Abiogenesis Is Sound

Thanks Con for that response.*Simple Life*Con points out:"Archea are the simplest form of life on earth, largely thought to be the bridge between the first bacteria and modern bacteria."My response:Great.These archaea are not the first living cell or even the first bacteria, instead, according to Con, they are the bridge between the first bacteria and modern bacteria.With abiogenesis, we're talking about the origin of life, not the origin of the bridge between old an new bacteria.Archaea may be the simplest form of life on earth today, but if they are the bridge between old and new bacteria, then they cannot be the origin of life, so their DNA's contents of 537 protein encoding genes are largely irrelevant to the first cell's contents.*Protein Size*Con gives us a reference:"The average yeast protein is 466 amino acids long. That's par for the course in protein size."My response:Yeast is a fungus, and again, not the origin of life. That's great that the average yeast protein is 466 amino acids long, but this is largely irrelevant to the first cell.Yeast is much more evolved than any first cell would be.Con adds:"There are a total of 25 unique amino acids related to the 64 codons."My response:Great.Why was this mentioned?Any of 23 amino acids can combine to form polypeptide chains, and many of these were yielded in the Miller-Urey experiments.*Cell Reproduction*Con furthers:"The enzyme Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase needs to exist in order for cell production to take place."My response:Directly from the source provided by Con, "Certain organisms can have one or more aminoacyl tRNA synthetases *missing*. This leads to charging of the tRNA by a chemically related amino acid."https://en.wikipedia.org...So, Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase can be absent, and tRNA can be charged chemically by amino acids, negating Con's claim that "Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase needs to exist."*Stats And Such*Con gets mathy:"To create even the simplest form of life on the planet today, assuming that yeast proteins are of average size, would take 527 unique proteins of 466 amino acids in length...that means the chances of abiogenesis would occur properly 1 out of 25 to the 245,582nd power, or, as my calculator puts it, error times."My response:As pointed out earlier, the amino acids and unique proteins for current fungi and bacteria are IRRELEVANT to the first living cell, which would be far more primitive than either of those organisms, so Con's "statistics" can be dismissed as incongruous to the topic at hand, the origins of life.Con then adds:"In addition to this, for this lifeform to live for any amount of time would require Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase to reproduce its proteins, otherwise it would eventually stop supporting itself."My response:Con, you neglected your own source!How do you reconcile that there are organisms that can charge the tRNA by chemically related amino acids instead of Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase?https://en.wikipedia.org...*Con's Problems*Con complains:"There are two problems with my opponents case. First, the definition of life, which should be..."My response:Woah, woah, woah.Con, you accepted this debate, correct?Well, in the first round it clearly states, "Definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate."Therefore Con agreed to the definitions of life and abiogenesis.The only definition of life SHOULD BE the definition we both agreed to...the one in the first round of this debate.Challenging agreed to definitions was lame, Con...really lame.Con takes issue:"Secondarily, under [Pro's] explanation of abiogenesis...the chances of a cell forming on its own are microscopic in scale."My response:I particularly hate this argument, because it's after the fact probability.Did you know that Obama's chance to win the presidency for his first term started off at near 1 in 3,000?Who cares? It already happened.Life has already originated, so speculating on the odds of its origins is not indicative of anything useful/relevant.Even if we accept Con's statistical analysis of the microscopic chances of a cell forming on its own, which I do not for reasons provided earlier, the microscopic chances aren't zero...the conjured up stats indicate that cells had a chance to form on their own.*Con's Concession*Con concedes:"I will accept that a single cell could have possibly formed in an unstable environment that would constantly be breaking the bonds between acids due to frequent moving and bombardment by UV radiation...so, we have our one cell."My response:I agree, and that one cell qualifies as life, because it had the ability to metabolize with amino acids and replicate with RNA in a template-directed manner, which matches the AGREED TO definition of life in this debate.This affirms the resolution that abiogenesis is sound AND that the origin of life is a result of this sound concept.Thanks, Con.