Talk:Abiogenesis

Criticism on abiogenesis

In the talk page it is stated that: "The occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, and there is ongoing research and competing hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred." >>>That alone is a statement that is very diffuse. Which scientists agree? Are there surveys and data that support this hypothesis?

Then it is stated that: "Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis. It is against Wikipedia policy for views without scientific support, such as all known objections to abiogenesis, to be included in a science article like Abiogenesis."

>>>My question is: In view of this statement, why is it okay to delete a section on a critical reception of the chemical evolution theories, based mainly on the scientific contribution of a professor of polymer chemistry and published in a highly recognised scientific publisher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Sloppy (talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Sloppy: and others - Thank you for your comments - the edit in question is copied below:

Copied below from the following => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abiogenesis&diff=1020675249&oldid=1020656503
My edit summary comments => "Rv edits - added text does not seem to be clearly supported by cited ref - please discuss on the talk-page for WP:CONSENSUS - per WP:BRD, WP:CITE, WP:NOR & related - thanks"

-- Criticism --

The hypotheses on chemical evolution and especially their optimistic interpretation with regard to the clarification of the origin of life are partly viewed critically. For example, the german expert for polymer chemistry Prof. Hans R. Kricheldorf, after analyzing the current hypotheses on chemical evolution, comes to the following conclusion: "The numerous gaps in knowledge, negative results and counter-arguments, [...], make it difficult with the current state of knowledge to accept from a distanced, scientific point of view the former existence of a chemical evolution leading to life. Despite numerous advances, especially within the framework of the RNA-world hypothesis, the results available so far are by far not sufficient to sufficiently substantiate a chemical evolution up to living organisms."

References

My main concern at the moment is that the added text does not seem to be clearly supported by the cited reference - there may be other concerns as well (wording, balance, more?) that may also need to be considered before adding the text to the article - in any case - Comments Welcome from other editors (esp those familiar with German) - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Some random book by some random person, pretty obviously picked for its conclusion. Not good enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, okay @Hob Gadling. I didn't know you had to have a certain status to contribute to Wikipedia. Can you perhaps give me a hint on how to achieve this? Is there anyone else who would like to discuss the content of the topic instead of discrediting the author or the scientific reference without knowing it? @Drbogdan: I appreciate your effort to prevent any unsubstantiated claims and unscientific assumptions about abiogenesis from appearing in this wiki article. However, you yourself write that you cannot judge the German source. This means to me that your main concern: "that the added text does not seem to be clearly supported by the cited reference", is merely that you cannot assess the source because of the language barrier. So I think your suggestion is great that other (German-speaking) editors take another look at the source. Until then, however, I would ask for impartiality, as this is a publication in a renowned scientific publishing house, which should contribute to critically questioning previous hypotheses and thus enable scientific progress in the field of abiogenesis (this goal is also formulated in the corresponding publication). From my point of view, this is exactly what science is all about: critically questioning and falsifying hypotheses. General rejections of such contributions and persons, such as in Hob Gadling's answer, I therefore find rather counterproductive at this point. Best regards, JoeJoe Sloppy (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

We know that it happened, we don't know how it happened. Why? Because a magic man done it isn't a scientific theory. And because panspermia simply means abiogenesis elsewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I do need to clarify that at this point. Especially for those who smell an agenda of religious people behind every criticism concerning the hypotheses of abiogenesis.

The source, which was quoted in the section, was published in a recognized science publishing house (as I already stated). The author is not religious in any way and even points out several times that his questions to the hypotheses on abiogenesis are not religiously motivated in any way. (Bad enough that a scientist must first explain themself before theories may be scientifically questioned.... But probably that is so in the case). As far as I know (and also other authors point out), there is up to now no theory which can explain the abiogenesis conclusively comprehensively. Therefore, in my opinion, it is logical or compelling to point out the ambiguities and open questions in the theories designed so far, precisely in order to enable progress in this regard. Everything else would be as if one had built an airplane that obviously cannot fly, but one does not look at the weak points out of fear that one could find out that the variant of the airplane will never be able to fly and one must perhaps start again.

Then, however, this is no more science which one pursues, but itself again a belief in the correctness of the own point of view.

That's why I think it's essential not to leave out critical, scientific voices, but to deal with the questions raised, because, well, because that's science.

