Talk:Biogenesis

message: As if it wasn't clear enough, the last sentence gives it away,
"Finally, they argue that once it has been conceded (as is conceded by theistic evolution) that the original cell was created by a divine being, there is no reason to believe He could not have created life in a variety of forms."
This whole article needs a rewrite.
:You do something about it, then. Infraredeclipse 15:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you ask me, what was there originally seemed perfectly reasonable as biogenesis itself can either be disproof once and for all of the Big Bang theory or proof that God exists (for those who need a prod in the right direction...) Lowri (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. Biogenesis is a law, not a fact.Gralgrathor (talk) 10:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quite clearly written by a creationist

message: 1. Irrelevant mentions ( ex: "life was never seen comming from dead matter" )
2. No such thing as "creationist biology", creationists just say life was the result of a miracle and came out of nothing, which is a non-falsifiable hypothesis
Please, clean this article
*What exactly do you mean? Creationist biology is the creationist  view on biology.(A few biologists adhere to that view)  Creationists don't neccesarily say life was a result of a miracle. Keep in mind this is the Young-Earh creationist viewpoint on the article or an Intelligent Design. And Yec's believe life was created  but then followed(and continues) adapatation etc, just not leaps in evolution.(Dinosaur-->bird, etc) So could you please clarify your points  a bit more.  Keep in mind this an online dictionary that expresses the views but doesn't delcare a fact unless it is which this article doesn't. If you like you can add to the Controversy sectionFalphin 19:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaps? Gralgrathor (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That might refer to Punctuated equilibrium. I agree, however, that there is no "creationist biology" - creationist views range from rejection of: any changes, Speciation, complexity increase, or just Abiogenesis. Belief in "a miracle" is an accurate way to describe what they have in common.Grey.dreyk (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: This is very bad

message: Does anyone have any sources for any of the claims on this article? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CITE

message: I corrected a possibly misleading statement and a number of grammatical errors.  I believe that I was fair in portraying the intention of the statement; however, in it's form it was not appropriate.  Feel free to return the concept or corrected argument to the article, addressing the following criticism.
Removed portion: "The organic makeup of life and the makeup viruses are not the same.  Viruses feed of life and rarely live outside it's host for long."
1. Is the first statement refering to organic (chemical) makeup, or organic (physiological) makeup?  It does posess much of the same chemical makeup (RNA, often DNA, protiens).  Physiologically, life does not require organs (physiologically), There is a requirement for the life to be encapsulated in a cell; however this may be a falacy of accident.  
2. "Viruses feed of[f] life..." This arguement is spurious and incomplete.  Any organism that is not a producer is a consumer.  Consumers feed off life.  If you intend to state that viruses require a host in order to have the mechanisms required to reproduce, then you must state that. 
3.  Your claim is that a virus does not live, yet then you claim they do by stating: "viruses rarely live outside..."  A possible correction: "Viruses are rarely viable if excluded from a host cell for an extended period of time"  
rmosler 12:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spurious Statement 

message: "The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules." 
I believe this should be added to the entry to clarify what Pasteur and others were actually addressing with their law of biogenesis. Furthermore this article should be included in Biology, which I'll do now... but perhaps it should also be included in Creationism as well given their interest in adopting it. - RoyBoy 800 17:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: good stuff, as long as it's attributed.  reasonable minds can disagree on the interpretation of the law, so we can attribute it, but not state it as fact.  Ungtss 18:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorize and clarification

message: In particular, I have a problem with the following quote: "Additionally, some point to lesser-known and controversial experiments such as those performed by Andrew Crosse as examples of abiogenesis."  I looked up this link and found that Andrew Crosse produced an experiment in the 1800's in which he discovered the creation of insects in the lab, but later he concluded that he likely had an experiment contaminated with insect eggs.  This experiment is lesser known for a reason, and I don't know of anybody who is pointing to it presently as an example of abiogenesis.  I won't edit the statement because by some chance I may be mistaken and that some proponents of abiogenesis in fact are using Crosse's experiment as an argument.  However, combined with some of the problems of above, I suspect that the article is written poorly and perhaps with bias (although I can see an attempt at neutrality). I advocate it's omission from Wikipedia.  16:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Proof for ID?  Well, you must have your work ahead of you correcting the wiki article on that!  68.227.169.133 (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

