Abiogenesis Is Improbable

As a new-comer on DDO, I am honored that my opponent would consider debating with me. Here's to a lively debate! The Meaning of the ResolutionIn regards to the definition of living, I believe my opponent is proposing that a virus can be referred to as a living organism. I have no objection to this. In addition, I agree with Con that we are not discussing probability. If there were even a slight probability that something could take place, then it would be probable. Clearly I am arguing that abiogenesis is improbable not probable. The definition of "improbable", as given by the The American Heritage® Dictionary [1], is "Unlikely to take place or be true". This is not the same as saying something is impossible. To illustrate, we know that it is impossible for light to be dark. We have studied light in depth, and discovered that light can not be anything other then what it is: light. In contrast, it is improbable that cheetahs exist on the dark side of the moon. Of course, it is possible that cheetahs do in fact exist on the dark side of the moon and we just haven't seen them yet. Perhaps they had evolved some sort of a biological spacesuit that allows them to recycle their air. However, there is no evidence to support this hypothesis, and the evidence we do have argues against it. Thus, I will attempt to prove that abiogenesis is improbable. Burden Of ProofWhile I agree with Con that the burden of proving abiogenesis to be improbable is on my shoulders, there is nothing in the debate challenge about whether "enough is known about the origins of life" or not. For one, the word "enough", in context, is arbitrary. What do we define to be "enough", in regards to origins research? There was no prior agreement about what can be defined as "enough". In addition, the rules of the debate challenge specifically read:"This debate will be about what science has already discovered"It did not read:"This debate will be about whether there is enough known about the origins of life to affirm that abiogenesis is improbable or not, and if there is, what that affirmation is"The above statement is an entirely different debate. This debate is about whether abiogenesis is improbable or not based on all currently known scientific research. Were Con to propose that "not enough is known about abiogenesis to affirm whethere it is improbable or not" he would actually be breaking the rules as listed in the debate challenge. Essentially, he would be arguing that "Abiogenesis is probable because once scientists know enough about origins they will discover how abiogenesis is probable". Lastly, although I conclude that Con's speculation about the burden of proof is flawed, I do believe that there is enough research in regards to origins to conclude that abiogenesis is improbable. Quick Rebuttals:Rebuttal A: We do not "know" that abiogenesis took place at least once. If we did, it would be self-evident, and we wouldn't be having this debate. Secondly, Con ignores the other hypotheses in regards to origins, such as intelligent design. Rebuttal B: While it is understandable that Con would not give evidence in the first round, it is important to note that the phrase "there are probable evolutionary paths to life" is essentially key to this debate. It raises the question: Are there really probable evolutionary paths to life? My position will be to prove there are none. Rebuttal C: Not all scientists believe abiogenesis is likely. There are reasons for this, which I will outline below. Side Note: Con's source has essentially outlined RNA World Hypothesis for us. This is (I believe) the prevalent hypothesis accepted amongst abiogenesis researches. For anyone wanting a more detailed outline of RNA World Hypothesis, Wikipedia explains it in depth:a) . http://en.wikipedia.org...Probabilities (On My Part) Will Be IgnoredFor three reasons: 1) As Con illustrates, they are flawed. 2) They are boring. and 3) They assume abiogenesis is probable, thus strengthening the position that abiogenesis is probable. Now, without further ado:The Problems With AbiogenesisI. Lack Of Means To Produce All Necessary Organic Molecules.1) "Primordial" earth did not have a reducing atmosphere, meaning that oxygen was present. [2] This is key, because amino acids and nucleotides can not form in the presence of oxygen. [3]2) In regards to the Miller-Urey experiment, there would also have been a lack of methane and ammonia. Today's volcanoes release CO, CO2, N2, and water vapor. Not methane or ammonia. Although cryovolcanoes do release methane and ammonia [4], these are only found on other planets. Furthermore, scientists no longer believe earth's atmosphere played a part in abiogenesis. [5]3) Most (if not all) experiments to produce organic molecules only give small yields. In the Miller-Urey experiment, only 2% of the carbon used was converted into organic molecules. [6] Thus it is unlikely that any large concentration of amino acids would occur. 4) Cross-interference: Many of the organic molecules present in a primordial earth would have interfered with amino acid and protein production. For example:a) Isopropyl and ethanol alcohol as well as heavy metal ions such as Ag+, Pb2+ and Hg2+ would have interfered with any protein created. [7]b) Sugars produced in primordial chemical reactions react strongly with amino acids, affectig amino acid synthesis [8], as well as DNA and RNA replication. Ironically, ribose and deoxyribose, the sugars necessary to polymerize nucleotides in RNA and DNA strands are not produced in any known primordial chemical reactions. c) The Miller-Urey experiment produced many other toxic compounds including cyanides and carbon monoxide. [9]5) The nucleotide problem. Cytosine has never been produced in any spark experiments. Cytosine derivatives suffer dire problems (which will be discussed in length if Con cites cytosine derivatives as a probable means for cytosine to be created). In addition, while purine nucleotides have been found in meteorites, pyrimidine nucleotides have not, thus cytosine can not be assumed to have come from space.6) As stated in part (b) of point 5, there are no known primordial chemical reactions that produce ribose or deoxyribose, necessary components of polynucleotides.7) Racemic mix. All experiments that produced amino acids resulted in a racemic mix. [10] That is, a mixture of both left and right handed versions of the particular amino acid. Consequently, only left handed amino acids are used in proteins and only right handed sugars are used in polynucleotides, etc. Any protein utilizing right handed amino acids or polynucleotide utilizing left handed sugars is rendered useless for life. This is why chemists use pre-existing homochirality from a biological source to synthesize homochiral compounds. [11]The Polymerization Problem.1) Polymerization of proteins. Amino acids are able to bond in many locations by many kinds of chemical bonds. To form polypeptide chains, only peptide bonds can be made, and only in the right locations. In living cells, a complex system involving enzymes and ATP exists to ensure that inappropriate bonds are not made. If inappropriate bonds are made, the protein is destroyed. In addition, peptide bonds have a strong thermodynamic tendency to break down in water. [12]2) In addition, assuming all nucleotides, sugars, and phosphates required for polynucleotides somehow existed, there is once again the problem of polymerization without external direction. I don't have much space left, but in a nutshell Con must show how polynucleotides could have come about without the use of enzymes or the complex biomechanics modern cells use today. There are more issues. But I have no more room. Sources are in the comments.