Abiogenesis is a reasonable theory for the beginnings of life

Many of my opponent's closing remarks are very colorful... They're elaborately written and quite emotionally appealing (even to me!). For example, he says that he “gave [him]self a high burden in this debate”, that I “misinterpreted and undercovered” his sources, and even claims that I “massively overestimated” a statistic and I've “done far too little to support [my] claims.” Prepare to embark on a journey where you will discover that this is not only pandering, but flat out wrong! Here we go... “I'd like to make clear that I never conceded, as Con suggests, "that there is no known RNA which can self-replicate without proteins." I actually pointed to one example in my last post, something he didn't respond to (here it is again: www.pnas.org/content/99/20/12733.long)” But remember my quote from Charles Carter: That enzyme “bear[s] little resemblance to anything anyone has ever isolated from a living system.” This supports my point that these experiments that Pro cites are hardly relevant to the real world. “I also pointed out that RNA ligase ribozymes could be used to fully replicate any given RNA strand, which could easily lead to a uniting of shorter strands into longer ones, easily eclipsing the 200 nucleotide length that Con says is impossible.” Yes, lagging-strand synthesis. Don't forget what else you had said about that: “The replication process [is] slower [than the other methods described]” I already explained why the other methods are too slow, so any method that is even slower is definitely too slow as well. “The best response he provides is from Charles Carter, but this response is attempting to give me yet another burden, to prove that these RNAs could form TODAY.” If you mean it gives you the burden to prove that these RNAs could form in nature today, then I have to disagree. I don't see how any quote I provided does that. However, it seems that you can't even prove that these RNAs could form today even in the lab, given that you had no response whatsoever to this quote that I provided last round: “not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (1024) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences.” “What it appears is that Bernhardt bases this number at least partially on the likelihood of formation of longer strands, something he bases on a paper that still doesn't cite my [15] or respond to it. Nor do they respond to the possibility that ligases could increase length by uniting smaller strands.” The lagging-strand process again. Since this process is slower (as you conceded) than the other processes I already debunked, using it as an example isn't very useful to your position. “It certainly doesn't include the activities of other ribozymes to make the environment more selective” You never mentioned these activities either. “These reactions happen in the span of seconds.” But again, laboratory conditions are unrealistic. “I can cite dozens of eminent scientists who believe the RNA world hypothesis is plausible, many of which are in links Con failed to address completely, but I won't.” Interesting, since this means that you are letting me get away with more expert testimony than you. =D “double-stranded RNAs would obviously be preferred, since they're far more stable than the single-stranded variants” So the examples you provided (which were all single-stranded RNAs) aren't preferred? Than why did you use them as examples? “I'm not sure Con understands RNA stability.[…] Con's point on pH just ignores the pH of water and the effects of salt. The world's oceans are made of water, which tends to hover around a pH of 7. Sodium chloride, or salt, modulates pH as well, keeping it at 7.” (emphasis mine) I'm not sure Pro understands math. Here is my statement which he was arguing against: “at a pH higher than 6, RNA breaks down.” Pro tried to defend the stability of RNA by saying that the environment tends to stay at 7... and I already said that at a pH higher than 6, RNA breaks down... 7 is higher than 6... “Con points to the fact that RNAs clump. This is only going to hurt him. Not only would this have solved for part of the problems of temperature fluctuations by making more double-stranded forms, it also would have created more secondary and tertiary structures, which improves the likelihood that the correct orientations could come about to make these RNAs functional. This is actually really likely to be effective” Incorrect. Remember my exact words: “pools of RNA clump together into a useless, tangled mess.” This was paraphrased from my source, whose exact words were: “formed large, tangled, useless networks of molecules” The keyword here is useless. This useless RNA would not have “solved for part of the problems”; it wouldn't have “improved the likelihood that correct orientations could come about” and it certainly wasn't “really likely to be effective.” Useless is useless is useless. Before I close, I'd like to repost the same quote I ended the last round with. Remember that my opponent never responded to this very telling quote: “not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (1024) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences.” Thanks everyone for such a fun debate. Vote Con! =D