.--Jorfer (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And the relationship between a particular hypothesis and geological evidence for temperatures of the earth (and other evidence) needs to be addressed while the hypothesis is being presented, not in a different section. The basic time and earth condition parameters for the origin of life need to be addressed first, and I think they are correctly placed in the section named "Early conditions"). - Enuja (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so since everyone seems in favor of incorporating the sections into the main text I will go ahead and attempt do so.--Jorfer (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a very good "incorporation". The first section actually was written as though all these things were "problem": straight out of an AiG fact-sheet. That spin just isn't appropriate. The homochirality "problem" was a little better. I cleaned it up. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither "Homochirality" nor "Self-organization and replication" are "Early Conditions." Reading through the article, the interesting fact that biological molecules have a specific handedness really doesn't help with my understanding of anything at that point in the article. I'm honestly quite confused as to what the current "self organization and replication section" is trying to communicate. Both of these sections should be deleted, and homochirality mentioned where abiotic polymerization is mentioned. - Enuja (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I moved the sections to where they fit better. The self organization section is intended to give WP:Summary of sections discussing the compatibility of The Second Law of Thermodynamics with abiogenesis. Since User:ScienceApologist would not let me give a summary that mentioned creationism, I let him write it.--Jorfer (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This article seriously needs a drastic re-organization, but I guess I'll stop complaining until I do it.  ;-) Yes, moving those sections is an improvement, but this article needs fewer sections and more organization. But this isn't going to be an easy task, and I absolutely must read all of the 30 page review I mentioned above (Rode, Fitz and Jakschitz 2007) and some other reviews before I do it. - Enuja (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Many sections, such as Waechtershaeuser's hypothesis, Metabolism first, and others, contain citations that show the experimental results that show the possible scientific limits of each hypothesis. Thus I added, again, a paragrpah about scientific experimental results indicating the weakness of the RNA world. This is not "creationist POV pushing", as indicated by ScienceApologist, but referencing important scientific findings.Northfox (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Error in the "Deep-hot biosphere" model of Gold section?

Did it "leed to" or was it "informally linked with"? It seems the following sentence has both ideas crammed into it.

The discovery of nanobes (filamental structures that are smaller than bacteria, but that may contain DNA in deep rocks) in the late 1990s has been informally linked with led to a controversial theory put forward by

I won't change it myself because I have no idea which is more accurate, but I thought I should bring this confusing sentence to someone's attention.

Headybrew (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

myr?

((((The study by Maher and Stephenson[19] shows that if the deep marine hydrothermal setting provides a suitable site for the origin of life, abiogenesis could have happened as early as 4000 to 4200 Myr ago, whereas if it occurred at the surface of the earth abiogenesis could only have occurred between 3700 and 4000 Myr.))))

In reading this paragraph it is unclear to me what "Myr" means. I assume this breaks down to 3.7 billion years, but perhaps a link or one sentence paranthetical explanation is warranted.

69.141.55.59 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it means. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Likewise I'm not sure what "GYR" means in this paragraph:

Recently estimates of these sources suggest that the heavy bombardment before 3.5 Gyr ago within the early atmosphere made available quantities of organics comparable to those produced by other energy sources.[27] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.55.59 (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• M -- Mega = million.
• G -- Giga = billion.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay well I'm just saying that some brief explanation of this should be included in the article because to the lay reader it is not at all clear. 69.141.55.59 (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Spontaneous regeneration of Origin of life

Has anyone else spotted that the article on Origin of life which was merged into this article in January has been regenerated by User:DeBruijn as at 0002 today. this user has also done some selective editing of the Talk page to remove the discussion re the decision to merge. I thought it best to leave the next step to one of the main players on this page to deal with this.Tmol42 (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this even NPOV?

For some reason, Origin of life redirects here, but this is only the evolutionary point of view of the issue... -- HAYSON¹⁹⁹¹ 11:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you have a look at Creation myth et al which picks up on other points of viewTmol42 (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Should origin of life be a disambiguation page, then? It could link here and to Creation myth. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin of life used to be a separate article. I think we could make a good article about the origin of life that includes more information that just what is included in abiogenesis. For example:

• History of the scientific ideas about the subject
• Constraints on the origin of life (what is the oldest evidence for life ever found?)
• Astrobiological implications
• Panspermia pipedreams
• etc.

A great article could be had that would have abiogenesis as a section that would link back here. What do you all think?

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Redirect

What's going on here? Several anonymous deletions of the redirect: "This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For religious beliefs about the creation of life, see creation myth". Finally we have a brief edit-summary: "I removed the offensive remark". What offensive remark? It's just a redirect to the page which discusses various religious creation stories (i.e. creation myths). --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Please explain here why the hatnote giving a link to the creation myth is an "offensive remark." This is a navigational aid, and does not disparage any particular belief system. Many traditions throughout the world have many different creation myths associated with them, so I really fail to see what the issue is. It could be that the term "myth" is regarded as offensive to some. But just about any word that conforms to WP:NPOV here would be offensive to some of the more extreme elements of certain religions: it is unavoidable. But whether or not some people are offended by a particular choice of words is a moot point. The encyclopedia is better served by having a hatnote. If the title of the article creation myth is the problem, then join the discussion at Talk:Creation myth. But do not remove the link from other articles. Thanks, 71.182.209.115 (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be (probably is) a militant creationist type, or it might even be the opposite of that: someone who is offended by any mention of religion (even as a redirect) in what is supposed to be a science article. Without any explanation... who knows? --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

With Regard to the spanish interwiki

The spanish article on the subject has been lately stubbornly vandalized. Well, I supose it's not news over here, as this article unfortunately is a common target anywhere. In order to prevent subtle vandalism, I wish to state that the topics set out here are the same as for the spanish article "Origen de la vida", (origin of life), meanwhile abiogenesis points to spontaneous generation. Well, it's crazy but here it is. Any change will probably be product of our vandal attacks. Thanks for your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustavocarra (talk • contribs) 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC) oops-- my signature! --Gustavocarra (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Life redirects here?

Um..why? Is this the only origin of life theory there is? What about Creation?Lordofthemarsh (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

See hat link to Creation myth at top of articleTmol42 (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw that link, but thought it odd anyway that this article seemed to promote the idea(by linking to creation myth, that this was the only theory with a legitimate shot at being true.Lordofthemarsh (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The creation myths of all religions have no real proof beyond the religious texts or claims made by practitioners. Hence, myth is appropriate. And because of the world-wide nature of wikipedia, focusing exclusively on the christian version is inappropriate. The hatnotes, disambiguation pages and various redirects are how wikipedia deals with competing, or similarly-named ideas. WLU (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Aristotle

On the part on spontaneous generation, I noticed a little flaw. How could Aristotle possibly have known of the existance of alligators when they only exist in the Americas and in China?--Gunnar Mikalsen Kvifte (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I changed it to only crocodiles. Baegis (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)