Abiogenesis Is Possible

Almost all of my opponent's entire argument is predictated on the use of odds to make his argument. Unfortuntely for him, these arguments are fundamentally flawed. Here is a quote that explains the basis of this argument: 1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all. 2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life. 3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials. 4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation. 5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences. [1]I'll go more into the third one later since my opponent addresses that one specifically. My main rebuttal in this argument will be that one simply cannot be accurate probability calculations for something as inherently complex as biological abiogenesis. First, I will address the left-handed/right-handed and peptide/non-peptide bond arguments. "The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments. Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness. .. An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life. " It is easy to see how the same problems could be said of peptide bonds, which were only the result of a bond of certain common elements. Overall, it is easy to see how such probability calculations are not adequate for determining the actual probability of a biological event. [2][3]"The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group, or the self replicating hexanucleotide, or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself. " The mathematical calculations rely too much on the flawed assumption that life resulted from complex molecules. Here is an illustration of how those Ghadiri peptide bonds could self-replicate [1]And this shows how life could have easily self-replicated from a combination of simple molecules. Back to that third premise I made at the beginning: ". .. in the above examples we were examining sequential trials, as if there was only one protein/DNA/proto-replicator being assembled per trial. In fact there would be billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates. " What this means is that the seemingly low probabilities that always result from probability calculations are inaccurate. [1]Using the sequential trials, the probability of creating a 32 amino acid long-protein is 4.29 x 10^40. I will now be making my own version of a mathematical argument that actually considers these conditions. P1. Probability of the creation of a 32 amino acid long-protein: 4.29 x 10^40P2. The number of atoms in one kilogram of the amino acid arginine: 2.85 x 10^24P3. Volume of the Early Earth's oceans: 10^24 LP4. Amino acid concentration: 10^-6 M===>C. Potential starting chains: 10^50 molecules, and therefore 10^31 efficient peptide ligases could be produced in under one year. [1][4]Using this data, "Assume that it takes a week to generate a sequence. Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort). [1][5]My opponent does not offer an argument considering ribozymes or enzymes, so I will just add this short quote that extends the conclusion I just made: "Similarly, of the 1 x 10^130 possble 100 unit proteins, 3.8 x 10^63present cytochrome C alone! There's lots of functional enyzmes in the peptide/nucleotide search space, so it would seem likely that a functioning ensemble of enzymes could be brewed up in an early Earth's prebiotic soup. So, even with more realistic (if somewhat mind beggaring) figures, random assemblage of amino acids into "life-supporting" systems (whether you go for protein enzyme based hypercycles, or RNA ribozyme-protein enzyme coevolution would seem to be entirely feasible, even with pessimistic figures for the original monomer concentrations and synthesis times. "[1]At this point, my argument is complete. It may seem like my own arguments are subject to the same downfalls as my opponent's, but my argument's address all five of the problems, including the problems of biological prbability considerations. My argument is fundamentally different than my opponent's because it considers the conditions on early Earth and how molecules coalesce. Again, chemical and biological processes are inevitably "loaded": "Given certain conditions, some results are more likely than others. Did the people offering/making the calculations take this into account? There is no evidence of that; if by some miracle they did, do they have good evidence to know what, exactly, the more probable results might have been and why? "[6]In conclusion, mathematical probabilities cannot even begin to explain how life could develop in the conditions of early Earth. In the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying, not coin flipping. Sources[1]: . http://www.talkorigins.org...[2]: . http://www.talkorigins.org...[3]: Saghatelian, A. , Y. Yokobayashi, K. Soltani and M. R. Ghadiri. 2001. A chiroselective peptide replicator. Nature 409: 797-801[4]: . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[5]: Yockey HP, On the information content of cytochrome c. J Theor Biol, 67: 345-76, 1977[6]: . http://atheism.about.com...