Abiogenesis Is Impossible

"saying I never sited sources isn't really a factual statement. "Con is right, this is why I never claimed Con failed to cite sources. But that he failed to cite evidence, or sources that themselves cited sources with evidence for abiogenesis. On Con's Video SourceWhile the video Con cited is a little closer to the sort of evidence Con needs to prove abiogenesis is possible, it fails to answer a few of my objections:1) Where did we get all of the nucleotides? Con has yet to provide a reasonable mechanism to produce all the neccessary nucleotides.2) How did the original polynucleotide polymerize? Even the scientist in Con's video admits at 3:50 that he (and, presumably, his crew) have no accurate models for how this would could take place, as well as how the entire self-replication process could take place.3) Where did we get the ribose and phosphates necessary for nucleotide polymerization? Ribose is created in modern day cells by enzymes. But enzymes wouldn't have existed in a primordial earth, leaving us with a chicken-or-egg scenario. Con must show (and prove) how either (a) ribose can be made without enzymes (b) enzymes could have spontaneously came into existed without RNA or DNA or (c) RNA or DNA can be made without ribose. On ProbabilitiesCon's argument is a good one, and probably could have helped him win this debate if it were relevant. Unfortunately for him, I am not arguing that abiogenesis is impossible because it has a low probability. I am arguing it is impossible becuse there are impenetrable barriers in the paths to chemical evolution. Thus his argument is irrelevant, and fails. How Con Has Not Shown That Abiogenesis Is Possible For one, everything Con posted is almost completely copied and pasted from the sources Con cited. Two, Con has oversimplified abiogenesis, probably hoping that the complex language he used would cover up for his lack of evidence, allow me to explain:First Con describes how monomers polymerize into polymers. This is wonderful, were this debate about whether polymers could come about spontaneously or not. I am not arguing that spontaneous polymerization is impossible. I am arguing that spontaneous polymerization of amino acids and nucleotides is impossible. This is important to note. Con makes the mistake of assuming that because ethylene, which is not even an amino acid, can polymerize spontaneously, that all amino acids and nucleotides could have polymerized spontaneously. Since ethylene isn't even an amino acid, his evidence is irrelevant and thus, void. This mistake alone would be enough to dismiss the rest of Con's argument, but since I have 5,379 characters left, I shall continue. Secondly, this paragraph is also irrelevant, since we are discussing proteins and polynucleotides, not polymers in general. Also, what is this "accurate mathmatical model"? What does it look like? Who created it? How was it created? How has it been proven to be "accurate"? Is it accurate in theory, or accurate once applied to experiments. Surely if an accurate model existed about how self-replicating polymers actually existed, it would have blown up the headlines. In addition, this is from Con's source:"In this first analysis of the model, we are supposing that primordial competition occurred among short self-replicating homopolymers. The dynamics of this population is investigated by computer simulations. "-. http://www.sciencedirect.com...Here we see that (A) the scientists who have made this "accurate" model are making unproven assumptions. and (B) are using computer simulations to justify there experiments. I think it is self-evident that computer simulations (based on biased and unproven assumptions) can not be relied upon as "accurate" evidence, or even to give an "accurate" model. In regards to hypercycles, Con's link didn't work, thus I honestly can't give a rebuttal. Con is a bit vague though. What is a hypercycle exactly? What "self-replicating" units is Con discussing, exactly? "Theoretical treatments of hypercycles show that, once evolved from RNA, DNA will take over as the master molecule by virtue of it's storage capacity"Theoretical treatments of anything do not constitute evidence. Theoretically, anything is possible, if you have a theory that allows it to be possible. Thus follows the rest of Con's "proof" that abiogenesis is possible. All Con has proved is that abiogenesis is possible in theory. Con has not proved that abiogenesis is possible in reality. Abiogenesis, is not possible. Because:A) Neccessary ingrediants for abiogenesis would not have existed (cytosine, amino acids only made in methane-ammonia chemical reactions, ribose, etc. )B) These ingrediants could not have spontaneously polymerized. There are other reasons, but since this is the last round it doesn't make sense to address new problems. RefutationsOn OxygenInterestingly, this other article from NASA actually corrects Con's and Con's source's view. Showing that evidence in iron banding reveals that oxygen has been present for over 3.85 billion years:. http://nai.nasa.gov...On Methane-Ammonia AtmosphereCon cites a volcano that has never been found on earth, and gives no proof that this sort of volcano ever existed on earth. Thus his rebuttal should be considered null and void. Recapa) I have clearly shown that according to current scientific research, we can conclude that abiogenesis is impossible. b) I have clearly met my burden of proof that many of the steps required for abiogenesis could not have taken place. c) Con made errors in regards to assuming there was methane an ammonia on the earth based on a volcano that did not exist on earth, and gave no relevant rebuttal to the evidence I cited that oxygen has been present on the earth for over 3.8 billion years. Conclusion:I have demonstrated how abiogenesis is impossible, my opponent has neither cited evidence how it is, or given anything but an ambiguous explanation about how it is possible.