In addition, I would be pleased if also (gladly critical) voices speak up, which first of all look at the source, before they put the author in any corner, because it is already clear to you before that it can be anyway only about any religious word messages. That is then nice, because you do not have to deal with the contents of the discussion and your own world view does not waver... But it is also anything but a scientific approach, which, at least as far as I understand it, should be the basis of the Wikipedia articles.

Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Sloppy (talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not "do" science, we only summarize mainstream science according to WP:DUE. We're not a scientific laboratory, not an university, not a publisher of original research, not a publisher of WP:FRINGE research, not a publisher of WP:UNDUE research, and so on. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point. But when new scientific evaluations of hypotheses appear, it is perhaps worthwhile to take a look at it as a Wikipedia community, since the scientific discourse continues, which is to be represented on Wikipedia. As I said, to evaluate such contributions from the outset as pseudoscience without knowing them (I assume that you have not read the contribution yet) shows in my opinion only of wanting to represent their own opinion on Wikipedia and not the scientific consensus.

If that were so, contents would be discussed at the place. So one can also come gladly to the conclusion that the source can be inserted in another place. E.g., here: "Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.[12]"

Although that is not as appropriate as a separate section in my opinion. Joe Joe Sloppy (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I *entirely* agree with all the editors above presenting concerns, as I have as well originally, about this material and reference(s) - seems the "WP:CONSENSUS" is clear => the proposed edit material (and related references) are not to be added to the main article - and for reasons that are very well described above by the editors challenging the proposed edit - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"[...]for reasons that are very well described above by the editors challenging the proposed edit"

The criticism from the editors has so far referred to me as the author or to general polemics regarding the discussion of the topic of abiogenesis. So far, not one contribution has dealt with the content of the cited source. But if these are the "very well described reasons" to which you refer, there is probably no need to put any more work into this and Wikipedia will have to live in its filter bubble for a little longer (at least as far as this article is concerned).

Nevertheless, I am of course still open to comments and hints on the content. Joe

@Joe Sloppy: We only render broadly accepted scientific ideas, so unless he posits something new (a novelty) and widely accepted I don't think we have to render each source which rehashes the idea that we don't know how it happened. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Since I have the feeling that some editors feel that this is about advertising ID, I would like to quote from the preface of the source that is being discussed all the time:

"If the criticism of the interpretation of results of the bottom-up approach expressed in many places should stimulate one or the other reader to new experiments, then this book has achieved its purpose. In any case, it was not the author's intention to please the reader with a new hypothesis or even pseudo-religion on the origin of life. Hans R. Kricheldorf"

It is commendable that the editors ensure that Intelligent Design theories do not find a place in the article on abiogenesis. However, this should not mean that scientific points of criticism are excluded in principle. Otherwise science degenerates into pseudoscience.Joe Sloppy (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@tgeorgescu: I dont agree. Hes saying something about the quality of the current hypothesis, which is to my opinion so far not really part of the article on abiogenesis.Joe Sloppy (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

So, how many times do you want to hear that we granted the point that we don't know how it happened? tgeorgescu (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

