Abiogenesis is a reasonable theory for the beginnings of life

It was well worth the time and effort, and I appreciate the thought that went into his posts greatly. So let's get into it. Rather than follow the flow of the debate as it's gone thusfar, I would like to break the whole thing down to its essentials, provide an overview of where we've been, get into some rebuttal on Con's most recent arguments, and give some reasons why my arguments are worthy of everyone's votes. There was a lot of complex science thrown back and forth in this debate, but it all comes down to a few basic arguments. Voters will be deciding the debate on a number of key issues: 1. Did I set a reasonable definition of life? 2. Could such an organism as I have suggested (one composed solely of RNA, organic and inorganic compounds) meet that definition? 3. Could such an organism have formed in the conditions of early earth? As I am the only one who set a definition of life, and it has gone uncontested throughout the round, that is how we will define how well I proved #2. So I have to prove that RNA, by itself, is capable of providing an organism with metabolism, replication and adaptation. Con has in no way argued metabolism and adaptation, and as such, I only need to prove that replication of the RNA strands are possible. This is where most of this debate occurs. 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). 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. That's because it's not about self-replication, but rather the ability of one RNA to replicate other RNAs, since without that, none the RNAs cannot persist. I provided information on lagging-strand synthesis and Okazaki fragments as a current example of how this could work. Con chose not to respond to these arguments, nor did he fully address my points about the evolution of ribozymes. I brought up a number of arguments about the importance of their evolution, and how we can see it taking place in the experiments I've discussed. 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. For all my opponent's arguments that it was so much harder in the days of early earth, he ignores all of the issues involved in their formation today. RNases, enzymes that non-specifically degrade every RNA they come into contact with, are everywhere (. http://www.lifetechnologies.com...). RNA polymerases out-compete them easily and regularly, providing no source of natural selection, which my opponent agrees is important. They simply would not persist in the world today. Con also shifts strategies to providing numbers at this stage. He does this utilizing the Bernhardt paper. While I respect that this one, as well as the Carter paper, actually take place after the publication of papers I cited, it is interesting that Bernhardt himself doesn't cite this number. 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. And without much in the way of understanding as to how it was come by (by which I mean almost no understanding), it's not very believable. It likely doesn't include all of the factors that influence such selection, which include the persistence of the strands by replication and their survival in stressful environments. It certainly doesn't include the activities of other ribozymes to make the environment more selective, or the nearly infinite number of folding possibilities, which I've already argued can have multiple outcomes that work. But it's a big number, and I'm glad to see he's so proud of it. Posting it in large, bold text at its full length certainly makes it seem huge. Strange, then, since he likes numbers so much that he's been completely unresponsive to mine. Hundreds of millions of years. Hundreds of millions of square miles of ocean. Most laboratory tests function in milliliters of water. The number of 0's required to express that amount of ocean in milliliters would be 23 (I calculated), or 9 orders of magnitude higher than the probability he expresses. These reactions happen in the span of seconds. The number of 0's required to express that amount of time in seconds would be 15, or 1 order of magnitude higher. Numbers! A word on Con's citations. I'd like to recognize that much of what he cites are just lines about specific sciences taking issue with the RNA world hypothesis. So I'm not going to leaf through these links and find the arguments these scientists make against him when he's not willing to post them himself. These would have been great links to explore, I'm sure, but since Con has decided to post them in round 4, we those arguments aren't a part of this debate, and won't be. So all Con garners by quoting scientists like Dr. Carter and Dr. Kurland is showing that some eminent scientists disagree with the RNA world hypothesis. The fact that some of them use the words "fantasy" and "dream" don't make the discoveries of other scientists stop existing. They make a great story, especially with the emphasis Con puts on them, but these opinions are based off specific views, often skewed by their own research. 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. The data speaks for itself, and I've already detailed that. And the opinions of a select set of scientists doesn't prove anything. The remainder of the debate focuses on whether this could have happened in early earth, and I'm glad my opponent has started supporting his arguments on this front. It is interesting that his "millions of interfering compounds" are now down to one that he's willing to explain. Con is overly enthusiastic here. He states that RNA is particularly labile at high temperatures and deforms at low temperatures. Several problems here. First, the fact that Con ignored arguments about metabolism comes back to bite him. Since some RNAs can convert available compounds into something that can improve RNA stability is part of the reason why this matters. One of the simplest is EDTA, which is used all the time in labs for RNA resuspension and storage, and sodium hydroxide, which increases pH for the same reason (. http://www.lifetechnologies.com...). Metabolism can very easily create better conditions. Second, double-stranded RNAs would obviously be preferred, since they're far more stable than the single-stranded variants (. http://www.npdn.org...). As I've stated before, it's the RNAs that fold over themselves and create secondary structure that will have these functions. Their stability is also going to select for them. Third, I'm not sure Con understands RNA stability. RNAs are stable when frozen (that's how RNA is stored for years). At room temperature, it still lasts for a week, providing more than enough time for replication. Declines in RNA aren't even detectable at or below 4"C, and freeze-thaw cycles oscillating between 80"C and even room temperature doesn't damage the RNA at all (. http://www.precisionbioservices.com...). Even at higher temperatures, which are used constantly for transcription experiments, most RNAs will survive for hours, if not days (. http://www.jci.org...). 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. Acidification of the ocean has not been an issue since recent times, and the early ocean wouldn't have suffered from it (. http://www.ocean-acidification.net...). Lastly, 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 for a randomized process, producing an incredibly large number of trials all at once in a small space. So, how does this debate play out? I gave myself a high burden in this debate. I could have argued that abiogenesis as a whole was possible, and utilized my opponent's arguments that a protein-RNA world was possible to do so. I didn't. That's because my argument was already solid. Metabolism and adaptation are now unassailable; Con chose not to argue them in the last 3 rounds. So the best he can do is claim that I'm not winning replication. But I am. I've provided multiple papers that showcase the replication of RNAs, some of which Con has left untouched. And the few he's touched, he's misinterpreted and undercovered. He massively overestimated the amount of inhibiting molecules without citation, and has done far too little to support his claims. He simply isn't doing enough to prove impossibility, or even implausibility.