Talk:Abiogenesis
From Academic Kids
For old or unrelated discussion: Archive1
| Contents |
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.
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 (http://www.google.com/search?q=abiogenesis)), and I think that biopoiesis should be merged with origin of life, it only gets 91 hits on Google: Google (http://www.google.com/search?q=biopoiesis). 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 (http://www.bloomsbury.com/ARC/detail.asp?EntryID=101751&bid=2) and this link (http://www.bloomsbury.com/ARC/detail.asp?entryid=101819&bid=2). 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)
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)
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)
