Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive1

Cut for debate
I have cut the following section for debate:

Cut begins.......

However, biological evolution (also referred to as "Darwinian evolution") is just one aspect of the full evolutionary process. Molecular and chemical evolution also takes place. Within these evolutionary paths is the event of abiogenesis. The term "Evolution" is often incorrectly assumed as being an exclusive definition of "biological evolution". Wikipedia notes that: DNA, RNA, and proteins."
 * "Molecular evolution is the process of evolution at the scale of

With... in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and some viruses."
 * "DNA is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used

And then...

This is an area of heated debate. But, evolution, in these terms, creates life (abiogenesis) through molecular and chemical evolution into DNA, RNA and proteins. This is the heavy-lifting which leads to the eventual living cell. (Acknowledged huge technical gap there.)

Cut ends.....

Object to the line: However, biological evolution (also referred to as "Darwinian evolution") is just one aspect of the full evolutionary process. as the article is pretty obviously about biological evolution. The rest of the quote seems to be an attempt to expand evolution into Abiogenesis - a highly contentious issue.--BobNot Jim 11:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Contentious" is putting it nicely. This section doesn't belong on RationalWiki; it's the sort of terminology abuse regularly found in creationist writing; this particular section has the stink of Hovind about it. EVDebs 21:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Conceptually I think it's valid - much as the same mutations keep occurring in a given species over and over again, pre-life, the same molecular combinations would occur over and over again, simply due to the underlying physics. However, what was snipped does indeed smack of a weaselly attempt to create support for conflating biological evolution with theories of abiogenesis.  23:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Science behind the controversy
Let's start talking about the science behind Abiogenesis. We're going to need to explain more fully the modern theory of abiogenesis. If anyone disagrees with the one that I put with the definition then here is where they should discuss it.Several ingredients (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't "a" theory is there? There are certainly multiple hypotheses.--BobSpring is sprung! 09:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there definitely are many hypotheses, and a theory is a well supported hypothesis; we should put most/all of our attention towards the most accepted theory of abiogenesis. Of course, abiogenesis still being a relatively young field of science when compared to evolution which makes it more likely to need to be revised. As the citations for revised theories come through, and as new evidence arises to support another theory to make it more credible, then the alternative theories will be given credibility. Until then, I think it is safe to show all the evidence that supports the current theory- perhaps mention a few others and go into superficial depth- and let the reader decide which is the most suitable.Several ingredients (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure there is something which could be called the "current theory". I think that hydrothermal vents are popular at the moment though. --BobSpring is sprung! 12:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would use hypothesis rather than theory. The last I read on it was a discussion of the material found at various locations which provided protection for the newly formed 'organism' such as tiny holes in rock, spaces between mica sheets and that sort of thing. Hamster (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

i don't want to step on toes
hey i have been studying abiogenesis mostly from http://www.teach12.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1515 and from several books that were recommended; but i want to help with this but don't want to start editing without getting advice. i have learn a bit about this subject and could contribute Nailo1 (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

i wrote something up
here's what i started with if anyone has any suggestions i will be happy to here them "Scientific origins of life community While most people don’t know any real scientist who does research in the origins of life field, this is caused by several factors 1.	Most people look to religion for this study and claim abiogenesis is best left as a miraculous 2.	Most real scientist in this field are skeptical of letting in fringe group members 3.	Most research is out of reach of normal people, and most scientists who don’t know organic/inorganic chemistry and geology Even though these scientist still have a small yet dedicated community; this community is officially called international society for the study of the origin(s) of life. http://issol.org/ Journals Origins of life and evolution of the biosphere (http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/journal/11084) Journals that are not specifically for abiogenesis but important breakthroughs are often published in The journal of molecular evolution (The journal of molecular evolution) The journal of molecular biology (http://journals.elsevier.com/00222836/journal-of-molecular-biology/) Conferences Gordon research conference Funding for origins of life research Most funding nowadays are from NASA’s astrobiology institute Accessible books for the public Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0309094321)

The emergence of life on earth: a historical and scientific overview (http://www.amazon.com/Emergence-Life-Earth-Historical-Scientific/dp/0813527406/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299718058&sr=1-1)