To me, it is not obvious in the article that "we dont know how it happend". It only says that "it is poorly understood", wich does not reflect the quality of the current hypothesis as I already said. But if I understand correct that you are the one(s) who decide so it does not make much sense to discuss any longer. Joe Sloppy (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The article says we don't know and we will probably never know. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You decide...Joe Sloppy (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Look, it's very simple. Lots of ink has been spilled about abiogenesis, and we cannot quote it all. We have to restrict ourselves to just a few sources, namely the most important or representative ones. We have seen no evidence that Kricheldorf's ideas are in any way relevant enough to quote. It is not enough that he fulfil minimum criteria - he has to be so relevant that, say, a lecturer at a university, giving a talk about abiogenesis about as long as this article, is likely to quote Kricheldorf's opinion. Is he? I don't think so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Dear Joe. In principle no one here should object to adding a 'criticism' section in this article. The question is, were you planning to write such a section on the basis of this source only? The best way to approach writing about 'criticism' regarding chemical evolution, would be to read up on recent overview literature, and assess if these skeptical counter-arguments receive significant attention by the authors. I'm not aware of any literature that does. TheBartgry (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• For what is worth, here is a recent review on the panspermia hypothesis: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-981-13-3639-3_27. It has also been disccused in a recent book: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119640912.ch4. Im surprised to see it listed as a fringe theory in here as I was presented that hypothesis during my university cursus. I understand that it does not resolve the origin of life in the universe, and that it relies on some abiogenesis elsewhere in the past, but for the matter of life origins here on earth it is worth a fair mention in my opinion. Cghislai (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  If that course was in biology and it was more than a mention and it was not presented as fringe, you should demand your money back. Panspermia is only held by people who do not understand evolution, such as Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It's nice to see that after so much back and forth, it's actually possible to discuss the content and the form on a factual level. Even if I'm a bit skeptical about statements like: "actually it's quite simple". I understand TheBartgry's argument. However, what has also happened in the discussion so far reflects a general problem of this branch of research. If criticism is formulated, one is put into a religious or pseudo-scientific corner and no discussion comes about at all. In my opinion, however, such mechanisms are a major problem because they prevent critical thinking. That's why I think it would be important, especially for a medium like Wikipedia with a large reach, to let critical voices have their say (as in most other Wikipedia articles, by the way). If the editors are of the opinion (and I can understand this to a certain extent) that this rediscovery of a critical way of thinking in the field of abiogenesis must first reach the broad scientific community, this is ultimately a pity, but it is to be accepted. However, I hope that at least those who have followed this discussion get a somewhat critical view and do not directly cover their eyes and ears with an automatism. Best regards and thank you for an in the end still somewhat constructive discussion Joe Sloppy (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Your arguments in favor of a criticism section are sound. If there is indeed, as you say, a bias towards positive arguments in abiogenesis literature (I could imagine so), then we are bound by WP:Verifiability to include that bias here. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth". Wikipedia is wrong. But it's the best we got. TheBartgry (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:CRITS: Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged.

I don't think you will find any sources with high enough quality, i.e. scientific sources. Abiogenesis is the only non-fringe alternative here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear Hob Gadling and to whom it concerns: I have presented, for everyone to see, a scientific source, a review article, which deals with the current hypotheses on abiogenesis. Apparently, the scientific quality was sufficient for the world's second largest scientific publisher. If your standard for scientific quality is different, then perhaps that speaks more to the fact that it is about beliefs and premises rather than a neutral, evidence-based argument on the subject. By the way, the article does not offer an alternative to abiogenesis, but recommends a more critical examination of the hypotheses.

I would recommend that all those who are interested in a critical debate take a look at the book. DOI (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57978-7)

Best, Joe 141.30.151.163 (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I will use "we" as a convention to mean the scientific community: If I correctly interpret the above, the argument is that we don't completely understand how it happened. We indeed know much more about how evolution happens than how abiogenesis succeeded. There of course was progress and various plausible hypotheses in the way, like protocells, etc. It's fine for the article to mention that abiogenesis is much less understood than evolution, but I don't think that it would be fair to just accumulate criticism, considering that it's the only plausible scientific explanation for the emergence of life... —PaleoNeonate – 12:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear PaleoNeonate,

thank you for your comment. Nevertheless, I think that exactly the opposite is the case. I don't think the issue here is whether a hypothesis is treated fairly or unfairly, those are moral conceptualizations. Rather, it is about whether there are intrinsic inconsistencies or contradictions that can be revealed (in the sense of falsification). In this sense, ANY scientific hypothesis, including abiogenesis, should be able to be criticized without anticipatory obedience or ideological bias.

A remark by Georg Christoph Lichtenberg may be helpful at this point: "Nothing puts more obstacle in the way of the progress of science than if one believes to know what one does not yet know."Joe Sloppy (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Wikipedia is not a journal and does not do the science, however, it should report about common knowledge or the most accepted hypotheses. For instance, in the conversation below, editors attempt to assess how to cover panspermia taking WP:RS/AC in consideration. Per WP:MNA, since it's an article about scientific biology, the article should also avoid promoting alternatives that have no scientific acceptance (like pseudoscientific creationism, of course). But if there are notable problems debated by mainstream biologists, it may well be WP:DUE and are likely also found in textbooks, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 16:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response PaleoNeonate and your thoughts. I find it very exciting to read this, because what you raise in your statement is exactly what I think should be reflected in the article. You write, "But if there are notable problems debated by mainstream biologists, it may well be WP:DUE and are likely also found in textbooks, etc."

That is exactly the point. I have introduced a source from a textbook from one of the largest science publishers in the world, which debates problems regarding abiogenesis. So if you follow your own standard, you should actually be in favor of including this section in the Wiki article, right?

