Abiogenesis is a reasonable theory for the beginnings of life

My opponent has already conceded, right off the bat, that his position is “something we cannot yet know for certain as we have not discovered time travel nor have we reproduced this process”. We both seem to agree that viruses do not qualify as life. Interestingly, Pro admits that “a single nucleic acid associating with a protein, however, is not a threshold for the beginnings of life, at least in terms of this debate.” This contradicts the thesis of his main arguments, which is that the first living organisms were pure RNA and not associated with a protein. My opponent tries to say that a strand of RNA, a single nucleic acid without a protein, qualifies as life immediately after saying that this is not a threshold for life! I'm interested to hear my opponent's thoughts on this, and I'm sure he will argue that I've straw-manned him in some way. Anyways, let's move on. “In the case of viroids and satellite RNAs, which don't even have the protein coat found in viruses, RNA is their sole component, and the proteins necessary for their replication are recruited from other sources. This proves that RNA is capable of storing consistent information.” These viruses cannot be used as an example of the beginnings of life, since they require organisms that are millions of times more advanced than themselves to replicate. “2. The formation of RNA is simple and reproducible” “Nucleotides have been shown to self-assemble in water without any energy input.” This is misleading. Yes, RNA has been observed assembling under specific laboratory conditions, and this a reproducible experiment. However, the RNA that results cannot reproduce. These nucleotides are just meaningless chains of amino acids, formed in a lab “in the absence of enzymes or inorganic catalysts.”3 Pro's experiment depended on a tub of carefully chosen molecules – only those favorable to the assembly of RNA. Outside of the lab, in a true prehistoric setting, millions of other chemicals would be present to interrupt this delicate process.1 My opponent's idea of a universe where not only RNA molecules spontaneously emerge, but self-replicating ones, has been mocked as a “Molecular Biologist's Dream” by molecular pioneer Leslie Orgel. Orgel is famous for spearheading the study of the origins of life.2 Walter Gilbert, another pioneer in molecular biology and winner of the Nobel Prize for Chemistry, put it this way: "One can contemplate an RNA World, containing only RNA molecules that serve to catalyze the synthesis of themselves."4 In brief, the specific setting required for the spontaneous emergence of self-propagating RNA is confined to the realms of fantasy. My opponent's fantasy Pro closed by remarking that: “As my opponent is likely to argue about the likelihood of protein formation, he will also have to provide reasons why RNA is not sufficient for life, though I will still address all arguments along these lines.” I guess I took Pro off-guard. I didn't need to touch on the subject of protein formation, for I explained why it's impossible for spontaneously-assembled RNA to manufacture anything. It's not that RNA in general is insufficient for life; it's the fact that the artificially produced RNA flaunted by my opponent is not compatible with life. 1http://www.arn.org... 2http://www.nature.com... 3http://www.jbc.org... 4Walter Gilbert, "The RNA World," Nature 319 (1986): 618.