Abiogenesis Is Impossible

"he has neither offered evidence to support the hypothesis nor cited sources that offer evidence to support it" I will site more this round if I see fit but saying I never sited sources isn't really a factual statement. My opponent is speaking about Abiogenesis in a tone that implies the debate is whether it happened or not, not whether or not it is possible. This is a point I really want to stress in this debate, because so far all Pro has done is try to discredit one experiment and has not made a single point indicating how Abiogenesis is impossible. People who reject Abiogenesis will claim: "The formation of any enzyme by chance is nearly impossible, therefore abiogenesis is impossible" A calculation from the astrophysicist Fred Hoyle named "Borel's Law" was created with the intent to show that Abiogenesis is statistically impossible. The problems with calculations like these? __________________________________ 1) They calculate the chance of a"modern" protein forming, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by strictly random events. This is not what Abiogenesis hypothesizes at all. 2) They make the assumption that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each and every protein that are required for life to form. 3) They only calculate the probability of sequential trials and not simultaneous trials. 4) They underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes existing in a group of random sequences. The calculation states that the probability of forming a 300 amino acid long protein (an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390. One of the flaws is that the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are not random by any stretch of the imagination, contrary to what the calculation assumes. Another major flaw is the fact that the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria, rather one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. How is Abiogenesis possible The theory is that you go from simple chemicals, to polymers, to replicating polymers, to a hypercycle, to protobiont system, and finally to bacteria. I am going to explain how this is in fact, possible: A monomer (from Greek mono "one" and meros "part") is an atom or a small molecule that may bind chemically to other monomers to form a polymer. A polymer is a large molecule (macromolecule) composed of repeating structural units. These subunits are typically connected by covalent chemical bonds (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The repeating structural unit of most simple polymers not only reflects the monomer(s) from which the polymers are constructed, but also provides a concise means for drawing structures to represent these macromolecules. For polyethylene, arguably the simplest polymer, ethylene (ethene) is the monomer, and the corresponding linear polymer is called high-density polyethylene (HDPE). HDPE is composed of macromolecules in which n ranges from 10,000 to 100,000 (molecular weight 2*105 to 3 *106 ) (http://www.talkorigins.org...). The subunits of polymers are held together by chemical compounds, therefore providing evidence that it is possible to go from chemicals to polymers. An accurate mathematical model concerning the origin and the growth of self-replicating polymers has been developed. The polymers compete for activated monomers which can be carried into the system under constant or periodic fluxes. Changes in their concentrations are determined by spontaneous generation of the shortest polymers, ligation with free monomers at the end of their chains, template-instructed synthesis for polymers above a length threshold, and decomposition (http://www.sciencedirect.com...). The competition between polymers for activated monomers can kick off the process of replication. A Hypercycle is a new level of organization where self-replicative units are connected in a autocatalytic manner. The self-replicative units are themselves catalytic cycles (http://www.enotes.com...(chemistry)). Since replicating polymers are self-replicating units, then it's possible for them to engage in this new level of organization. Theoretical treatments of hypercycles show that, once evolved from RNA, DNA will take over as the master molecule by virtue of it's storage capacity. Once DNA merged as the master hereditary molecule, the length of it's nucleotide strands could be increased, spelling out the alphabet of base pairs containing the information required for the machinery of life. Protobionts form spontaneously in the laboratory under a variety of different hypothetical early Earth conditions.(http://books.google.ca...) Treatments of hypercycles indicate that DNA will take over as the master molecule, and protobionts form spontaneously under a wide range of theorized early earth conditions. The earliest mitochondria could be used as food by other protobionts, but some of them could not be processed as food, but survived living as symbionts into more complex protobionts. Progressively, the functional relationship would be more vital for both mitochondria and protobionts, until they could not omit one to another. This indicates the process of the origin of the first prokaryotic heterotrophic protists (e.g. Archaea and Bacteria) (http://www.biocab.org...). So, I have shown that is it possible to gets from simple chemicals, to polymers, to replicating polymers, to a hypercycle, to protobionts, and to heterotrophic protists. Abiogenesis is indeed possible. Quick response to the errors in Pro's objections Regarding when oxygen appeared on earth ___________________________________ Pro tried to combat my rebuttal about his error about how many years ago Oxygen appeared on earth, I will point out his huge error once again. NASA-funded astrobiologist researchers report that traces of oxygen appeared in Earth's atmosphere from 50 to 100 million years before what is known as the Great Oxidation Event. This event happened between 2.3 and 2.4 billion years ago, when many scientists think atmospheric oxygen increased significantly from the existing very low levels 50 to 100 million years before that (http://www.nasa.gov...). Regarding volcanoes _________________ The Earth's surface was originally molten, as it cooled the volcanoes belched out massive amounts of carbon dioxide, steam, ammonia and methane (http://www.moorlandschool.co.uk...). A cryovolcano is a volcano that erupts volatiles such as water, ammonia or methane. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I am mentioning this type of volcano not seen on Earth, is because it's effects are somewhat similar to the volcanoes that erupted on the Earth's surface after it cooled. Recap: a) Pro has only attempted to poke holes in one experiment, and has not met his burden of proof in regards to Abiogenesis being impossible. b) Abiogenesis is a process involving multiple steps, I have met my burden of proof in regards to proving these steps are at least possible. c) Pro has made errors in regards to things like the ammonia and methane, and oxygen in the early Earth ect. Conclusion: . I have met my burden of proof regarding the possibility of Abiogenesis . My opponent has not demonstrated how Abiogenesis is impossible. http://www.youtube.com...