Whereby I have one more objection to your statement: I think that not only biologists have something to say about abiogenesis, but also many other scientific fields (geologists, physicists, chemists and especially polymer chemists). Joe Sloppy (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding: I agreed above that evolution is much better understood. Our lead currently includes: "Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood." This seems to be what the above also argues with "the results available so far are by far not sufficient to sufficiently substantiate a chemical evolution up to living organisms". —PaleoNeonate – 18:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in a way, one can draw this conclusion from the sub-sentence that its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. However, from my point of view, the first part of the sentence should then be deleted. Because: If the possible mechanisms are poorly understood, many boundary conditions are unclear and on the basis of the facts a chemical evolution seems to be difficult to argue, then the statement: "Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists" is in the best case a statistical statement (although no references are listed for such a statement and thus it remains unclear what is meant by it), but probably rather a statement of faith or a premise which clarifies a certain bias. And as I have understood the discussion so far, such statements rather belong in other Wiki articles and not in this one, which wants to be purely scientific, right? Joe Sloppy (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

If I understand the very lengthy debate, it's that we should avoid vague generalisations about what most scientists believe, especially when there are philosophical overtones. I've removed the statement as not specially helpful and very difficult to substantiate. The article seems fine without it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Circular Reference

Andrew J.; Fletcher, Stephen P. (2 December 2013). "Mechanisms of Autocatalysis cites Wikipedia which cites Fletcher. This is circular reasoning. For more see Stephen Meyer The Return of the God Hypothesis page 307 second paragraph. ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed as unusable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Archives

Why does the section at the to with links to the archives only list Archives 1-3? (Which only contain discussions from 10 years ago and earlier)? It seems there are at least 7 pages of archives. I have no idea how to fix this..and sorry if this isn't the right place for posting this. Thanks 20:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirTramtryst (talk • contribs)

Hey there. I removed the archive box with the incorrect pagination. The second box from the top has a spot that says "Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7". I'm thinking we can just use that since that is auto-generating correctly. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Life before Earth - or not?

Regression of genome complexity increase.

The notion of life arising before the formation of Earh may be worh considering for several reasons: a possible fully-biofunctional complex LUCA to have arisen de novo on the very early Earth may simply be too complicated to have quickly occurred spontaneously, especially given the presumed timing (so quick after ocean formation - according to biologist Stephen Blair Hedges, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth ... then it could be common in the universe".), chemistry and terrestrial conditions/circumstances of the very early Earth - and may have arisen instead via of pseudo-panspermia, seemingly plausible on the basis of current findings and evidences, and/or via of the panspermia process (albeit currently considered a fringe notion, since there is lacking sufficient evidences at the moment) but, nonetheless, possibly originating on Mars, for example, and involving a much more complex (and fully functional) bioentity (or even an actual microorganism) to start the evolutionary process later on Earth - in any case - Comments Welcome - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Three things. Fringe, as you rightly observe. Tone, far too chatty, newsy, and speculative. And doesn't belong here, there are already articles on panspermia and pseudo-panspermia, but far from convinced either of them need a constant tide of gossipy accretions either. If we ask what is the scientific substance here, the reply is not much, the timing is a bit tight, that's all. Please, let's drop it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: - Thank you *very much* for your reply - and comments - yes - agreed - no problem whatsoever - thought the notion was worth considering - at least to some degree - but yes - in the end and, for the present "Abiogenesis" article, perhaps not yet sufficiently worth developing further afaik atm - iac - Thanks again for your own efforts with this - and for all your editing efforts developing the article to the higher quality level of "WP:GA" - it's all *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

"Ring of Life" phylogeny?

@Chiswick Chap: (and others): Of possible interest - Laurence A. Moran (Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto) commented recently (5/9/2022) on my Facebook Page regarding the new Wikipedia "Good Article" version of "Abiogenesis" (afaik) as follows:

"That's a pretty good article but I'd quibble with the simplistic view of eukaryotes as a sister group of archaea. The current consensus is that eukaryotes arose from a fusion of an alphaproteobacterium and a relative of the Asgard group of archaea. Both of these ancestors arose WITHIN their respective domains. Modern eukaryotes contain genes derived from both Eubacteria and Archaea with a slight majority tracing descent from the Eubacteria ancestor. This give rise to a "Ring of Life" phylogeny and represents the end of the Three Domain Hypothesis. ( https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-three-domain-hypothesis-rip.html )"