text: The "atmosphere" in Urey and Miller's experiment is no longer scientifically accepted as the correct one.  It has been since discovered that the atmosphere at the proposed time of abiogenesis was similar to that of a recently erupted volcano.  If someone could edit that, that would be fantastic. --SJHAGoalie (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe in a politics class  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.231.238 (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Speak freely wherever you wish, except during mandatory, graded lectures, and on rather off-topic talk pages. Also, be ready to give the same lecture time to any debated claims of any religion.Grey.dreyk (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with "human attempts to create life"

message: Why is the law of biogenesis section so short with no link to scientific material, nor a link to how the law is actually written? It was also my understanding that the law of biogenesis deals with macro organisms such as rats and maggots. http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html 
In general Laws apply to all time, but they do not necessarily apply to all circumstances. Why do you put "modern organisms" when I am pretty sure it should be multicellular lifeforms?
Jaydstats (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinction "modern organisms" includes single celled organisms.  Even bacteria have a variety of complex features (e.g. cell walls) unlikely to have been present at the start of life. Novangelis (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless, the term used in the site I've given above of "very primitive life" would be a much better way to phrase this, because it does not have the concept of time as its motivation of difference between the law and the first lifeform. It is the level of complexity that is the difference, not the time at which it occurred. Laws sometimes do not apply in differing scopes (e.g. Einstein's correction to Newton Law of Motion), but they do apply to all time (at least to the starting of the universe and this was ~10 billion years after the start of the universe).Jaydstats (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How is "very primitive life" anything more than a vague opposite of "modern organisms"? Modern, as in currently existing forms, is fairly distinct. Primitive can refer to currently living organisms with systems reduced to remnants, so complexity (which is a challenge to assess) is not the only measure. Primative has definitions that refer to early times, so time is an element. Concise and precise terminology is a challenge here; for example, "fully-formed" could imply adult. The exceptions to the modern interpretation of cell theory create a context.Novangelis (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that using precise terminology is a challenge in this case.  It actually seems to be a challenge in this field.  Presumably, a less complex primitive lifeform would be able to be produced now using the environment of early earth in which case we would have modern primitive life. I'm not sure if there is that perfect terminology.Jaydstats (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Law of Biogenesis

message: Reading the section Law of Biogenesis we see the classic creationist and fundamentalist language of "life from non-life".  The clarification of spontaneous generation of fully formed life is also gone.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.188.116.156 (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually...  Check this,  I agree that it's (both) somewhat a mischaracterization overall, though, I just can't seem to find a source (not that I looked much) that says much more in depth.  68.227.169.133 (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: THIS IS NOT CONSEVAPEDIA or a CREATIONWIKI

message: Dear Wikipedia contribuitors,
receive a very respectful greeting. I would like this article to have more information about certain latin phrases associated with the origin of life such as those in the title of this section. I have made a similar request on the article about Abiogenesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abiogenesis.
Thanks in advance for your help!George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Omne vivum ex vivo",  "omne vivum ex ovo" and "omne ovum ex vivo" 

message: This has been deleted as "fringe".
Biochemist Christian Schwabe argues that chemistry is the driving force of the assembly of life, he further contends that the process of biogenesis was so fast that less than a billion years after accretion the Earth contained microorganisms, he claims that the Miller experiment has not proven abiogenesis but has proven biogenesis as the molecules which were discovered in the experiment have been found throughout the universe. He further contends that life in the universe has always existed as a manifestation of matter and energy. He also claims that all species on earth have an independent origin from pools of nucleic acids, according to his theory life is widespread throughout the whole universe. Genomic potential hypothesis of evolution: A concept of biogenesis in habitable spaces of the universe, Christian Schwabe, The Anatomical Record, Volume 268, Issue 3, pages 171-179, 1 November 2002 Online PDF Link
But as you can see it has been published in a notable journal. Chemistryfan (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The current full title of the journal is "The Anatomical Record: Advances in Integrative Anatomy and Evolutionary Biology". It had a special issue on astrobiology. This is undue weight to a singular fringe usage of the term "biogenesis" which relies an unaccepted alternate definition of life. The personal rebranding of the molecular origin of life, abiogenesis, as biogenesis by redefining life back to the chemical constituents does not qualify this material for inclusion in this article as that, too, is a fringe position. Most importantly, many of the claims cannot be found in the two sources, one primary.Novangelis (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The paper by Schwabe on biogenesis, can be found here Link he argues that the laws of chemistry are universal and that life has always existed in the universe. Chemistryfan (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian Schwabe

