Abiogenesis Is Improbable

The Meaning of the ResolutionCon asserts that dismissing theoretical mechanisms is not a reasonable interpretation of the resolution. Yet on what logical grounds does Con make this claim? Any probability created using theoretical data becomes nothing other then a theoretical probability. Take, for example, the probability of rolling a six in dice. You can only establish the probability of rolling a six if you know that rolling a six is even possible. You can not calculate the probability of cheetahs existing on the moon because there is no evidence nor known mechanisms by which cheetahs could come into existence on the moon.Con's example and second paragraph are irrelevant because this debate is not about whether abiogenesis is impossible or not. This debate is about whether abiogenesis is improbable or not based on what science has already discovered.Theories do not constitute discoveries. When a scientist creates a theory, he does not say "I have discovered my theory!". Rather, if he finds evidence that either supports his theory or proves his theory to be correct, then he can say "I have discovered that my theory is accurate".Estimate from time to originate life on earthThere is no need to devote much time to this section. Con himself agrees that even if abiogenesis did take place, that would not mean it would be probable. In paragraph one Con basically states that because God does not exist within the laws of nature, intelligent design is can not be used as an argument in this debate. This is true. This is why I'm not basing my argument that abiogenesis is improbable on the existence of other hypotheses regarding origins.In paragraph two Con forgets the "spontaneous" part of the definition of abiogenesis.Paragraph three is irrelevant since we are not debating about the possibility of abiogenesis.In paragraph four Con attempts to prove the probability of abiogenesis based on the existence of life. I have already shown how the existence of life is not necessarily proof that abiogenesis is probable. It's like saying "UFO's exist, thus it is probable that they are piloted by aliens."Problems With Abiogenesis1. Con should reread his [7] source. It clearly shows that free oxygen has been present on the earth for nearly 3.8 billion years. Con also has failed to define "toxic". Toxic for life today, or life then? Oxygen destroys amino acids. Thus the existence of oxygen shows that earth's early atmosphere would be toxic for abiogenesis.2. Con's source made no mention of the levels of CO2, and clearly showed how oxygen has been present for 3.8 billion years. Furthermore, Con has provided no source nor evidence that suggest methane and ammonia were present in primordial earth.3. Con's sources show de-racemization of amino acids, not methods that bypass the need for high concentrations of amino acids. However, the first proposed method only de-racemizes glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and O-phospho-L-serine. The second method relies on high concentrations of amino acids in undersea hydrothermal vents. The problem is: where would the high concentrations come from? The only proposed method of obtaining amino acids is through spark reactions. Spark reactions would have to take place in the atmosphere. Yet the atmosphere would not have been reducing, and even if it was, would only have produced small amounts of amino acids. Thus since we can not assume there to be high concentrations, we can not rely on the second method. The first method only de-racemizes three amino acids. There are 20 amino acids required for life.4. Sugars, as shown by my source, deteriorate amino acids. This is does not show that abiogenesis is improbable automatically, it just shows that abiogenesis can not take place in an environment riddled with these sugars. It furthers my case, but does not seal it.5. Cytosine is a necessary component of RNA and DNA. Even if TNA could be a substitute, or pre-requisite to RNA and DNA, (even though TNA is not known to occur naturally and is not found in any living organisms) [http://en.wikipedia.org...] there would have to be some point in which cytosine was subsituted with the theorose. Furthermore, there is experimental evidence that TNA and GNA could not have been pre-requisites to DNA [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]. Thus TNA and GNA are nothing other then failed hypotheses.6. Ahh, I've found it. Con put it in before adressing my 9 points, throwing me off. Point 5 refutes this.7. I do not need to disprove a negative. Con's claim is equivalent to saying "You have not proven that cheetahs do not exist on the moon thus it is probable that cheetahs exist on the moon".8. In that case, while I do not fully comprehend the mechanics proposed in Con's source, it is clear it relies on the existence of a proto-ribosome and tRNA. Yet Con, nor Con's source has provided a mechanism that polymerizes proto-ribosomes nor tRNA (keep in mind that there is a difference between TNA and tRNA), thus rendering Con's source invalid. Con has unknowingly trapped himself into a "chicken-or-egg" scenario.9) I cited an article written by Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D. His article also happened to be on a religious site. If we throw out the writings of all scientists simply because of their ideologies, then we must ignore the work of scientists all together. Since nearly all scientists have some sort of ideology. Anyway, seeing as how Con gave no criticism of my source's claim, and failed to comment on how amino acids become trapped in clays, rendering them inable to undergo further chemical reaction, we can consider his point void.Debate issuesThanks to Con for accepting this debate. He is clearly a challenging opponent.Going into this debate, I was actually unaware that sources could not be put in the comments. Furthermore, I can find no rule on DDO that claims you can not put your sources in the comments. Pro claimed that doing so was a conduct violation. While I am inclined to believe him, as he is a veteran debater, he did not reference me to any pre-explained rule regarding sources. If it is an unspoken rule, then it should have been conveyed to all me, seeing as how I am a new-comer to this site. I did not fail to respond because my later arguments had the sources in the comments. I had no more room in round two to put in all my sources from round one due to the already established nature of the debate. Putting in sources would require me leaving many of Con's objections unanswered.If the audience really feels that I should be penalized for breaking a rule I did not know existed, then so be it. Though the rules regarding sources really should be explained to new-comers so they do not make the same mistake.Furthermore, if I lose solely because I failed to put sources in round one, then I think it is only fair for Con to accept a rematch. Especially seeing as how he is a veteran debater on this site, and he failed to mention these unspoken rules to me prior to the debate.I'm not sure if this counts either, but I've seen it done in other debates, so I assume it is not against the rules. Here are round one's sources:http://www.debate.org...SummaryCon has failed to show known mechanisms exist that prove abiogenesis is probable. In 1) he provides a source that argues against his case. In 2) he makes a groundless assertion. In 3) he provides a mechanism that would only work for 15% of all amino acids, and another mechanism that relies on high concentrations of amino acids, clearly unlikely. In 5) he fails to prove that cytosine can be synthesized, or even bypassed. In 8) Con's method relies on proto-ribosomes and tRNA, specifically things that would not have existed (tRNA requires cytosine). In 9) Con fails to address the problems I outlined. Thus we can see that no probability can be established. All Con has shown is that the abiogenesis hypotheses exist.Con has not shown that abiogenesis is probable.