Perhaps worth noting for those more knowledgeable about this than I am at the moment - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, we're only reporting, not inventing. We can certainly use the "Ring of Life" source: Williams, T.A., Cox, C.J., Foster, P.G., Szöllősi, G.J., and Embley, T.M. (2020) Phylogenomics provides robust support for a two-domains tree of life. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 4:138-147. [doi: 10.1038/s41559-019-1040-x] Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Before evolution, not part of it

Since by definition abiogenesis is the pre-biological process that led to life, it is rather clear that it cannot properly be categorised as "biological evolution". Its name, indeed, means from not-life, not-bio. I do hope there will be no more attempts to miscategorise this article in this way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Maxaxax has indicated on his talk page that he agrees with the pre-biological nature of abiogenesis, which I hope will be an end to this matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I Have added the Category:Archean life category, but I'm a bit unsure if it should be that category or just the Category:Archean one. In either case, this is one of the most important things to happen in the Archean period, if not the most, and should be there somewhere. Cambalachero (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another editor, another category, exactly the same problem. Once life had formed, Archean or any other kind, abiogenesis had finished. So, abiogenesis is not part of the "Archean life" category, or any other "... life" category. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

What about the category Category:Archean, then? Cambalachero (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure you're right about the time period, either. Abiogenesis seems to have taken place in the Hadean; even the LUCA may well have appeared then, though its age is uncertain. It'd really be best just to leave it out in the circumstances. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Events in biological evolution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

We both started threads at the same time. No need for two. If Maxaxax or someone else wants to discuss the category, please do so at the thread above this one. Cambalachero (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

---

There is some edit-warring about to happen over the inclusion of this article in Category:Events in biological evolution. Maxaxax and Chiswick Chap, please discuss this here, nobody would like things to go wrong so soon after this level-3 vital article became a GA. Please explain in a bit of detail your reasons for and against the inclusion in the category, and let's hope we can reach an agreement. Cambalachero (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I was already doing so, see above. The article has just been formally reviewed; and the process is by definition pre-biological, so, basta. It is utterly unacceptable for editors to attempt to force through a change of that kind without consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Round of applause for Chiswick Chap

Let's give a big hand to Chiswick Chap's dedicated efforts to tame this monstrosity. The current version has neat coherence and solid prioritization. A tremendous improvement on the previous situation. Full marks! TheBartgry (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Small restoring

While improving, two refs were deleted in the summary. The missing point tells me that the modifier did not see that these are TWO refs, and deleted the words between them. I restored these words, apparently omitted unintentionally: "and implosion of bubbles in sea and ocean waves." Netsivi (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 1 July 2022

Abiogenesis → Origin of life – The term "Origin of life" is close to 100 times more commonly used than "Abiogenesis". "Origin of life" gets 176 million ghits, against 1.78 million for "Abiogenesis". Similarly, the Google books Ngram shows that "Origin of life" has always been far more widely used in printed sources; it is considerably older, starting in 1800 rather than around 1870, and its usage has resurged since 1995. In contrast, "Abiogenesis" was most popular around 1891, though still only at about 23% of "Origin of life", and most the time much less than that, for instance in 1980 it was at about 5% of "Origin of life". Google Scholar gives "Origin of life" some 116,000 hits, and "Abiogenesis" some 6,400. Thus both scientists and other authors concur in using "Origin of life" as their preferred term.

I therefore propose, per WP:COMMONNAME, that we move the article to "Origin of life". Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 11:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap oppose on the basis that Origin of Life is ambiguous between the scientific origin of life and creation myths Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 12:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Immanuelle, as you say yourself, that would lead to Creation myths, with tales of mythical beasts and deities, not to anything named "Origin of life" as such; but even if it did, that would only mandate a disambiguation page like Creation (which lists dozens of pages)- that is no obstacle to the renaming. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps this could even be avoided by making origin of life a disambig, with the article about Abiogenesis being titled something like: Origin of Life (science) TimTheDragonRider (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it's even necessary; at the most a hatnote would be sufficient, and this would clearly be the primary topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support - for the reasons *very well* described above in the original requested move proposal - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support for reasons listed in the original suggestion. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per original argument (WP:COMMONNAME). Wikipedia should put the targets where the readers are aiming. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per pitch and for clarity's sake; "abiogenesis" is often taught in schools as a synonym of spontaneous generation, not as a term for the modern theories on the origin of life. The proposed title is both more widely used and more unambiguous. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Immanuelle. For a religous person, "origin of life" would almost certainly refer to a supernatural being creating life. There are also theories involving aliens and the like regarding the origins of life on Earth. BD2412 T 18:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

