Talk:Biogenesis

This is very bad "Law of Biogenesis and Creationism"

I agree. The section of Law of Biogenesis and Creationism is purely opinion, and uses too broad of a paint brush. As it comes off as hateful or vindictive and a chip on ones shoulder. I can't believe such a part would still exist in Wikipedia for as long as it has. As being quite clearly written by a creationist, puhlease. That last part was pretty "partisan" and spoke for all creationists that support biogenesis when he wasn't even close.

Kevindk 19:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The section is now simply title "Law of Biogenesis" and reads like a typical Creationist tract. This should be changed to...

The law states that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria cannot appear fully formed. The law says nothing, however, about the biogenesis of very primitive life from increasingly complex molecules. TheDevilYouKnow (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite clearly written by a creationist

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)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.116.11.90 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

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)

Nah. Biogenesis is a law, not a fact.Gralgrathor (talk) 10:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Biased, faaar too little CITING

Several claims in this article do not resonate with what is in the biology textbook sitting in front of me. Especially claims that "the earth's early atmosphere is pure speculation without basis" and "the most basic amino acids were formed in Miller's test tube but the atmosphere required to make them killed them soon after." I don't believe that Campbell's Biology (the textbook) is the "one truth", but I would like to see a citation before I write off what is widely accepted scientifically. Large parts of this article were CLEARLY written by a creationist or proponent of intelligent design. It just reeks of bias. There are whole paragraphs of assertions that are UNCITED. THIS SHOULD HAVE A TAG FOR BEING AN ARTICLE WITHOUT SOURCES and NOT HAVING A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. It should be examined thoroughly by people with actual scientific knowledge that can back it up with sources.

I thought people had given up trying to use logic to prove the existence of God. It can't be proven logically, that's why FAITH is a big deal. Believing when there is no reason to believe other than faith. People who embrace logic won't be swayed by the skewing of scientific principles carried out by proponents of intelligent design, who have neither the guts to conclude that they're alone nor the faith to turn to God without logic. Either life is a miracle (which is defined by the property of being outside what makes sense in the normal world, such as gravity, the scientific method, etc), or it's not (and can be explained by what makes sense in the normal world).

Sorry for the rant, but CITE! Even if you're going to only show one side, at least provide evidence for your own arguments! (if there is any evidence... see I won't believe you if you don't CITE!) arghhh!

Inaccuracy

I will remove this sentence: (although the same criteria also discount anyone who is impotent, for the same reasons). If you look at the [Life] page, the criteria apply to lifeforms (species) not individuals. That's why mules, ants and impotent people are considerd alive and virusus not, as stated on the Life page. Anonymous, 12 Dec 11:53 PM, December 12, 2005

This is very bad

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)

Leaps? Gralgrathor (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

The term "creationist biology" makes as such sense as "plumber's biology". Creationists are not scientists doing scientific research.203.71.28.216 04:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

CITE

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

Spurious Statement

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)

Categorize and clarification

"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." [1]

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)

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)

Nah, it's outside of the scope of the article. The purpose is not to debate creation vs. evolution, but to provide information on the term biogenesis. While creationists do compare abiogenesis to generatio spontanea, I believe that comparison is better addressed in the Abiogenesis article than here, if at all. Gralgrathor (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem with "human attempts to create life"

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)

What the heck's wrong with I.D.? Just because there's proof for I.D doesn't mean that people have to get all mad about it, saying that the article was "quite clearly written by a creationist". For all I know, most science text books are quite clearly written by an evolutionist! Anyway, I think those that don't teach the debate in biology class are dangerously violating our right to free speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.247.124 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 16 May 2007

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)

I am unsure as to whether the "atmosphere" in Urey and Miller's experiment is now scientifically accepted as the correct one. Does anyone know? Wikiisawesome 16:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

"Anyway, I think those that don't teach the debate in biology class are dangerously violating our right to free speech."

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

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)

Law of Biogenesis

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

THIS IS NOT CONSEVAPEDIA or a CREATIONWIKI

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)

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)

"Omne vivum ex vivo", "omne vivum ex ovo" and "omne ovum ex vivo"

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)

Brett Nortje 07:46 30 August 2011 (GMT+2) If the known periodic table does not produce life, then what on earth could? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Nortje (talk • contribs) 05:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Christian Schwabe

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)

• It's a notable and even very respectable journal, but I'm absolutely flabbergasted that an anatomical journal would publish any article on a subject like this, as it is completely beyond their usual scope. I'm sure that there's a story behind this, perhaps someone can find the sources. --Crusio (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

WHAT LAW???

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Is biogenesis a belief or scientific theory?

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

It's a scientific law. Although clearly some here dispute that. --Hskian (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

maybe it would be adequate...

