Abiogenesis Is Impossible

Problem with Pro's arguments It seems that my opponent assumes that making the claim that I haven't shown how Abiogenesis is possible, is somehow also making a case for how Abiogenesis is impossible. Attempting to poke holes in arguments is only one aspect of the debate, the most important part is making an argument of your own. Regardless, I will defend aspects of the video (which wasn't even really a major part of my argument, just something that I felt wouldn't hurt to be included for people interested on the subject for the most part). Answers to questions raised by Pro "Where did we get all of the nucleotides?" The first step of nucleotide synthesis is the formation of a nucleotide which is the nitrogenous base joined to a sugar. The sugar involved in the synthesis and structure of a nucleotide may be either ribose or deoxyribose; in the latter case, the prefix 'deoxy' may be added before the name of the nucleoside in all cases except Uracil. A functional group of phosphate is then esterified to the sugar, creating a nucleotide. The phosphate group may consist of one, two, or three phosphates, forming monophosphates, diphosphates, or triphosphates, respectively. This is where we get nucleotides from. "How did the original polynucleotide polymerize?" The first one simply chained to the next. Nucleotides get chained together like other biological molecules, by a condensation reaction that releases a stable molecule. Unlike carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids, the molecule that get's released is pyrophosphate not water. When pyrophosphate is cleaved after the watter is added a massive amount of free energy is released making sure that the reverse process most likely does not happen. .http://www.chem.wisc.edu... "enzymes wouldn't have existed in a primordial earth" A study at the Georgia Tech School of Biology found that a group of ancient enzymes known as thioredoxin were chemically stable at temperatures up to 58 degrees Fahrenheit higher than their modern counterparts. The enzymes, which were around four billion years old also showed increased activity at lower pH levels, which correspond to greater acidity. .http://www.sciencedaily.com... Refutation of Pro's baseless claim that Abiogenesis is impossible "Abiogenesis, is not possible. Because: A) Neccessary ingrediants for abiogenesis would not have existed (cytosine, amino acids only made in methane-ammonia chemical reactions, ribose, etc.)" B) These ingrediants could not have spontaneously polymerized." A) I already provided a source for the study which proves that enzymes existed over four billion years ago. Also, the early atmosphere was different. Volcanoes helped create the warm Earth with their eruptions which shot a mix of water vapor, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrochloric acid, methane, ammonia, nitrogen, & sulfur gases into the atmosphere. .http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com... B) You have provided no evidence that these ingredients could not have spontaneously polymerized, this is just a baseless assertion on your behalf. I have provided arguments and sources regarding how the ingredients polymerized. Conclusion Abiogenesis is definitely possible, as a scientist you have to assume this is what happened. First of all, don't confuse abiogenesis with spontaneous generation, abiogenesis was a gradual process that took millions of years. How exactly it happened we will never know, after all, no one was there to see it. What scientists can do is provide a possible explanation. Basically say: "look, I can prove this way was physically possible, and since life had to come about at some point this is most likely how it happened". Even if one way has criticisms of it that doesn't mean that all ways of Abiogenesis happening are impossible. Why vote Con? . My opponent has provided not evidence that the right combination of chemicals combining cannot produce the building blocks of life. . Pro also has attempted to poke many holes in my arguments but did a very poor job of making a solid argument for himself in his favor. . I have provided sufficient evidence that Abiogenesis is at least possible, while my opponent has not shown how it is absolutely impossible. http://www.youtube.com...