Template talk:Origin of life

Latest comment: 6 years ago by BatteryIncluded in topic Spontaneous generation

Miller-Urey experiment

edit

Somehow it is not working for this article. I fixed redirect and yet, it doesn't work. Maybe the Miller-Urey article needs to be "refreshed" or updated in order for the template to work... I'll check back here a little later to see what is going on. -- Loukinho (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

All good. It works now. -- Loukinho (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hydrothermal vents and the alkaline-spring hypothesis

edit

Needs to be added. Viriditas (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

That is mentioned in the Abiogenesis article, which is included in this template. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Spontaneous generation

edit

I noticed the recent addition and deletion; although Spontaneous generation was proven wrong, it was the leading explanation of the origin of life for a very long time. I think it does have a place in this template if only for historical reasons. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

But it wasn't seen as 'the origin of life' at all. It was rather that some forms of life (like sponges) were so low that they continuously emerged from non-living matter, to which they were close. There was no concept of change (let alone the modern kind of evolution): species were static. There was no suggestion in that view of "life .. having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one" and that hence a single "origin" of that one form was even in question. So putting spontaneous generation into the template is a category error, it's just completely askew from being "a hypothesis" for a mechanism—it was explaining something different entirely. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk)
I agree. It was more an explanation of [inanimate] reproduction than the origin of all life. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply