Contents

Talk:Abiogenesis: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:38, 3 July 2011

Evolutionary biology B‑class High‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:FAOL

Abiogenesis received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

The article states that the RNA world hypothesis is a "genes-first" theory. This isn't true: it posits that genes and metabolism arose simultaneously. That is to say, unlike either DNA or proteins, ribozymes can both contain genetic information and catalyze chemical reactions. Thus, the RNA world hypothesis is a third option in addition to the genes-first and metabolism-first options. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.171.227 (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This quote is in the clay theory section.

"For a gene-like behavior the additional imperfections should be much less than the parent ones, thus Kahr concludes that the crystals "were not faithful enough to store and transfer information from one generation to the next""

What the heck does this mean? It really needs clarification because as it is currently worded, it makes no sense whatsoever. In a high importance article like this that is a bad thing. I would fix it myself but I have no clue about microbiology-that's why I came here in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.213.151 (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the original text as I agreed that the clarity was missing. Having knowledge of the articles it was easy to assume what was being said but if looked at from an outsider it made little sense that Kahr was inferring that the mutations exceeded the inheritance. Kaylus (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the article is falling seriously behind latest scientific research. There is little mention of the possible role of alkaline vents and their differences from black smokers, no mention of RNA synthesis or the role of the Krebs cycle. To take account of this the article needs to separate into two sections - the first - a historical acoount of abiogenesis research, and the second, a scientific account of the latest findings. Thoughts anyone? John D. Croft (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what you say is true of course, but I am left in doubt about your intention. Being aware, as you clearly are, of the scope of the field, your statement about falling behind cannot have been intended as derogatory, but this is a wiki after all; are you not contemplating doing a bit of gentle updating? That is the whole point, right?

As for splitting the article, well... I can't see it doing any harm as long as there is clear linking both ways between the two. JonRichfield (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you going off on him like that? He raises some very valid points. Most of the experiments mentioned are in the time period of the 1990s and earlier. Surely with the advance in technology, there has been more research done. Mmallico (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmalllico, your antecedents are unclear. Were you addressing me, or was the indenting accidental? Assuming you were addressing me (if not, forget the rest of my response) then what did I say to suggest anything unfriendly or unhelpful? JDC said that the article was falling behind. I accepted that. I suggested that the proper thing for anyone with up to date knowledge was to do some updating. Did you read my wording as ironic or in any other way sarcastic? If so, how would you have phrased it differently? JDC suggested splitting the article. I expressed no objection, merely stressing the importance of proper linking (I might also have added something on the importance of proper structuring; splitting articles is not a simple as some people think). Please explain what I should have said instead. Thanks, JonRichfield (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments do seem carefully crafted to imply an attack while also hiding behind plausible deniability - you raise the issue of intention, you deny a derogatory intent but then again you raise the issue where it didn't seem necessary. Why are you bringing up his intentions at all? Why not just stick to the science and leave out personal issues? Docwyoming

Personally, I think we should not split the page really, but do like pages such as Quantum mechanics do. Clean this article up a bit and make it the generally accessible, with a second one going deeper into the science of the issue, each with a lead link to the other.. The original would have it of course, but for anyone not in the field, too much science would throw off the entire article. Hard to keep track of something if you have to look up every third word. The more established would remain here -- as there has been more time devoted to a clearer understanding of those aspects of the science simply due to length of existance and the need to devise teaching mechanisms for people to make use of them -- while the newer more complex and emerging explinations would be on the second page.

If we can possibly find any way to simplify this, it would be of great value. And there is simply no good reason why a layman would need to know about emerging experiments, due to the sheer complexity of the issue. And if no one but experts can read it, theres not too much point of having it, you know? 74.128.56.194 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im a bad writer, let me clarify. Unlike the original suggestion of describing its history, we should give overviews of all the key points, history included. It would also include the simpler explinations for things. The second would be solely for the emerging scientific theories and the more vastly complex ones. But both articles should reflect the whole of the work, not just one aspect. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The header of the article says:

By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments

I believe it would be better to change "linving things" for something more specific, like "organisms". 186.109.0.112 (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal, but I cannot agree. Whether anyone likely to refer to the article also would be likely have difficulty understanding hard words like "organism" I can't say, but just how do you see "organism" as being more specific than "living thing"? Which "living things" are not "organisms"? And if there are such, then on what basis are they to be excluded from having had a role in affecting isotopic ratios? Just asking... JonRichfield (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not terribly fussed with which term we adopt, but wouldn't it be nice if we settled on at least one spelling that is widely accepted and understood, with some authoritative source? At the moment we have both biopoesis and biopoiesis in the same article. I am more used to the latter, but on consulting Jaeger^[1] I find that there seems to be no definitive form. As I said, I am not fussed, but I'd like to see some uniformity, if only for encyclopaedicity. (Or swank, if you like!) JonRichfield (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]