Talk:Origin of life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in evolution.

Archives: Talk:Origin of life/Archive1 ['04-(May)'06]

Contents

[edit] Some cleanup

On the short intro to the RNA world theory, I've performed some cleanup and added some information to support the RNA world hypothesis. Firstly, because *all* claims in this arena are somewhat speculative and tentative, and that problems occur with all of them, it seems unnecessary to overemphasize the problems without additionally giving the reasons why the RNA world hypothesis was considered in the first place. I've hence added a list of compelling reasons to believe that RNA held an important role in the origin of life, such as its universal ubiquity in the expression of the genetic information - while keeping the valid criticisms. --163.1.176.68 19:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV/"Atheistic views"

This page only presents atheistic geological/evolutionist views on the origins of life, ignoring completely the intelligent design/creation theroys. Whil;e these are a minority view and are in all likelihood false, they still msut be presented for a neutral point of view.

This page intentionally deals with scientific opinions (nothing atheistic, evolutionist or "geological" about it...) and research. It says so right on top: This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For alternate uses, see origin of life (disambiguation). It also says where to find other views. --Stephan Schulz 09:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
While true that the article certainly leans clearly in one direction, I don't see how its necessarily atheistic, see Theistic Evolution. But it seems that its been decided (See last archive) that this article should specifically reflect just reaserch by scientists and the like. Homestarmy 17:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is not even a mention givent o any other theroies. That si why it violates the NPOV policy. I'm nto saying it has to bend over backward, but it should At least emtnion the other possibilities. This is even mroe important as it is the only page that comes up when origin of lfie is typed into the search box.

Name a noteworthy theory that is not listed on the page. Name a single one. -Silence 03:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I added one, autocatalysis :) Joegoodbud 10:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ther is no mention to the Indian sound theory, which states that sound waves were responisble for the ordering of life, or to any degree of an intelligent design theroy. And before you say it, you cannot discredit those beliefs without making an opinion, that they are not valid. They must be stated for a non opionated article.

The first one is a) not notable and b) not a theory. The second is also not a theory, and is handled via the first sentence and Origin of life (disambiguation). --Stephan Schulz 06:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of "notable", is the "Bubble Theory" really all that notable? I see only one book is referenced. PiCo 07:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The onyl reaqson you say they are not theroies are because you do not believe in them. I dare you to point out why evolution is a theory and intelligent design is not. And try to be intellignet abotu it, and not a typical bible-bashign jag-off.

Intelligent design fails criteria for a scientific theory on a number of counts:
  • It is not falsifiable (as "the ways of the designer are mysterious")
  • It makes no testable predictions
  • It fails the principle of parsimony (who designed the designer?)
  • In as far as its proponents try to misappropriate math and information theory, they fail in a way that makes the whole even inconsistent
Any one of those points would be enough to disqualify ID as a scientific theory.--Stephan Schulz 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Please use the talk page to discuss changes before making them. And, please see theory, which states that "in science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."
As ID makes no predictions (and arguably suggests that no accurate predictions are possible, as the designer is unknown or even unknowable), ID is not a theory. -- Ec5618 07:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


And jsut how exa clty do you "experiment" the random theroy of evolution. That is nto possible. You know why? Because any experiment you set up has a variable not present during alleged evolution: the scientist. Any experiment done to "test" evolution would be worthless, as the mere fact that a scientist orchestarted it means that there was an intelligent force at work. As a side effect of this paradox, intelligent design can indirectly be suggested to be valid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.33.140.25 (talk • contribs).

Since the theory of evolution describes the fundamental "change over time" process, it is possible to establish a given state (pre-test) and examine after time for those changes that define the process. For a specific example, a recent study showed that by observing a certain species of butterfly mating, the resulting progeny began to exhibit traits characteristic of a different species. Beyond that, these progeny would selectively procreate with only those other progeny that exhibit the same trait. This observation is the fundamental idea behind speciation as part of the theory of evolution. It does not involve any influence by the scientist to observe this phenomenon and therefore there is no "intelligence" exerting any "force" on the system. Hope that helps clear up your question. ju66l3r 08:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. That proves an entirely different principle, adapation. Yes, this is a part fo evolution, but form the context of an origin of life, it doesnt have a thing to do with it.

