Abiogenesis Is Improbable

The Meaning of the Resolution. Viruses incorporate self-replicating genetic material and complex proteins that could, theoretically, evolve into more complex organisms. If Con can prove that there is a probability equal to or above 1 in 10^16 that this could happen, I have lost the debate. However, all I need to do is prove that there is no probability of this taking place at all, and I have won. Keep in mind that probabilities can only be established if there are natural mechanisms in existence to allow something to take place. Theoretical mechanisms can not be relied upon unless they have been proven to work. There may be, of course, natural mechanisms in existence that allow abiogenesis to take place. However, we can not assume this until these mechanisms have been discovered. Estimate from the time to originate life on earth Con seems to have misinterpreted the phrase "we do not know that abiogenesis took place" to mean, "we know that abiogenesis did not take place". I am not citing the existence of other hypotheses in regards to origins as evidence that abiogenesis is improbable. I am simply saying that one can not use the existence of life as evidence of abiogenesis being probable, because it can not be proven, and there are other widely accepted hypothesis. Con's calculations assume abiogenesis took place on earth. This, in Con's words, "reaches outside of science". Con is basing his evidence that abiogenesis is probable on the belief that abiogenesis has taken place on earth. The latter has not been proven and the former relies on the latter. Expert opinion on abiogenesis This does not constitute an argument. It wouldn't make sense for someone to dedicate their life to a field of research they didn't believe to be possible. Where could I find an abiogenesis expert who would willingly admit that abiogenesis is neither possible nor inevitable? However, if by "expert" you simply mean a PhD in microbiology or chemistry that has studied abiogenesis hypothesis and drawn a conclusion, then the list of scientists on this website should suffice: (a) http://www.answersingenesis.org... Why Abiogenesis Is Improbable Abiogenesis is a process that involves many steps. All I have to do to show abiogenesis to be improbable is to prove that one or more of these steps is (according to current scientific research) impossible and impassable. 1) First of all, I think Con meant to say "billion" not "trillion" [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Secondly, Con's first source gives no actual rebuttal to the existence of free oxygen before 2.7 billion years. All the author does is speculate about the seemingly conflicting evidence and even says in line 19: "Sometimes, when I hear a controversy like this, I wonder if they’re both in fact right..." Con's second source [his 7] is not only absent of any mention of how the primordial atmosphere was more conducive to abiogenesis, but literally strengthens my case by providing evidence that free oxygen has been present in earth's atmosphere since earth's formation: "...scientists show that the atmosphere of Earth just 500 million years after its creation was not a methane-filled wasteland as previously proposed, but instead was much closer to the conditions of our current atmosphere". This does not prove that abiogenesis is more likely. It proves that abiogenesis would have to be more likely in order for it to be true. 2) Con's [7] show that earth's early atmosphere is similar to that of today's. In regards to earth's atmosphere, we can not rely on methane-ammonia as a means to produce amino acids. Con must show how amino acids can be produced without methane and ammonia. 3) It's very simple. Amino acids can't polymerize unless they're actually near each other. If only low quantities are made, the amino acid concentration will be quickly diluted. This is why Urey speculated that the earths oceans would have to be 10% organic compounds [Urey, H., The Planets: Their Origin and Development, Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 149–157, 1952] 4) Sugars created in primordial reactions would react with amino acids, deteriorating them, as outlined in source [8]. Thus amino acids would have to be somehow isolated from the sugars created. 5) Con gave no rebuttal to the absence of cytosine. This is important: Cytosine is necessary for RNA and DNA. You can't have RNA or DNA without cytosine. Con's source does nothing other then strengthen my case. His next, rather choppy quote, claims that there are "...A number of possibilities" involving "cycles of autocatalytic reactions". What are these possibilities? Have they been proven to work? What exactly do "cycles of autocatalytic reactions" entail? Can con come up with any sources regarding this? What processes are there that can compensate for the lack of cytosine? 6) Con seems to have failed to assign a source to [8]. I can't give a rebuttal to information from an unknown source. However, PNA and TNA have their own problems. In regards to PNA, that is pRNA: "Consequently, pRNA and RNAs are not able to form duplexes with each other, which would preclude exchange of information between these two molecules, suggesting that pRNAs are unlikely to have been the genetic material that preceded RNA"- [Orgel, L. 2000. ORIGIN OF LIFE: A Simpler Nucleic Acid] In regards to TNA, supposed methods exist, and are complex. But essentially they rely on the interaction of TNA and RNA in the first place, which would not have taken place. [http://www.godandscience.org...] Also, where would the TNA have found the cytosine or ribose to evolve into RNA? You can't have RNA or DNA without the sugars and corresponding nucleotides. Eventually cytosine and ribose would have had to be used. Furthermore, we do not have any evidence of organisms using TNA or PNA, thus we can not conclude that these DNA derivatives were the first genetic material. 7) Here Con fails to cite a relevant method. Professor McBride's method simply deracemizes crystals, but it is unclear about whether it works on amino acids. Of course, he does claim that "we are working with this novel grinding method in the realm of amino acids with very good initial results". But he doesn't reveal what those results are, or how "good" they are, or even if his method deracemized amino acids at all. 8) The source Con cites, other then being very complex, seems to essentially be outlining the doctor's hypothesis in regards to peptide bond formation. The Professor appears to be assuming that TNA and some other factors were involved in protein synthesis. Of course, Con must prove that spontaneous polymerization of TNA is possible in the first place. However, it's really not that clear to me what his source is saying. Con must elaborate on the intermediate step works. (So myself and the audience can examine the validity of his claim) 9) For one, Con's source itself neither describes what the actual work James Ferris was, nor what his experiments consisted of. It doesn't even cite a paper or website where his experiments are described. Thus we can't honestly rely on it. In addition, Con's source says, after making an alleged claim of protein synthesis in prebiotic conditions, that "The proteins and DNA that Ferris and other have produced are not functional". Not to mention as Dr. Graham Cairns-Smith, researcher in regards to clay theory, states: ‘“However,” he added, “in our experiments, the organic compounds became so strongly held to the clay particles that they could not undergo any further chemical reactions.”’ [http://news.bbc.co.uk...] To top it off, as [http://creation.com...] puts it: "Even if modern clays did have a chiral bias, this could be due to previous absorption of optically active biomolecules", which, of course, wouldn't have existed."