Abiogenesis Is Improbable

The Meaning of the Resolution Pro asserts, "Theoretical mechanisms can not be relied upon unless they have been proven to work." Pro then implies that anything sort of a precise explanation s a "theoretical mechanism." That's not a reasonable interpretation of the resolution. with that interpretation, anything that has not be accomplished is proved impossible. For example, let's prove that no building can ever be built taller than 3000 feet. Calculations for the strength of materials and the design of a structure, both performed by competent engineers, could show it is possible, and those competent to judge say its possible. But it hasn't actually been accomplished, and by Pro's interpretation, anything not prevents to be judged impossible. The way to prove abiogenesis impossible is to show that one of the steps required violates a known law of nature. For example: "Traveling faster than the speed of lights impossible because the theory of relativity show it cannot be done with finite energy." What is disallowed is to suppose that a new law of nature will be discovered that makes it possible. It could be shown to be improbable by establishing a sequence of steps required for life to emerge, and showing that one step in the process can only occur with very small probability.Estimate from the time to originate life on earth Only scientific propositions can be debated within the realm of science. consider the proposition "The universe was created last week, with all the evidence of an older universe created as well." that's proposition, but since it denies that the laws of nature apply, it isn't a scientific proposition. It's purely in the realm of faith. In the case of creationism, the Bible hints that a natural process was the mechanism for creationism. Life is said to have come from dust, not to have appeared from nothing. What's interesting is whether the natural process is common or uncommon in the universe. As a question of creationism, it is whether the process is so improbable that life probably only occurs on earth, or whether it is probably common in the universe.The probabilities of living matter forming completely randomly is vanishingly small, but not impossible. Present scientific thinking is that abiogenesis is so likely that may be found on Mars or one of the large moons of the outer planets. More than seven hundred planets have been discovered orbiting distant stars. The probability of the occurrence of life is a serious question.As noted, the fact of abiogenesis having occurred does not mean it is probable or improbable. How fast it occurred does imply a probability. "Scientists surmise that 4 billion years the earth's surface was desolate and lifeless. .. yet evidence locked in earth's early rocks suggests that by about 3.8 billion years ago, tiny bacteria had emerged to establish a firm foothold." [13. Robert Hazen, in his textbook, Genesis: the Scientific Quest for Life's Origin] that life emerged so quickly suggest that the probability is high.Pro gives a generic list of creationists, but identifies no one who studies abiogenesis as research specialty. In particular he doesn't identify any scientist who thinks that creation through natural processes is impossible, rather than merely improbable. The abiogenesis is improbable is a perfectly respectable research stance, and was once commonly shared my many scientists. It's only the course of research that has turned opinion overwhelmingly on the side of it being highly probable.Pro Objections1. Yes, the earth is between 4.4 and 4.6 billion years old. All agree that the earth's atmosphere was toxic up to 4 billion years ago. The latest research [7] shows that by 3.8 billion years ago, the atmosphere was no longer toxic, but that it contains no free oxygen. Hence Pro's claim that free oxygen would prevent abiogenesis is false. 2. No, the source says that the atmosphere is similar to that of today only in terms of toxic components. There was much more CO2, and no oxygen. methane and ammonia were present up up to about 4 billion years ago, providing the source for amino acids. Between 4 billion and 3.8 billion years ago, life emerged and the atmosphere changed. The first life forms consumed CO2 and created the free oxygen present a billion or more years later.3. Pro's 1952 source assumes that high concentrations of amino acids are required for polymerization, but does not argue it is necessary. One identified mechanism that avoids the need for high concentrations is mineral surfaces serving as catalysts. [14. http://scholar.google.com... is a list of scholarly articles]. Another mechanism is origins in high concentrations around undersea hydrothermal vents. [15. http://www.springerlink.com...] One theory does not exclude the other, both mechanism could operate.4. Pro re-asserts that there are problems but fails to link them with abiogenesis. His [8] is a 1941 journal article that seems unrelated. I cannot find and reference in current research to these issues even being problems. they are asserted purely upon Pro's authority.5. Pro did not establish that cytosine was necessary for abiogenesis. My reference [9] showed it was not.6. I gave reference [8] earlier in the debate, after which I just recited the reference number. Modern theories do not rely upon a theory simple sugars are required for abiogenesis. Pro needed to show they were required, contrary to modern theory. He did not.7. Pro needs to show that there is no natural method for sorting racemic mixes. His complaint is that while many methods have been identified, not have been demonstrated to his satisfaction, and that doesn't make the mechanisms vanishingly improbable. the modern theory of mineral surface catalysts [14] is now preferred because it accomplishes both polymerization and the sorting. 8) No, I don't need to explain complex organic chemistry to Pro's satisfaction, which is a good thing because I'm not capable of explaining it. It suffices to say that and expert in the subject makes the claim, and that other experts have not since contradicted him.9) The list of references in [14] gives more detail on surface catalysts. Pro cites a religious site, not a refereed journal, The Ferris paper was published in a journal. [15. Cations As Mediators Of The Adsorption Of Nucleic Acids On Clay Surfaces In Prebiotic Environments by Marco Franchi, James P. Ferris and Enzo Gallori, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 33: 1-16 (2003)] The scientific work Pro cites only covered clay-based racemic sorting in clays near thermal vents, not the general subject. The author supports the RNA-world theory rather than the thermal vent theory;he does no assert improbability.Debate issuesThanks to Pro for an interesting and topical debate.I invited Pro to include his references in this round of the debate, so that they could be counted within the character limits. He declined to do so, so arguments referencing them are not sourced. Failure to respond is a conduct violation. Without references, the arguments rest entirely upon Pro's assertions, and therefore the arguments fail. I intend to pass the last round so we each will have made three debate arguments. It's a rule that no new arguments can be introduced.SummaryWe know abiogenesis happened once because we are here. Current research has shows abiogenesis occurred in a sequence of steps over a geologically short period of about 200 million years, Science has not settled on a single theory of abiogenesis. Pro only addresses only one version of the RNA-world abiogenesis theory, mostly with outdated objections. Mechanisms have been discovered showing how each step is not ony possible, but likely. Pro needed to have argued that there was something highly improbable common to all theories, and he failed to do that.Science says that abiogenesis is probable.