You asked about the "random theroy of evolution" (sic). If you want to keep moving the "finish line" then we won't get anywhere. Also, I spoke (and linked to) speciation, not adaptation. These are two different concepts and one does not require the needs of the other to occur. Finally, I discussed an experiment which does not fit your premise that testing evolution is "worthless". As per my example, scientists can be simple observers without any influence on a system as well as examining the evidence left behind by evolution events of the past without having been there to influence the events. You wouldn't claim that a forensic investigator is partly responsible for a murder simply because they were examining the evidence of said murder in order to define a theory on the modus operandi of the attacker, right? Therefore, since your premise is flawed, there is no definite paradox and no supposition of validity for "intelligent design" as a result. Beyond that, the disproval of one of two theories does not strengthen the alternative theory. It must stand on its own and meet the criteria for a scientific theory, which intelligent design does not. ju66l3r 08:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


It would help greatly if you would read evolution, as evolution is anything but random. It is selective. Adaptation is a major part of evolution, as you would be aware had you read the article.
I have little to add to ju66l3r's post, except to ask you to please check your posts for typos before submitting. Thank you. -- Ec5618 08:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The scientific community as a whle, not to mention the US judiciary, also seem to have doubts about ID's claim to be regarded as science: "The debate over whether intelligent design produces new research, as any scientific field must, and has legitimately attempted to publish this research, is extremely heated. Both critics and advocates point to numerous examples to make their case. For instance, the Templeton Foundation, a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that they asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted. Charles L. Harper Jr., foundation vice president, said that "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review."[71] At the Kitzmiller trial the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing." (Found this on the talk page of the Intelligent Design article). PiCo 10:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering how much heated debate surrounds the topic of Intelligent Design being taught alongside Evolution there was not so long ago and that hundreds of scientists do believe it is a valid theory to consider, I think ID is worthy of being mentioned, briefly, in the article. To disregard the opinions of scientists because they are in the minority is just as bad as what was done to Galileo when his opinion was in the minority. (Concerning the 400 scientists who showed up to defend ID check [1]) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petercksun (talk • contribs).

First of all, that Discovery Institute statement that you referenced was not a statement in support of Intelligent Design Creationism. Here is what the statement says: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." As has been pointed out,[2] that is a very weak statement in favor of philosophical skepticism, the very basis of the scientific method, which any scientist would affirm if the signatures weren't being used as a propaganda device. Second, only about one quarter of the signers are biologists.[3] Third, many signers admitted that they did not sign based on scientific grounds, but purely on religious (supernatural) grounds.[4]
Because this article is a scientific article (see the first line of the article, "This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For alternate uses..."), it does not deal with supernatural claims.
By the way, Peter, I recommend you read Finding Darwin's God by the Christian biologist Kenneth Miller. (Available here.)
Finally, Galileo's situation is not comparable. Galileo was placed under imprisonment and then house arrest for the entire remainder of his life, his book was banned, and the Inquisition forced him to recant his heliocentrism. Nothing of the sort is being done to Creationists. They are allowed to believe as they please and roam free amongst civilization. To claim moral equivalence with Galileo amounts to a rather disgusting exaggeration, and is an insult to the memory of a man who was truly wronged. Please keep your hyperbole in check. — coelacan talk — 03:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultraviolet Light Paper Worth Consideration

Please see "Ultraviolet Light And Its Role In the Origin Of Life" http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/U/UV_origin_of_life.html --Musea 02:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invisible friends

I think a specific paragraph in the article pointing out that ID is rubbish would be useful. It'd stop the deluded clowns from trying to repeatedly insert lies while claiming to address the point. 83.70.29.62 15:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The goal is to describe ID fairly. If ID truly is rubbish, it should already be obvious to readers, so there's no reason to do as you suggest. -- Ec5618 15:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revised Dating of the Origin of Life

4 billion years ago the Archaea branch of life began with cyanobacteria as is evident in the banded iron formations. Also, coacervates formed from lipid aggregations and hydrophobic interactions and were probably the first step toward cellular organization that prokaryotes formed from. Shouldn't this be ample evidence to push the date of the origin of life back to ~ca. 4.0 Ga? Valich 09:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is a community project: if you have a good source that says life originated then, make an edit and add your reference. PiCo 05:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what about Haldane's hypothesis?

J. B. S. Haldane's name is not even mentioned, here not in the primeval soup article. Other interesting thing to be mentioned is that the autocatalytic idea comes from as back as 1914, by Leonard Troland. --Extremophile 23:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bringing up the existance of the article abiogenesis again

It looks like discussion at Talk:Abiogenesis has died out regarding that article's reason for existing, but I am trying to bring it up again. Please see that article's talk page if you're interested. --Allen 02:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History section

Shouldn't the History section come before the contemporary theories section rather than after? PiCo 04:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RNA world paragraph and the cell membrane

The paragraph on the RNA world mentions a theory where "early cell membranes could have formed spontaneously from proteinoids" - but if so, and if that is a prerequisite for this model to work, wouldn't that actually mean that the cell membrane actually came first, even if it was not a cell membrane of today's construction? This version is not mentioned in RNA world hypothesis either. // habj 13:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lipid World

The section headed LipiD World is a bit embarrassing - it consists of just this sentence: "A theory that ascribes the first self-replicating object to be lipid-like. See [3] for more." It really should be either expanded or deleted. Anyone want to take a decision?PiCo 05:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's better to have a stub than nothing. I'll add the section stub tag so it's clear that this isn't "finished work." — coelacan talk — 06:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] redirect?

