Abiogenesis Is Sound

I affirm that abiogenesis is sound, because amino acids come from inorganic substances likely of a pre-biotic earth, and the resulting amino acid network allowed for the emergence of RNA, which, when encapsulated with amino acids by a primitive membrane, functioned as the first living cell that could metabolize with amino acids and replicate with RNA. But you know how Con is. .. *Final Rebuttals*Con has attempted to show that because so many proteins are needed by archaea's DNA, the same must be true of the first cell, and this somehow fits into Con's probability argument. Con has stated:"the absolute simplest of these bacteria is the nanoarcheum equitans, whose DNA contains 537 protein encoding genes. .. thought to be the bridge between the first bacteria and modern bacteria. .. that is a simplification. .. Archea are living fossils. .. they do show an accurate picture of what life 3.5 billion years ago, the first life, might have looked like. They may be more complex, but. .. they are the only reference to go on. "My response:Con has now stated that archaea are not the first life, they're the bridge between old and new bacteria and they may be more complex than the first life, so we can dismiss Con's 537 protein encoding genes, because as Con puts it, "they may be more complex" and they are not the first life. Con adds:"So, my opponent points out that yeast does not equal early "life". He says "Yeast is much more evolved than any first cell would be. " This is true. "My response:Great, we agree, so Con's mention of yeast's amino acid contents also does not apply here. Con furthers:"However, the smallest protein known to man is the length of 20 amino acids. It's found in the saliva of Gila Monsters. That isn't useful to the first form of life in any way shape or form"My response:This is a bare assertion. Con doesn't explain why 20 amino acids *isn't* useful for the first form of life, they just assert it, and as I pointed out, biologically active amino acids can metabolize energy and *this* would be useful for the first life, irrespective of the more recent, complex organism, the Gila Monster. Con suggests:"So, for the sake of having any kind of argument, let's settle on the number of, say, 100 amino acids. "My response:No. We're not just going to settle on some arbitrary number because it will help you run your probability argument. Con's probability argument has already been negated by Con's concession that "a single cell could have formed" as abiogenesis explains AND by the fact that Con concedes that "polypeptides of less than 100 are more useful for causing chemical reactions and breaking proteins apart," which is part of primitive metabolism. Why are "chemical reactions and breaking apart proteins. .. once again, not useful to a delicate cell," Con? The first cell heavily relied on both of those things, and both of those things are under your 100 number. .. Con has stated:"The enzyme Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase needs to exist in order for cell production to take place. .. my source only shows that the cell has coordination and an ability to respond to [lacking aminoacyl tRNA synthetases]. "My response:Con tried to show that, without the particular tRNA called aminoacyl synthetase, the first cell could not reproduce, but instead, Con concedes that cells can respond to this lack of particular tRNA, and Con's source shows that cell production can still occur given this lack. . https://en.wikipedia.org...So, Con decides to try a different approach and say that, cells may not need that particular tRNA, but dealing with the lack of that particular tRNA is a complex cell function, not indicative of the first cell. Con adds:"Nothing like the first cell, at all. .. that first cell wouldn't have the instructions necessary to pull of such a complicated maneuver. "My response:You neglect your source Con. Your source said that chemically related amino acids take over the particular tRNA's function in the cell, and do you know what's a major component of a pre-biotic, catalytic network that you conceded the first cell could have emerged from? Amino acids. Particularly, those that match with RNA, are the very ones generated by the switch from inorganic-->organic compounds, which would be abundant in this pre-biotic network of amino acid catalysts. Con then talks in maths (Radiohead reference):"For a viable protein to be formed requires each amino acid that bonds to the last to be the right one. The odds, seeing as we don't know the exact quantity of each amino acid during the time, will be estimated to 1 out of 25. "My response:The odds, seeing as we don't know the exact quantity of each amino acid during the time, ARE USELESS! Aside from being after-the-fact probability, Con openly admits that we don't know the number of amino acids at the time, so an estimation 1 out of 25 isn't any more reasonable than an estimation of 25 out of 25 being the odds. Con your reasoning is, "we don't know the exact quantity of amino acids, therefore here's a BS estimate of 1 out of 25? "Come on Con. Con continues:"Now, to do the math, we must multiply 527 total proteins by 1 out of 25 to the 100th power. Like this:527 * (1/25)^100"My response:Now do the math like this:incongruous number of protein encoding genes * (BS estimate) ^ arbitrary number of amino acidsWhat does that equal? Con's crappy probability argument, that does way more assuming than actual demonstrating likelihoods of abiogenesis. Side note, Con, you originally said, in round 1, the number was 537, not 527 as you said in your last round, but you're just making BS numbers up anyway, so no harm no foul. Con restates:"The [production of more cells without that particular tRNA] pro is attributing to this ancient cell are found in modern, coordinated cells. They are not one and the same and should not be considered as such. "My response:But your source Con. .. your source! Your source says that amino acids satisfy this function you've arbitrarily called "complex," with amino acids that would be there in the pre-biotic network you've conceded could have emerged the first living cell. It mentions nothing about this being a complex function exclusive to modern cells; only you have asserted it. Con concedes again:"When I point out that the chances [of abiogenesis] are microscopic, I point out that it may happen once"My response:So you agree that abiogenesis-->first cell was not only possible, but that it may have happened once, Con? Great. Seems sound to me. Con furthers:"The method of life coming into the world is statistically improbable. .. that should be grounds to reconsider and find a new theory"My response:OK, let me get this straight. Con, you agree that a cell could have emerged in the way abiogenesis was described in this debate, you concede it may have happened once, yet you think it's time for a new theory? The evidence indicates it, Con concedes it, yet it needs to be reconsidered. .. I'm baffled. Con mentions:"Speculating the odds of origin is a necessity. "My response:Really? Speculating? Just guessing at odds is a necessity? Without evidence, speculating at odds is not only useless, it's nothing. But, I'll give Con what he wants. In my speculation, the odds were 15/31 that life emerged from abiogenesis because of 15 and 31 were my speculation. .. ahh there, now I feel better, since i speculated the odds, I don't need to reconsider abiogenesis. Con marinates in his concession:"I conceded. .. that a single cell might. .. form in highly unstable conditions. .. it wouldn't qualify as life. .. this cell could not reproduce and form another cell. "My response:Con has given us no reason to doubt my source that the first cell would have been metabolizing with amino acids and replicating, in a template directed manner with RNA, instead, Con just asserts that the cell could not reproduce. What, in the source below, is wrong about the first cell replicating with RNA, Con? . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Con contradicts himself. Earlier, in round 3, Con says:"I conceded that a single cell might form in highly unstable conditions. "Later, in round 3, Con says:"There is no chance that a cell could be formed in the conditions prescribed. "My response:I'll let the voters wade through this egregious contradiction, and I will also remind voters that my sources were never questioned and I maintain that they are valid and reliable. So, when Con says it's all untenable conjecture, he's given us no reason to think any of my sources are such. Thanks, Con.