Abiogenesis is a reasonable theory for the beginnings of life

I'm not sure why the statement that we cannot possibly know for certain is viewed as a concession. If either of those things were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And yes, I didn't want to make this a conversation about whether or not viruses are life. That's a separate conversation, one we could spend as much time discussing without ever coming to a conclusion. But let's get into this issue you have with my argument. I think I can see the problem here: I defined what the first versions of life likely were by what they weren't rather than describing them directly. That's because, as I "conceded," we cannot possibly know what these life forms looked like. I'm not going to purport that I could know that answer. However, I did provide several definitions for what it must have been capable of doing: "...metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation." And I defined what I must prove in order for the RNA world theory to be sufficient for the creation of life: "a) RNA and simple organic compounds are sufficient for life to form and persist, and b) RNA and its components were possible without protein, then I will have proven that RNA is sufficient for the formation of life." In other words, my burden is to prove that an organism could theoretically exist that would lack proteins and DNA, utilizing RNA for metabolism, reproduction, and adaptation. Now, there appears to have been a misinterpretation of what this means. 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." There's a reason you didn't quote that " it didn't appear in my argument. I didn't say a single nucleic acid was sufficient. It's not, otherwise I would have argued that a viroid or satellite RNA were life, or at the very least, I would have never stated that a virus wasn't life. Metabolism requires more than just the processing of organic and inorganic compounds, otherwise we'd say anything with processing activity has a metabolism. Metabolism is defined as "the sum of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by which its material substance is produced, maintained, and destroyed, and by which energy is made available."(http://dictionary.reference.com...) This requires more than one processing step, and therefore, likely more than one RNA. Not a single RNA, but many, interacting with a number of inorganic and organic compounds and localized in the same space in order to maintain the sources of energy and materials necessary for their survival and replication. These RNAs likely had basic functions and were inefficient, but sufficient for the maintenance of that proto life. This is not a contradiction in terms. So let's move into his rebuttal. As I said, I don't view viroids and satellite RNAs as examples of life, and they are certainly not the beginnings, as they've had as much time to evolve as we have. The purpose of presenting these two examples is to show that a) stable RNAs exist and propagate in the absence of protein, b) they can have a number of catalytic activities as ribozymes, and c) that they are capable of information storage. To take it one step further, they also showcase adaptation, which, as I stated, is one of the main aspects that describes life. Just because it is not the sole aspect doesn't mean that these don't present an important example of functional RNAs that act like enzymes. Con then states that "the RNA that results [from self assembly experiments in the lab] cannot reproduce." This is where my opponent's lack of response to my other points is going to be a problem. My citations [2] and [3] reveal that short RNA sequences can engage in self replication, and even perform primer extensions. Perhaps he believes these sequences can't self-assemble in the same manner as the RNAs in my links [15], [16] and [17], which provide examples of both random and directed assembly of RNAs. While I'd contend that both models of assembly could most certainly assemble into these same nucleotide organizations, I would also argue that this also has a lot to do with secondary structure of the RNAs (which occur when a single strand of RNA binds to itself), often an important determinant of activity, and therefore that only segments of the RNA sequence may be necessary for function.(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) In some cases, more than one sequence could have the same function, providing multiple opportunities for the RNA to assemble correctly. (http://www.pnas.org...) And no, nucleotides are not "meaningless chains of amino acids," as my opponent contends, apparently misunderstanding the use of the terms. These RNAs, or nucleic acids, are composed of of nucleotides (amino acids compose proteins), and they are far from meaningless, as all of my links point out and as I have further argued. And yes, 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. At this point, my opponent finally begins to counter my argumentation in a way that addresses my links. I'll address each in turn. 1. Con states that "outside of the lab, in a true prehistoric setting, millions of other chemicals would be present to interrupt this delicate process." 2. Con states that this view is a "Molecular Biologist's Dream." I'm grouping these two. I'd like to first point out that these two are both over a decade old. Con's [1] was written in 1996, and his [2] was written in 1999. Even if we assume that each of them covered everything that came in previous years that I included in my post, neither of them could possibly respond to the majority of the papers I posted, many of which are directly responsive to their points and were published in or after 1999. As for the one point that Con has transcribed, this idea that other chemicals could have interrupted the process, the article doesn't actually say anything about these (I read it through a few times to make sure), but even assuming that this is the case, we're talking about hundreds of millions, if not billions, of years in hundreds of millions of square miles of water. (http://ga.water.usgs.gov...) The idea that there might have been a zone where these interfering chemicals were less concentrated is not difficult to believe. They both make other interesting arguments, and while my own links provide many of the responses, you can feel free to point out the ones you like and include them in your next post. 3. Con quotes Walter Gilbert, who states "One can contemplate an RNA World, containing only RNA molecules that serve to catalyze the synthesis of themselves." This is a strange choice. I'm not sure what you're having trouble understanding in this quote, but it doesn't say anything too difficult. Enzymes and ribozymes catalyze reactions, as in, they make them faster and sometimes less reversible. Assembly in their absence is slower and less stable, but far from impossible, as my links have made clear. Con decides he's not going to address protein formation as he stated in his accepting post. That's fine, he doesn't have to do so. But he makes a very strange argument in this final point. "It's not 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." 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. In either case, this is an important choice of words, essentially granting that an organism could exist in the absence of protein and DNA. That's an important admission, and something that I'll be remembering as this debate proceeds. The latter statement simply isn't upheld by the data, much of which he chose not to respond to in this post. The artificially produced RNA was made utilizing ingredients and reactions possible in the prevailing models of early earth, and his links simply don't prove that that's not the case, and my links reveal multiple pathways by which it could have occurred. That's a nice picture you posted there, by the way. Is that two women in lab coats working in front of a volcanic landscape that's supposed to represent the earth in its early days? No, I don't ascribe to that fantasy. I'd much rather stick to the evidence at hand and make reasonable conclusions from that.