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the page default to the disambiguation than to the science page? It might come off as a little pov, but maybe that's just me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheSonofSerenity (talk • contribs) .

The disambiguation page does not resolve a naming conflict in this case, but points to alternative. I think the vast majority of users looking for "Origin of life" are looking for a scientific page, so I think the current setup serves its intended purpose well.--Stephan Schulz 08:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why isn't new life being created by nature now?

Given that the Earth now has very favourable conditions for sustaining life - does that mean that life is being created afresh somewhere on a regular basis (e.g. deep in the earth, at an ocean vent, in a damp puddle)? If not, why not? The chemical composition of the Earth in many places (deep underground) has not changed that much, so why can't new life emerge now?

Please direct such questions to the Reference desk. The simple answer is that we do not know. Perhaps the curent living organisms have changed the world so greatly that the formation of life is almost impossible. And perhaps life continually forms. What we do know is that all currently known life uses DNA (or RNA if you consider viruses to be alive), and genetic testing stongly suggests that all known life has a single ancestor. -- Ec5618 12:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's not true to say that the Earth has 'very favourable conditions for sustaining life': not only is there massive competition for niches, but every currently existing form of life on Earth has evolved to defend itself against the countless other forms of life that want to break down its organisation and steal its molecules for their own use. A newly emerging replicator would quickly become food for something more complex, without ever reaching an evolutionary stage where it looked like 'new life'. HTH. M.D.

some signs of new life appearing are evident, the organism responsible for BSE for instance.

[edit] "Primitive" extraterrestrial life

I'm confused about this sentence: "Additional support comes from a recent discovery of a bacterial ecosytem whose energy source is radioactivity.[3]" Why is this support for exogenesis? Whatever the answer to my question, it needs to go into the article IMO as this is not clear now. — coelacan talk — 06:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RNA chirality

perhaps there should also be a mention of the chirality of the nucleotide in under the RNA world. A polymer needs to be of the same chirality, or else the information in the molecule will be lost.


[edit] Chemical precursors

Carbon monoxide, more reactive than carbon monoxide and thus more easily combined with other chemical precursors of life, might have been even more suitable a precusor of pre-biotic chemicals than carbon dioxide.

Molecular oxygen and especially ozone that mist have been extremely rare under the conditions in which precursor chemicals formed would have been, and remained rare until photosynthesis began. --Paul from Michigan 09:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

2007-02-10 This page has been vandalized. If you view the article while not being logged in the article ends with "I hate you" and the headings are wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joe hill (talk • contribs) 13:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Almost definitely not. However, I suspect that the monobook.css of your IP address has been vandalized. Check Special:Mypage/monobook.css under your usual IP adress (if you have a static or semi-static one). This allows per-account customization.--Stephan Schulz 13:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] you people obviously have not been reading Genesis

God created the earth 6000 years ago. This is what the article should say.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whyte88 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 February 2007.

Although I do think that this article should state the Creationism theory, I do not beleive that the article should state "The earth was made by god 6000 years ago". I think it should call both the big bang and creationism a theory. We cannot prove that creationist theory is true because we have no evidence. However, we can prove that the evolution theory is true. Yet both are still theories and so I think in respect to both ideologies, we should call them Theories.

[edit] Intelligent design

Why isn't this mentioned at all here?

--HideandLeek 08:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion above. "This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life." ID is not science. --Stephan Schulz 09:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. For that, start in fairy tales. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Svetovid (talk • contribs) 10:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Hypothesis for protocell formation

This isn't ready to be put on the main page (it appears to be original research), so I am posting it here as a heads-up. According to this page , protocells can be formed reliably by mixing thermal protein and a warm sodium chloride solution (see figure 2 on the page). This is impressive, but it has not, as far as I know, been duplicated by other scientists. As such, I am putting this here so that more people will know about it and so that, if and when this evidence is confirmed, the main page can be changed accordingly.

Player 03 01:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inline citations?

There are very few inline citations in this article, and inline citations are mandatory for GA, A-class, and FA articles. For such a fundamental topic, this article should add more inline citations so that it lives up to (at least) GA standards. Jolb 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the theory of creationism

Your article states that the galaxy created by the big bang. With respect to the writer of this article, Although I do not beleive in God, I do think that the creationism theory should be added and that the big bang statement should be called a "theory" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.177.11.143 (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

The statement at the beginning of the article states that it focuses on scientific perspectives. Creationism does not fit the criteria for a scientific theory and to use that noun would be misleading. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Creationism theory does not pass Occam's Razor and should not be added, as it cannot be proved by science.Meson man 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ref

Just dropping this here for future use. Looks like a promising source of references.

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/21438

SheffieldSteel 01:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/r/i/Talk%7EOrigin_of_life_46ac.html"