The living univers: nasa and the development of astrobiology (http://www.amazon.com/Living-Universe-NASA-Development-Astrobiology/dp/0813537339/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299718169&sr=1-1-fkmr0) Biogenesis (http://www.amazon.com/Biogenesis-Theories-Origin-Noam-Lahav/dp/0195117557/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299718235&sr=1-1)"Nailo1 (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as the edits are sourced well, and are scientifically credible- add them. Don't forget to Snark it up!Several ingredients (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

ok i will make change it to look more presentable and add it later todayNailo1 (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

ok
i am done for today i don't know how it sizes up but it is accurate and i can cite every line if need be. i am also writing up sections for a look at the hypotheses i can include Nailo1 (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * thioester
 * RNA
 * pre-RNA
 * PAH

This article does not meet bronze category criteria
I believe the current state of the Abiogenesis article, and recent previous states of it are below the rank of bronze, because I believe it does not meet the following two criteria:
 * 1) Article contains appropriate internal and external links, categories, and references if appropriate.
 * 2) Article is coherent and free of needless in-jokes, such as irrelevant references to Conservapedia, and the jokes and snark it does contain are balanced with factual content.Several ingredients (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems OK to me according to the qualifications for bronze. Only the Oil section is uncited, but that's just a stubby outline that links to an article. I think the main problem is that it does slightly skim the subject, leaving all but the casual reader wanting to look further. Some of our science articles are too technical (eg Relativity), this one isn't technical enough. It needs a bit more meat IMO. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, it stays at bronze for now, but it still has a long way to go before it can be silver.Several ingredients (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh definitely. Bronze covers a wide range, there will never be equal numbers of bronze, silver and gold articles. It's just to help people find half decent articles, after all. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of Abiogenesis
I think we need something better on the status of/evidence of abiogenesis. What do we really know, what levels of advancement have we come. I so often see creationsts throw out Miller Urey as their "muddy beginnings' and toss out different odds of "this" or "that" happening. And while **I** get that abiogenis does not equal evo, they don't. and i'd love just to cut them off at the path and say "well, this is what we know about the beginning of life so far. we've only been really looking for X years...yadda yadaa".

1) do we have such page, and 2) if i wrote a draft, being that i'm a linguist and theologist and not a molecular biologist would anyone with a strong bio background be willing to agree to review any draft i write, since my source is likely to be BBC. ;-) --En attendant Godot 16:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

We need a simple introduction
I wrote Abiogenesis very simply to try and prevent creationist thinking along the lines of:-
 * 1) I personally can’t understand what evilutionists say about the origin of life.
 * 2) I personally can understand what my pastor says about Genesis.
 * 3) Therefore God did it. I hope RatWikians either keeps the link or, better write a simple introduction, perhaps as a separate article here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Journals
It seems a bit odd to be linking to these, & I doubt how many readers are going to jump straight into a specialist journal about abiogenesis after reading a relatively light wiki article on the subject. There are journals written on any of the subjects we write about, but we don't usually link to them unless citing something specific which isn't available somewhere more accessible. 23:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Tom Cech, "RNA World", Protobionts, etc.
This article may benefit from some mention of Tom Cech, who won a Nobel prize for demonstrating that RNA can synthesize more RNA by itself. In combination with the fact that the Miller-Urey experiment produced 13 amino acids, hydroxy acids, urea, and later versions produced ribose sugars and adenine, I believe it'd be worth a mention, or at least a connection between the two. Protobionts also warrant a mention, in regards to being incredibly cell-like but not being considered alive, yet having been demonstrated to arise spontaneously.

Perhaps a short series of steps necessary for the abiotic origin of life and what has and hasn't been demonstrated in a lab or in nature is in order as well.If anyone is interested, I could perhaps copy the list of steps my professor provided regarding the topic. It's abbreviated, and leaves out the more in depth details, but the main points are there, I believe. --65.41.58.198 (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)CW

What about this?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

DAYUM, dem evilooshuniss wun ugehn! 78.190.156.185 (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Abiogenesis, the myth
"Give those crazy scientists a half billion or so years to play, though, and they might do just as well as nature once did!" This opinion can be applied the other way around too especially since observable data for abiogenesis doesn't exist (and it's next to impossible to test). So here goes: Give those crazy scientists half a billion or so years to play, though, and they might just discover that Louis Pasteur was right all along with Biogenesis (which so far remains correct).

