Abiogenesis Is Sound

First off, I will apologize for my challenging of the definition of life. For some reason, I thought that you're definition of life didn't include the ability to reproduce, which is an absolute necessity to defining life. With that out of the way, let's move onto the meaty bit. Archea: When I talk about Archea being the bridge between modern bacteria, that is a simplification. "Some publications suggest that archaeal or eukaryotic lipid remains are present in shales dating from 2.7 billion years ago;" 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 that is very limited in nature. They are the only reference to go on, and we should accept them as such. If we didn't accept archea as evidence, we couldn't accept many forms of evidence. Source - https://en.wikipedia.org... Defense of Protein Size: 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. 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. So, for the sake of having any kind of argument, let's settle on the number of, say, 100 amino acids. I say 100 because most of the polypeptides of less than 100 are more useful for causing chemical reactions and breaking proteins apart. Once again, not useful to a delicate cell. Source - http://www.rcsb.org... Source - https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu... Codons and Amino Acids: You ask "Why was this mentioned?" I mentioned it because it would be useful for the math I was going to do later. Cell Reproduction: "Certain organisms can have one or more aminoacyl tRNA synthetases *missing*. This leads to charging of the tRNA by a chemically related amino acid." When you use that quote to say that my argument "The enzyme Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase needs to exist in order for cell production to take place." is invalid, you fail to realize the innate folly of your argument. That quote that you bring up from my source only shows that the cell has coordination and an ability to respond to a situation that it shouldn't be in. That is, however, a modern cell. Nothing like the first cell, at all. That first cell wouldn't have the instructions necessary to pull of such a complicated maneuver. To say otherwise is to contradict yourself. Stats and Such: I will maintain that the 527 protein figure is accurate. It is the closest estimate we can have as to the number of proteins in the cell. As for the number of amino acids per protein, I have revised that to 100. FInally, seeing as I confused you the first time around, lets talk about that 1 out of 25 thing. There are a total of 25 unique amino acids. 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. 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 That should give us the rough probability of a cell being created, which still comes to error. If you still find error in my numbers, than I shall say that you are once again refusing to accept evidence. Continuing to do so should qualify a loss on your part, seeing as this is an evidence based debate. Cell Reproduction, Again: Once again, my opponent states that I neglected my source. To reiterate, I didn't. The functions 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 Second Issue: When I point out that the chances are microscopic, I point out that it may happen once, but it couldn't happen twice. Besides, the situation that you say is analogus to our current situation has odds of 1 in 3,000, as opposed to what we currently have from the statistics section which is several thousand times larger. The point I am trying to make is that the method of life coming into the world is statistically improbable, to say the least. That should be grounds to reconsider and find a new theory. To not do so is to refuse to be scientific. Also, the argument that "Life has already originated, so speculating on the odds of its origins is not indicative of anything useful/relevant." is an argument I personally despise. Speculating the odds of origin is a necessity. Theories should be built around fact, not fact built around theory. To blindly stumble forward and declare abiogenesis as the only explanation, rather than a theory with flaws, is illogical and ignorant. You are ignoring that the entire point is to prove whether or not abiogenesis is a sound theory, which it decidedly isn't. Just because it's the only theory doesn't make it a sound one. Years ago, people believe that things spontaneously generated, that the sun revolved around the earth, and that masturbation makes you go blind. None of those are sound, and neither is abiogenesis. My Concession: I conceded, only for the sake of this debate, that a single cell might, and I say might for a reason. form in highly unstable conditions. However, even if it did, it wouldn't qualify as life. The definition of life, as agreed upon, is "the condition that distinguishes animals, plants, fungi, protista, archaea, and bacteria, from inorganic matter, including the capacity for metabolism and reproduction." I once again contest that this cell could not reproduce and form another cell. It doesn't have the instructions necessary, nor does it have the instructions required to make the proteins necessary for reproduction, presumably through mitosis, which literally involves ripping the cell into two pieces in a coordinated fashion. Conclusion: There is no chance that a cell could be formed in the conditions prescribed. However, even if one did, it wouldn't be capable of reproduction, and, therefore, does not fit into the agreed definition of life. Abiogenesis is statistically impossible and can't explain the ability for the cell to reproduce. Ergo, abiogenesis and the origin of life posed by pro can't be accepted as anything more than untenable conjecture. Thanks, Pro