Abiogenesis is a reasonable theory for the beginnings of life

“My burden is to prove that an organism could theoretically exist that would lack proteins and DNA, utilizing RNA for metabolism, reproduction, and adaptation.” But an organism cannot theoretically exist which utilizes only RNA for these things. Also, Pro's burden is a little tougher than that; he also has to prove that this theoretical organism could arise in the environment of early earth. "You are correct that my argument "is that the first living organisms were pure RNA and not associated with a protein." You are incorrect in stating that "my opponent tries to say that a strand of RNA, a single nucleic acid without a protein, qualifies as life."" My mistake. Apparently my opponent meant that a single strand of RNA can't constitute life, but multiple strands can. Pro tries to prove that “stable RNAs[…] propagate in the absence of protein” by using Viroids and Satellite RNA as examples; however, neither of these can reproduce in the absence of proteins. Viroids require three proteins from a host to replicate: a polymerase, an RNAse, and a ligase.2 Satellite RNA also requires a polymerase protein from it's host.1 “My citations [2] and [3] reveal that short RNA sequences can engage in self replication, and even perform primer extensions.” Yes, incredibly tiny RNA sequences, and none of them even fully replicated. Your 2nd source admits that the experiments didn't result in “an RNA system with true autoreplicative potential.” The biggest achievement proclaimed in your 3rd source is the self-replication of RNA fragments no longer than a single twist of the helix. There was also lots of babysitting involved to ensure this outcome, which involved filtering out RNA strands that didn't conform to the experimenters' desires. In further opposition to Pro's position, his 3rd source confesses that “current understanding of prebiotic chemistry argues against the emergence of meaningful amounts of RNA molecules” that are even a fraction of the size required to be compatible with life! “These RNAs[...] are composed of of nucleotides [...], and they are far from meaningless, as all of my links point out and as I have further argued.” They actually are pretty meaningless. Only fragments of the RNA strands were useful for replication, and even then the replication wasn't complete. On top of this, much of every strand was junk that didn't aid the replication process. “The fact that they formed "in the absence of enzymes and inorganic catalysts" is actually my point, since it shows just how possible this process is and therefore how it could occur.” That may be my opponent's point, but mine is that an absence of enzymes and inorganic catalysts is a very unrealistic scenario for early earth. You wouldn't be able to find a lake of Aqua Fina at just the right temperature, with just the right type and quantity of RNA, to encourage the same results that Pro's cited experiments obtained. This is what I referenced as “A Molecular Biologist's Dream,” and caricatured with a photo of scientists in lab coats working with petri dishes in a prehistoric time. “The idea that there might have been a zone where these interfering chemicals were less concentrated is not difficult to believe.” It's difficult to believe that a place naturally existed, during the chaos of the prehistoric era, with just the right amount of the correct type of RNA to result in production of a fully auto-replicating version, especially when that hasn't even been observed happening under carefully controlled lab conditions. I quoted Walter because his fantasy is so silly. Here it is again: "One can contemplate an RNA World, containing only RNA molecules that serve to catalyze the synthesis of themselves." I agree, one could contemplate a world where only RNA molecules that help each other replicate exist, but it's ludicrous. A world where RNA molecules exist would contain many other molecules as well, most of which would either not encourage their self-propagation, or directly impede it. “My opponent appears to be admitting in the first portion of that argument that RNA could theoretically be sufficient for life, or at the very least, that he hasn't proven its insufficiency.” Apologies for wording my statement so ambiguously. Let me re-state it: It's not just that RNA in general is insufficient for life; it's the fact that the artificially produced RNA flaunted by my opponent is not compatible with life. I hope that makes my position clearer. “The latter statement simply isn't upheld by the data[...] The artificially produced RNA was made utilizing ingredients and reactions possible in the prevailing models of early earth, and[…] and my links reveal multiple pathways by which it could have occurred.” To the contrary, the data in Pro's own links support my position. His experiments failed to produce fully self-replicating RNA, and one of his sources even admits that the evidence argues against the emergence of this RNA! The RNA World theory is not reasonable, and my opponent's case has failed. 1http://courses.bio.indiana.edu... 2http://www2.oakland.edu...