message: I notice that the section regarding the law of biogenesis always seems to have the mentions of Creationists removed.  The "law of biogenesis" is not recognized.  It's an invenstion by creationists so they can then claim evolution violates it.  I'm paraphrasing PZ Meyers on that last bit.75.92.195.155 (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Biogenesis a fact confirmed by the entire history of biology and the life sciences.  Every bit of relevant data unequivocally supports it.  If Biogenesis isn't a law of nature, than nothing is. 76.179.130.102 (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So many things wrong with that comment... It is a "process". Now, the law of biogenesis, too vaguely defined to be a Scientific law, is a statement that holds increasingly more true the more complex an organism is.Grey.dreyk (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing vague about it.  Life only comes from life.  It is a simple fact of nature, no different than Mendelian laws of inheritance. There are no "less complex" organisms that show evidence of defying this.  70.16.207.189 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Today, yes, but billions of years ago, the situation was drastically different.  Having said that, there is no official "(scientific) law of biogenesis."--Mr Fink (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you say so? See "Sir William Thomson on the Law of Biogenesis and The Law of Gravitation 1871." It's considered a law then just as it is now. Being a fundamental part of biology means that it being called "the law of biogenesis" makes it a scientific law. Indeed all dictionaries call it a scientific principle. I've encountered nothing but opinion disputing this fact. --Hskian (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide some sources that declare biogenesis a scientific law, or are you just cranky from running from soapbox to soapbox, trying to pick fights all day?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: WHAT LAW???

message: Is biogenesis a belief or scientific theory? The Pasteur experiments imply the latter. --beefyt (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is biogenesis a belief or scientific theory? 

message: in consideration of the lay public, perhaps it would be commendable for this article to include a brief section that pertains to secondary and tertiary sources that critically analyse the topic (by this I am referring to scientific sources, including but not exclusively journal articles). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  maybe it would be adequate... 

message: The generation of life from non-living material is called abiogenesis, and it has occurred at least once in the history of the Earth, when life first arose
Sophie means wisdom said
do we need to cite statements of the obvious?
How this statement is allowed i dont know, we are talking science here, not what some users may 'believe', to the people who think this has been demonstrated claim your $3,000,000 worth of prizes and cite the relevant literature. Until you find the literature (go to NCBI) i will add 'hypothesized to have occurred'. This is science, NOT OPINION.
http://www.originlife.org/
http://www.us.net/life/
From abiogenesis page (even that has it accurate in that it says 'may' and thats the main page).
In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen. I
I have added 'hypothesized to have'.
My name IS NOT  jinxmchue either.
Jinx69 (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, it is by your opinion that you insist on inserting the weasel word phrase of "hypothesized to have".--Mr Fink (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, Jinx69, you are the one who initiates all of these edit wars, as you're the one who makes edits without trying to achieve consensus from other editors, insert weasel words, and trying to browbeat other editors into accepting your edits without question, all while ignoring everything other editors have to say.--Mr Fink o(talk) 13:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This statement seems to be out of place. This is an article on biogenesis, not abiogenesis. As such I would suggest we leave the sentence at: 'The generation of life from non-living material is called abiogenesis.' Thereby linking to the Abiogenesis page where a person can get the full picture instead of a small piece of information that is not directly related to biogenesis.--YK102 (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph statement 

