Abiogenesis Is a Likely Explanation for Life on Earth

Argument From Genetic InformationI actually already explained the majority of what is required to refute this argument in round 2. I noted how ribonucleotides (i. e. adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil) could have formed on the conditions of the early earth, how individual ribonucleotides could form into long strands into RNA molecules, and how these molecules could have become the nucleus for a protocell. "Importantly, the starting materials for the reaction can utilize starting materials that are considered prebiotically plausible, and provide high yields of RNA nucleotides. "[1]Unfortunately, we have not synthesized a molecule of RNA next, all the steps are already there, so much so that there have been studies providing methodologies for doing so. This isn't a concession - we simply just haven't developed the science to synthesize RNA. But we have built the building blocks and found applicable catalysts. All thats left is to conduct the research properly. [2]The claim that DNA is information is a misnomer. DNA is a molecule, like water. There's nothing special about DNA that gives it information but not water. DNA only contains information in the sense that a particular strand of it corresponds to a unique genetic state. It's not information contained in the DNA. We can only infer certain information from the DNA, in much the same way that the fact that water freezes at 273.15 degrees K is not information contained in the water - it's only information that we attribute to water. If DNA were information, we'd expect small deviations in the strand (i. e. exchanging two nucleotides) wouldn't significantly change the molecule's effect, although we know that's not true (think mutations). Further, while DNA can replicate, there is no example of information replicating. The information stored on your computer in the form of electrical signals stored on your hard drive don't simply replicate out of nowhere. All the necessary information that we attribute to DNA was already there on the early Earth. "Nothing needs to assemble itself. Evolution and abiogenesis do not exclude outside influences; on the contrary, such outside influences are essential. In abiogenesis, it is observed that complex organic molecules easily form spontaneously due to little more than basic chemistry and energy from the sun or from the earth's interior. In evolution, information from the environment is communicated to genomes indirectly via natural selection against varieties that do not do well in that environment. "[3]Thus, it has been shown how RNA could have been created (and thus, later on, DNA) from building blocks that have been shown to have been created on the conditions of the early earth. Further, DNA is not information itself - we only attribute information to DNA. All the necessary information was already there. Argument From Irreducible ComplexityBefore I begin to refute my opponent's arguments directly, this argument has several immediate problems. First, it's not falsifiable. We can't test that the argument from irreducible complexity is false, because it bases its theories on the interpretations of other studies instead of positing studies itself to test the theory. The only evidence for it is the non-existence of naturally occurring irreducibly complex systems. This makes the irreducible complexity theory psuedoscience. Second, it's fallacious - it's based on an argument from ignorance (the very fallacy my opponent cautions against in his first argument). Just because we have not been able to produce naturally occurring irreducibly complex systems does not mean that they don't exist, or that we should immediately claim supernatural causes behind such systems. Beyond that, the argument from irreducible complexity doesn't prevent as many things as my opponent thinks it does. "Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms: deletion of parts addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system change of function addition of a second function to a part gradual modification of parts All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common, and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago. Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity. Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied, and the evolution of an 'irreducible; system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated. Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation. "[4; many other primary sources are indicated inside as well]In addition, evolution allows for complex systems to have been originally non-functional. Evolution would allow for those systems to improve in capabilities until it became functional and was able to be used in organisms. Systems would evolve until they were useful, and then would continue to evolve to become more efficient. Finally, it turns out that seemingly irreducibly complex systems are not really irreducibly complex. "Irreducible complexity may not actually exist in nature, and the examples given by Behe and others may not in fact represent irreducible complexity, but can be explained in terms of simpler precursors. The theory of facilitated variation challenges irreducible complexity. Marc W. Kirschner a professor and chair of Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, and John C. Gerhart a professor in Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley presented this theory in 2005. They describe how certain mutation and changes can cause apparent irreducible complexity. Thus, seemingly irreducibly complex structures are merely "very complex", or they are simply misunderstood or misrepresented. "[5] The ATP synthase example is actually an example of modular evolution, where two previously functionally independent subunits became associated and gained new functionality. The idea is described thus: "The modular evolution theory for the origin of ATP synthase suggests that two subunits with independent function, a DNA helicase with ATPase activity and a H+ motor, were able to bind, and the rotation of the motor drove the ATPase activity of the helicase in reverse. "[6]As for the RNAP/DNA example, I unfortuantely cannot seem to find any scientific literature on the subject, which is a shame. However, this doesn't mean that this argument refutes abiogenesis, because of the inherent problems with the argument from irreducible complexity discussed above. Sources[1]: . http://exploringorigins.org...[2]: . http://www.jbc.org...[3]: . http://www.talkorigins.org...[4]: . http://www.talkorigins.org...[5]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...[6]: . https://en.wikipedia.org...