This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Evolutionary biology Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Biology High‑importance Abiogenesis is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Geology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment High‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The last paragraph of the introduction of the article states in part "Fossil micro-organisms appear to have lived within hydrothermal vent precipitates dated 3.77 to 4.28 Gya from Quebec..." It seems to me that this statement is based on findings from one group of researchers, concerning the Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt, that are not widely accepted. (In contrast to the data from Australia which are widely accepted.) If so, I would suggest that this statement about the findings in Canada could be changed to indicate that this is not widely agreed upon. For example, it could be changed to say "Some studies have suggested that fossil micro-organisms may have lived within hydrothermal vent precipitates dated 3.77 to 4.28 Gya from Quebec..." T g7 (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; if it is not generally accepted then it should be qualified. Zaslav (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

do you have any sources that explicitly disagree with the Quebec data? Just because research is singular does not mean it is controversial. Remsense ‥ 论 03:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301926822001723?via%3Dihub 01:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC) T g7 (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Remsense ‥ 论 06:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Spontaneous generation (SG) claims that it is a theory. Ignoring that the reference given didn't mention spontaneous generation, wouldn't it be better to term SG as an hypothesis? I understand the article on SG itself refers to the hypothesis as a "superseded scientific theory," but calling it a theory here—on a politically/religiously sensitive topic (see e.g., Question 2 above in the FAQ)—just leads to confusion. The opening SG paragraph here in the Abiogenesis article is essentially using the colloquial meaning of "theory," but on a scientific page, thus adding more weight than it should.

Consider the first paragraph on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory and note that at no time had SG ever "withstood rigorous scrutiny," nor had it "been repeatedly tested and [had] corroborating evidence in accordance with the scientific method." Indeed, once that had been attempted for the first time, the hypothesis was rejected outright by those without bias. Pasteur himself explained that "though it is easy enough to conduct experiments, it is far from easy to conduct irreproachable ones," which gives illuminates what is meant by "rigorous scrutiny." Knoxjeff (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main article calls it a superseded scientific theory. It makes more sense to use similar woding in this article with the wikilink to it. Other abandoned theories liie Phlogiston theory have simialr wording with wikilink to superceded scientifc theory. It was popular at one time in hostry, so it is not a hypothesis nay more, but a failed theory. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,
Does anyone know if there is an article laying out a summary of abiogenesis research? I know that research is ongoing (at least for now >_< ). I am not looking for deeply detailed, jargony information, just simplified explanations. A bulleted list would be fine as would brief chronological paragraphs. I just cannot put my cursor on such a list.
Thank you for your help, Wordreader (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's History of research into the origin of life on the older stuff, and Alternative abiogenesis scenarios on some of the other stuff not in Abiogenesis. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What fundamental processes of life are hypothesized to have occurred within protocells during abiogenesis? Options: Photosynthesis and cellular respiration Replication and metabolism Evolution and natural selection Mitosis and meiosis Transcription and translation 27.34.70.181 (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but talk pages are not forums. The article discusses the transition processes in some detail; more can be read in the cited sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...are you trying to get us to do your homework for you?... naughty, naughty.

And you should be able to glean the answer from the page, if you take a closer look, anyways.

Also, as the other guy said, not a forum. Next time, try Reddit or something. Tamtrible (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]