Unlike the improbable hypothesis of abiogenesis, The Law of Biogenesis remains solid and nature all over is testament and supportive to this observable law. Sadly you atheists in your fanaticism and ludicrous ideals refuse to admit that you are wrong with your baseless argument and speculation with your creation myth. Continually this Wiki uses fallacious reasoning and argument appeals to try and support itself as it lies and proclaims that the "scientific community" (which to this Wiki consists of only the atheist scientists who agree with the atheist beliefs) supports it. Abiogenesis is the only alternative to The Law of Biogenesis and what with it being inimical to scientific method and unobservable (not to mention completely illogical, only the atheist could believe in such a myth which they require to be true to support their atheism) it shouldn't be accepted by anyone with a rational and sound mind.

Biogenesis states that life only comes from pre-existing life. This implies deliberate creation, something that the atheist refuses to accept hence their avocation for an outdated debunked concept. Tales of the world being created in 6 days may all sound fancy and magical but so do tales of life forming from dead material in mud-pools for absolutely no reason other than to defy the laws of nature via spontaneous generation - a debunked concept. Clearly there was a god behind creation. Whether Genesis or any creation story is true is another subject and one that is quite irrelevant to me. Atheism remains absurd and ridiculous when it calls upon blind faith in abiogenesis and the spontaneous generation of life that the unobservable, unscientific and impossible abiogenesis proposes happened billions of years ago in conditions of Earth that scientists are in debate about. The Miller-Urey experiment only further reinforced Biogenesis by showing that only intelligent life (humans in this instance) can ever create something relating to life. When life is eventually created in a lab, it will be due to the scientists - and the conditions they enforced along with deliberate tampering - and not due to the impossible process of abiogenesis.

In conclusion this article is a fail article. No surprise really. This *is* the IrrationalWiki. http://rationalwikiabiogenesis.blogspot.co.uk/ --Mayraian (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The microbes Pasteur investigated are advanced life-forms, compared to those hypothesized to have come into existence at the dawn of life on Earth.
 * Saying that abiogenesis theories are advanced only by atheist scientists is egregiously ad hominem, and unconvincing.
 * I think you have misunderstood what the Miller-Urey experiment showed.
 * Have you tried presenting this argument at Wikipedia's Talk:Abiogenesis page?
 * Thank you for providing a moment. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no "blind faith" in abiogenesis. It is just the hypothesis that seems most plausible, if you discount supernatural forces. If you choose not to discount supernatural forces that is your choice.
 * Science is (by definition) based on philosophical naturalism, so it cannot consider ever supernatural causes. That doesn't mean they don't exist, just that science cannot consider them.
 * Science is a process which works by certain rules. No-one says you have to agree with the rules, or believe the conclusions that arise from those rules. If your real complaint is that science shouldn't rule out supernatural causes, well that's just how science works - it's a thing called methodological naturalism.
 * You seem to assume that science is atheistic - it isn't. Science cannot ever rule out divine creation. One proponent of the 'chemical soup' idea is Dr Kenneth Miller of Brown University (Certainly a well-respected scientist around these parts), but it is his stated belief that "God" initiated this process. Even if "abiogenesis by a chemical soup" is confirmed experimentally, it will not refute this idea.
 * So in conclusion, this is a perfectly rational article. It does not preclude divine creation, it simply ignores it, as is standard for all aspects of science. VOX  HUMANA  02:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

We don't know, and that's ok
The beginning of the article says life probably started in hydrothermal vents, while the middle says it is generally accepted that it happened in mud.

I think this would be a good place to point out that not knowing something is perfectly ok, and doesn't invalidate science, that scientists aren't ashamed of not knowing things, because the whole point of science is to explore the unknown and learn about it, not to defend dogmatic beliefs handed down to us unquestioningly by our ancestors.

We have some ideas of how some components of living things may have originated, but we really have little idea of how the whole thing happened, and that's ok. Maybe someday we'll figure it out, maybe we'll never know. Hmmph (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Upgrading
What do folk think should be improved in this article to merit silver status? Frostbyte (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)