message: I am desperately trying to understand the kneejerk reaction around an edit concerning whether abiogenesis "has" occurred as opposed to "is speculated to have" occurred.  While I am beginning to understand why I was told 3 years ago at the beginning of my Ph.D. program NOT to trust Wikipedia as a credible academic resource, I still thought that the people editing the articles would use some type of credible scientific approach in editing information.  The article by Spiegel and Turner (2012) does not "prove" abiogenesis.  It is simply a probability model that incorporates speculated data for a probability outcome of life by abiogenesis on earth-like planets, if such a thing occurred on earth.  The authors themselves say, "The early emergence of life on Earth has been taken as evidence that the PROBABILITY [emphasis added] of abiogenesis is high, if starting from young Earth-like conditions" (p.395)  Lest we assume that they do not in fact mean that abiogenesis on Earth is  undisputed, they also add the following, "However, knowledge of the actual origin of life on Earth, to say nothing of other possible ways in which it might originate, is so limited that a more complex model is not yet justified." (p.396)  Using this or any research that fails to prove abiogenesis, while it explicitly states it is invoking probability is a breach of scientific integrity.  One of the main reasons certain groups of people now doubt our work as researchers and scientists is because of this type of pseudoscience demonstrated by the contributors of Wikipedia that purports to be both scientific and factual, while in reality it is closely linked itself to pure ideology as opposed to empirical evidence.  Feel free to change it back from my edit, knowing that I will not only support my most esteemed professors' advice concerning the lack of academic credibility at Wikipedia but will also share my newfound knowledge with colleagues, learners, friends, and any other group of people that I may encounter, which is simply validating the comments made by my professors that the site lacks any real academic credibility.  This is quite easy to see as I go back and look at how many times this wording has been changed to satisfy ideology instead of science.  Since the authors of the article being cited for proof do indeed state themselves that there is no proof, how can one possibly take this article or any article seriously, for there is apparently a war of ideologies on this website as opposed to actual scientific inquiry. BKH  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.56.188 (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The world was lifeless, then it had life. There is nothing controversial about that.Novangelis (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be aware that the Wikipedia editors who edit and patrol science pages often have to deal with Creationist trolls who try to covertly and overtly insert anti-science propaganda into science articles on a semi-daily, if not semi-hourly basis.  Some of the more eloquent trolls often embroil themselves in long edit wars trying to insert weasel words with the deliberate intent to cast unreasonable doubt on scientific theories.  That is why Novangelis and I reverted your edits: i.e., that we wrongly assumed that you were trying to cast unreasonable doubt on Abiogenesis.  Having said that, if you think that Wikipedia is such an extremely untrustworthy information source, then why are you here trying to defend your edits?--Mr Fink 15:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

text: FWIW - I entirely agree - better refs re article content are always welcomed - one possibly relevant ref to the lede sentence at issue has been posted => < ref name="NIH-20060612"></ref> - if interested, related refs may be found HERE - please feel free to rv/mv/ce of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that there's a "war" going on here where anyone who doubts the hypothesis of abiogenesis is instantly branded as a creationist, a troll or non-scientific despite the fact that it's very reasonable to doubt abiogenesis given that we can't test it or prove it. 67.189.56.188 is right in what they say. --Hskian (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Kneejerk

message: I think it's still necessary to elaborate on the distinction between life in general and complex, modern life. I also think this article could do with a phrase or to, or at least a link to an article, describing how the fact that the "law of biogenesis" is generally called a law does not mean that it must hold without exception. Since obviously it cannot.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gralgrathor (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Room for improvement

message: The very first sentence should not have the word "organelles" but should end with the word "organisms." Biogenesis refers to whole organisms, not parts of organisms. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/biogenesis?s=t. Nowhere in the article are organelles discussed. The word should be removed from the first sentence. Rubiks6 (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Organelles?

message: The article consisted basically of a rehash of the history of spontaneous generation and Pasteur's refutation of that theory, leaving the only "new" bit the dictionary definition that biogenesis = getting life from life, i.e. normal biology (reproduction, or at a stretch a bit of evolution). In other words, there's nothing there (per WP:DICDEF) for an article: we can't have an article which just says that a term is defined as such-and-such, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I've created a short section in spontaneous generation that describes the historic usage (now obsolete, as modern biologists say "reproduction" when they are talking about getting life from life), and redirected to that new section. I do hope this is clear and fine with everyone. Otherwise, happy to discuss. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dicdef 

message: The words Biogenesis and Abiogenesis were introduced to the world by Thomas H Huxley in 1870, calling on previous work by Francesco Redi in a Presidential Address to the BAAS.
  
Huxley's definitions were:
"the hypothesis that living matter always arises by the agency of pre-existing living matter ... I shall call ... the hypothesis of Biogenesis ...
and ... that living matter may be produced by not living matter [I shall call] the hypothesis of Abiogenesis" BAPhilp (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: more work required -- see above re Henry Charlton Bastian  BAPhilp (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathetic lack of historical perspective -> confusion, errors