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)

Opening paragraph statement

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)

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)

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)ppl

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)

AFAIK at the moment, the current sentence ("The generation of life from non-living material is called abiogenesis, and has occurred at least once in the history of the Earth, or in the history of the Universe (see panspermia), when life first arose."), with citation and related relevant wikilinks, seems scientifically sound and acceptable - and entirely appropriate to a scientific article on "Biogenesis" - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Kneejerk

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)

The world was lifeless, then it had life. There is nothing controversial about that.Novangelis (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for editing the last comment on the talk page. I thought I was on the article page. However, saying life wasn't here and then it was is not a credible address to the points raised. If the researchers of the study you cite do not see the answer as being that simple, I hardly think it is appropriate to use them as a citation for your opinion. You're basically making a faith claim, so before you criticize other ideologies, make sure you're not committing the same offense. Back it up with a credible reference that supports your stated point with empirical evidence. If not, at least don't use a research study that states the opposite--that there is no certainty about the origin of life on Earth. BKH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.56.188 (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

Mr. Fink, I can appreciate someone genuinely being concerned about scholarly work, and if you or Novangelis are seriously concerned about quality, I would ask why neither of you has addressed the fact that you are using a reference to imply a statement is true when the reference does not say that at all. This is far from a matter of trolling, for although I have used Wikipedia in the past to look up various topics, I liked to think that it reflected true scholarship and integrity. This is not a matter of creationism or evolution as far as I can see. The matter is one of integrity as a scholar. It seems quite pointless to state the obvious once again, but let me try. The authors of the cited study plainly state that they are uncertain as to how life originated. This does not imply creationism unless you're blind to all other possibilities. They do, however, speculate that abiogenesis happened on Earth, so the wording has integrity that way. If you're going to falsify information, would it not be better to remove the reference and simply state an unsubstantiated claim. Once again, this is not a matter of whether abiogenesis is or isn't true, but if you are going to cite an article stating that it is, at least have the scholastic integrity to pick one that states such a proposition as fact. I have defended the edits because it makes the sentence viable, but if all you're looking for is making your point whether you can find a viable article or not, go for it. I will leave the integrity of the edit up to you and Novangelis, because it is obvious that you are so protective of an ideology that valid objections are meaningless. Creationism or evolution were the fartherest things from my mind, since I actually read the article. The issue was bad scholarship, and no university I attended for any of my degrees would have tolerated such falsification of references. Perhaps your is different. There has been no credible discussion of this reference and the subsequent wording, and yes, I do think it reflects on all of Wikipedia. Rest assured that I will not seek to correct the mistake again. BKH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.56.188 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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">Sharov, Alexei A. (June 12, 2006). "Genome increase as a clock for the origin and evolution of life". Biology Direct. 1: 1–17. doi:10.1186/1745-6150-1-17. Retrieved February 28, 2013.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)</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)

It looks like I'll have to keep this article on my watchlist permanently. :-) "The authors of the cited study plainly state that they are uncertain as to how life originated" - yes, but how life originated is a very different question than whether life originated. The article clearly states (among other things), "we can try to use our knowledge that life arose at least once in an environment (whatever it was) on the early Earth..." so I can't see how this fails to support the statement. I have reinserted the change, but (of course) I am happy to discuss. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

References

Irrelevant

What does the this have to do with Biogenesis?

"but proponents of abiogenesis claimed that this did not apply to microbes and continued to hold that these could arise spontaneously."

No citation and it also contradicts the abiogenesis and the spontaneous generation article. Spontaneous Generation means that ordinary living organisms like mice and maggots can be formed often and spontaneously. It was believed that specific organisms came from specific non living matter other than eggs and seeds. One example used in the Spontaneous Generation article is the "recipe" for mice:

"a piece of soiled cloth plus wheat for 21 days"

Another "recipe" for scorpions:

"basil, placed between two bricks and left in sunlight"

If you honestly think that disproving the fact that mice can be created with cloth and wheat proves "the law of biogenesis" you are sadly mistaken. I will remove it if a citation isn't provided within a few days.

At first I didn't think there was a problem including Spontaneous Generation in the article but after some more reading I would really like to know why it is included. Like I said before I don't see how disproving the ridiculous idea of Spontaneous Generation has anything at all to do with biogenesis. Please explain to me how it has anything to do with biogenesis.Кwiztas(talk) 09:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Geez...I started reading citations. The citations for:

"That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation."

I couldn't find that at all on the page used as a "citation" . I read for about 1 hour and then decided I wasn't getting anywhere and tried a search. I tried mixtures of words; looked at every location where spontaneous and life/living were mentioned. I think someone used the link because it is like 20000 words and is about Pasteur so it is kinda relevant but does not at all say what it is cited for. I really think whoever posted it didn't think it would be read.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cphl/history/articles/pasteur.htm

Кwiztas(talk) 13:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Room for improvement

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)

Organelles?

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. . Nowhere in the article are organelles discussed. The word should be removed from the first sentence. Rubiks6 (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Dicdef

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)

Pathetic lack of historical perspective -> confusion, errors

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)

A little later Huxley, attributing earlier work to Francesco Redi, said this, which hastily misread may have led to the idea behind the redirect:

(quote) Against all odds, however, Redi, strong with the strength of demonstrable fact, did splendid battle for Biogenesis; but it is remarkable that he held the doctrine in a sense which, if he had lived in these times, would have infallibly caused him to be classed among the defenders of "spontaneous generation." "Omne vivum ex vivo," "no life without antecedent life," aphoristically sums up Redi's doctrine; but he went no further. (end quote)

Thomas H. Huxley, Discourses — Biological and Geological Essays, 1894 Project Gutenberg EBook #10060 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BAPhilp (talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, bot, sorry. BAPhilp (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

more work required -- see above re Henry Charlton Bastian BAPhilp (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)