Abiogenesis Is Sound

Let me start off with this. My opponent has shown a lack of respect, an unwillingness to actually read what I said in order to consider it, but, rather, to read selectively for his own purposes, he does not understand the art of writing, in it of the fact that he can't understand what hyperbole is, and he doesn't even understand basic biochemistry, because he doesn't understand how cell reproduction works. So, I'm going to provide a video that is simple enough for him to grasp (). Now, I will move on from the abuse that my opponent has so kindly lavished upon me. *Archea (again):* "Con has now stated that archaea are not the first life, they're the bridge between old and new bacteria and they may be more complex than the first life, so we can dismiss Con's 537 protein encoding genes, because as Con puts it, "they may be more complex" and they are not the first life." This is true. Archea are not the first form of life. However, my opponent has made assertions about what the original cell will have done to reproduce, exist, and even its form. He knows nothing about this cell, but he, and his sources, have made assertions about something they can't observe may have looked like. I at least give something that can be used for reference. I even used the simplest cell known to man. This is the only absolute model. *Size of Proteins:* "Con doesn't explain why 20 amino acids *isn't* useful for the first form of life, they just assert it, and as I pointed out, biologically active amino acids can metabolize energy and *this* would be useful for the first life, irrespective of the more recent, complex organism, the Gila Monster." Did I mention that this protein was found in saliva? This would literally be ripping things apart. That is definitely not useful to life. I thought that this was self evident, but it apparently isn't. "No. We're not just going to settle on some arbitrary number because it will help you run your probability argument. Con's probability argument has already been negated by Con's concession that "a single cell could have formed" as abiogenesis explains AND by the fact that Con concedes that "polypeptides of less than 100 are more useful for causing chemical reactions and breaking proteins apart," which is part of primitive metabolism" Let me tell you something right now. There's a difference between metabolism and self destruction. Having something that literally tears proteins apart without an efficient return of energy does not lead to life. Instead, it leads to death. *Ability to Reproduce:* "You neglect your source Con. Your source said that chemically related amino acids take over the particular tRNA's function in the cell, and do you know what's a major component of a pre-biotic, catalytic network that you conceded the first cell could have emerged from? Amino acids. Particularly, those that match with RNA, are the very ones generated by the switch from inorganic-->organic compounds, which would be abundant in this pre-biotic network of amino acid catalysts." You neglect my source pro. Amino acids aren't the only thing necessary. You need ATP, PPi, and AMP to do this. Want to know where that comes from? That comes from a complex process where you literally have a cell using multiple enzymes that have been directed by the cell to even start the process. Also, enzymes were also needed to pull off this reaction, enzymes that are regulated by the cell, otherwise the cell becomes bloated and explodes (or implodes, depending on the concentration gradient). *Stats and Stuff:* "The odds, seeing as we don't know the exact quantity of each amino acid during the time, ARE USELESS! Aside from being after-the-fact probability, Con openly admits that we don't know the number of amino acids at the time, so an estimation 1 out of 25 isn't any more reasonable than an estimation of 25 out of 25 being the odds. Con your reasoning is, "we don't know the exact quantity of amino acids, therefore here's a BS estimate of 1 out of 25?" Come on Con." Want to know why I had that 1 out of 25? There are a total of 25 amino acids. Therefore, a protein being made up of successive amino acids in the right order should imply that when amino acids are bonding, to get the right order of amino acids takes 1 out of 25 amino acids to be the right one in the right place. "Now do the math like this: incongruous number of protein encoding genes * (BS estimate) ^ arbitrary number of amino acids What does that equal? Con's crappy probability argument, that does way more assuming than actual demonstrating likelihoods of abiogenesis. Side note, Con, you originally said, in round 1, the number was 537, not 527 as you said in your last round, but you're just making BS numbers up anyway, so no harm no foul." My opponent hasn't listened to me at all. He doesn't even understand where these numbers come from, much less why I put them together. The equation should be 537 * (1/25) ^ 100. 537 is the number of proteins required to make the cell. Given that the average length of an actually useful protein that contributes more than destruction masquerading as metabolism is 100, than we just have to calculate the odds of the one right amino acid, out of 25 total amino acids, being next in the chain of our polypeptide. Putting those numbers together, we have our equation. "So you agree that abiogenesis-->first cell was not only possible, but that it may have happened once, Con? Great. Seems sound to me." I agree that a single cell, with completely misshapen proteins and no actual way to reproduce, may have existed, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT. I will stress that. My opponent conveniently omits that from this round in order to paint a picture of me that just isn't true. My opponent has employed the strawman logical fallacy. "Really? Speculating? Just guessing at odds is a necessity? Without evidence, speculating at odds is not only useless, it's nothing. But, I'll give Con what he wants. In my speculation, the odds were 15/31 that life emerged from abiogenesis because of 15 and 31 were my speculation...ahh there, now I feel better, since i speculated the odds, I don't need to reconsider abiogenesis. " What is this "Without evidence" that my opponent speaks of? Well, it applies to both pro and con. Neither side has access to when or how life started, that's why we're having this debate. Therefore, the fact that my opponent places his entire argument on conditions and chemical reactions that he cannot guarantee should tell you a lot. At least I am using the closest possible reference cell, a length for the proteins, and an understanding of how statistics work. *Various and Sundry "Incongruencies"* "OK, let me get this straight. Con, you agree that a cell could have emerged in the way abiogenesis was described in this debate, you concede it may have happened once, yet you think it's time for a new theory? The evidence indicates it, Con concedes it, yet it needs to be reconsidered...I'm baffled." I concede that we are debating. Therefore, I allow a hypothetical situation to exist in order to push forward a second point. However, because I only agreed hypothetically in order to have an actual debate, something my opponent doesn't want, I can remove myself from the hypothetical at any point in time. Understand? "Con contradicts himself. Earlier, in round 3, Con says: 'I conceded that a single cell might form in highly unstable conditions.' Later, in round 3, Con says: 'There is no chance that a cell could be formed in the conditions prescribed.' " Have you ever heard of hyperbole (see also, exxageration). It's a rhetorical device that is commonly used in order persuade. As for the first quote, see my previous explanation. *Final Conclusion:* My opponent has failed to clash properly with my arguments, whereas, I was clashing with him during the entire debate. Instead of taking the time to read and learn about this topic, he just threw sources at it and assumed he was right. So, just to reiterate, here is what I've said: 1) The chances of a functioning cell actually forming from a pool of amino acids exposed to UV radiation, unstable climates, small proteins capable of ripping apart chemical bonds, and astronomically high requirements to be a cell are very, very, very, very low. I can't stress this enough. 2) Even if this cell somehow formed (for the sake of argument), it would lack the instructions, coordination, and energy to reproduce. My opponent failed to do more than insult me when attacking my first point. As for my second point, my opponent brought up my source over and over again, saying that it proved me wrong. He didn't even understand it. So, given all the evidence presented, the only way to vote is con. I have proven my points, which directly clash with my opponents. Rather than clash back, my opponent insulted my argument. He attempted to actually debate, but he utterly failed to do so. Thanks Pro for a decent debate.