With respect, none of that forms any reason not to rename from the obsolete Abiogenesis. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per all of the above. Additionally, we are not here to satisfy the creationist beliefs of any religions, unless they can be proven by science ; it's a purely scientific article, and metaphysics are not in scope for it for now, this renaming discussion should be grounded on usage alone. This is also ignoring the increasing amount of believers thinking that the Genesis story is not necessarily entirely true when talking about prehistoric life. Moreover, in this consideration, any article talking about the origin of life in a given religion would be unjust. And, additionally, in most religions, the most favored term is "creation of life" or "creation myth", which implies a will behind its apparition, generally represented by a god figure, which doesn't appear in the term "origin", making it more secular. And, very honestly, we are absolutely not here to satisfy the beliefs of some kranks in an alien-induced origin of life, which is a creation myth too anyway. And, as a more personal note, the few times in my entire life I've seen the term "abiogenesis" being used were all related to this very article existence and controversies. One can't ignore the potential perceived bias behind maintaining such an important article under such a disused and technical name. Larrayal (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Origin of life" is the general idea, life appearing where there was none. "Abiogenesis" is one theory that explains it, but there were others, panspermia, spontaneous generation, and yes, creation myths (don't forget that ancient people took those things as truth when science was not developed yet and they needed to explain the things around them somehow). Science take priority over religion, spontaneous generation has been disproven and abiogenesis is more accepted than panspermia, but all that belongs to the articles content. Article names are based on usage, not acceptance. The "origin of life" article name should be used for History of research into the origin of life, a recap of the ideas proposed over time, and the acceptance of each one. And there's also a practical detail: the article can basically ignore all that because it is about the abiogenesis theory. Move it to "origin of life", and then the nonsenses about God, Odin and Zeus would have to be mentioned as well. Cambalachero (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

We can "mention the nonsenses" if necessary, but such myths are about the origin of the world and of humans, life being incidental; and I never heard of Norse mythology described as an "origin of life" story. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

That was just rhetoric. The point is, abiogenesis has almost complete support within science. Or perhaps even complete, because if there was panspermia and the origin of life was not here, the question of the ultimate origin of life would still remain, and abiogenesis would still be the main answer to it. However, it is disputed by some religious and political groups. When it comes to article content, the first context is the one that matters. When it comes to the article name, it is the second. Cambalachero (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support. "Origin of life" has redirected here since content at that title was merged here in 2008. Extensive discussion at that time supported the redirect from Origin of life to this page. Meanwhile, Creation of life is a disambiguation page. "Origin" is used consistently to refer to theories about the biological/chemical process, while when "creation" is used there is the possibility of an agent of creation involved. Likewise we do not have disambiguation pages involving religious ideas about creation at the titles Prehistory, Human evolution, History of Earth, History of agriculture, etc. Note also Origin of language vs. Mythical origins of language. Further, the proposed title appears to better match the WP:CRITERIA of recognizability and naturalness. Dekimasuよ! 05:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cambalachero, who covered the entire argument against moving this title. Yes, it can be confusing, and some effort should be made to appeal to a more general audience to mitigate this confusion, perhaps by improving the dab header and related dab pages. Viriditas (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Um, Viriditas, you may be right that the dab header and pages need improvement, but that is precisely nothing to do with this move; the entire point of disambiguation is to deal with topics that share or have similar names; it's not a reason for pretending that a major topic does not have a common name. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there’s no way around the wide ambiguity of using "origin of life", so we default to narrow precision ("abiogenesis") instead. I don’t think there’s ever an ideal solution, because every culture and discipline tends to favor their own terms. IMO, there’s a lot of considerations to take when pointing the reader to the correct article. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve come here searching for one thing, only to be taken to quite another. It happens to me at least once a week. It’s not a perfect system, that’s for sure. Right now, redirecting origin of life to this article partly suffices, but the resulting dab leaves a lot to be desired. There’s no perfect solution, but it’s good enough. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cambalachero essentially. Origin of life is the general idea, abiogenesis is the mainstream scientific theory. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Users Cambalachero, Chiswick Chap, and others. Paul H. (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, since the original reasoning is based on the number of Google hits, which is not a good reason. Google shows me these pages first (of course this is pretty individual):
  1. This Wikipedia page.
  2. [1] The origin of life - Encyclopedia Britannica, which lists four options, the first of which is "The origin of life is a result of a supernatural event—that is, one irretrievably beyond the descriptive powers of physics, chemistry, and other science."
  3. An online shop selling "energetic products".
  4. [2] "7 Theories on the Origin of Life" - that one does sound scientific.

So, not counting the page itself, one hit in three is about the subject of the page. After that, it gets better, but still... the renaming would change the subject of the page from a scientific subject into a philosophical question which has the scientific subject as the best answer, as well as several fantasy answers. The article will have to list the best-known bad answers in addition to the good one, and that will result in a loss of focus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, Google more or less pulls that number out of thin air based on the frequency of individual words. See here for a partial list of problems with using Google hit counts. One example: The number may shift as much as fivefold from day to day. Kotlopou (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Per Dekimasu, other articles like History of Earth are covered in a purely scientific way, with the religious aspects covered elsewhere. Vpab15 (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as it would be a step towards obscurantism (meaning writing style). tgeorgescu (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  What's that supposed to mean? Vpab15 (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Vpab15: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscurantism tgeorgescu (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

With respect, this assumes that all people who searched for "The Origins of Life" were really looking for "Abiogenesis". I don't see evidence for why all these searches were looking for scientific information as opposed to philosophical, literary, social, artistic, or other.

Additionally, Abiogenesis is its own field of active research that merits its own wikipedia page. Origins of Life already has a separate page saturated with different content. Conflating the two would lead to information loss. MeteorGlow8x (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. I do to some extent agree with the argument for the broadest accessible term, but at the end of the day, these two syntactical targets are going to point to the same namespace/article, so no significant functionality is going to be lost based on our choice here. That being the case, as to the actual name of the article, I prefer the more technical and precise foregrounding of the scientific term which describes the body of work of biochemical theory and modeled biophysics that defines a field of discrete empirical interest--it is in my opinion therefore a much better match for the article, particularly having re-familiarized myself with the content therein. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support clear WP:COMMONNAME, no need for relatively obscure scientific name to be at base.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a particular type of origin of life, and is not all origins of life. It is the chemical genesis for chemical life. It is not the genesis of software-AI-life, nor hardware-robotic life, nor it is the religious or mythological origins of life. Nor is it the origins of Boltzmann brains, or other forms of quantum life. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as Abiogenesis only describes how chemical life comes to be, while 'origin of life' seems like a broader topic, one which would encompasses not only scientific info but also religious, social, etc. 'Abiogenesis' is strictly scientific, while 'origin of life' is broader, much like how the human Wiki page is different from the Homo sapiens page. 2ple (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I was always convinced that Abiogenesis is the 'first part' where from simple elements and molecules the first macromolecules are formed up till the first cell, our last universal common ancestor. From that point on we are talking about the Origin of life. These two concepts are different. Often chemists study abiogenesis and biologists study the origin of life. I agree therefore also with Cambalachero--Phacelias (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Abiogenesis is the scientific term and the one that should be described here. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose As long as Origin Of Life redirects to Abiogenesis and is clearly an alternate title in the lede, I don't see why this would be necessary. It would cause confusion and open up the article to fringe theories and religion. The void century (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Diverse life forms may have evolved earlier than previously thought (at least 3.75 Gya)

May I suggest to reflect changes described in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrRxI_9cRM0&ab_channel=AntonPetrov and found in associated links to papers from its description, including https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/apr/diverse-life-forms-may-have-evolved-earlier-previously-thought ? Sleeditor (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The article already discusses life at this and greater ages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Loads of prebiotic molecules found in Milky Way?

FWIW - (For being aware only of newly published relevant studies - not necessarily to incorporate into the main article) - On 8 July 2022, astronomers reported the discovery of massive amounts of prebiotic molecules, including for RNA, in the galactic center of the Milky Way Galaxy.

References

Drbogdan (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Abiogenesis is about the origin of life here on Earth. This info would be more relevant in articles such as Astrobiology and Extraterrestrial life. Cambalachero (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)