Abiogenesis is the most likely explanation for life.

“First of all, when the word "Possible" appears in the title of a debate, one would expect to see some works in the mathematical field of Probability & Statistics.” The resolution says that the theory is the most likely option and I have encouraged Con to support another option but he has not, conceding that this is the only natural scientific explanation for life. The steps we are aware of are driven to occur in certain environments. The steps where we have no conclusive information scientists do not assume they are random. I used Con’s highly flawed calculation to show that there would be plenty of room for 2*10^32 generations of self replicating polymers to form the first cells on earth. Scientists estimate that there may be as many as 40 billion habitable planets in the Milky way Galaxy alone or 8*10^42 generations all selecting for efficiency and population growth [15]. It is no surprise then that life formed on one of these planets even if completely random which no one has suggested. “All what Pro presented was a story.” No, what I have presented is the most likely explanation for the formation of life as understood and supported by scientists in the field. Con is presenting a flawed probabilistic argument that no credible scientist agrees with. “And please don't rely on that source that mentions the generation of new lifeforms” I’m glad you brought this up because this is an important point. Scientists have been able to build synthetic DNA, which is the most complex and important part of a cell [16]. DNA controls the production of RNA and proteins, which make up the rest of the cell. They were then able to insert this synthetically created DNA in another cell creating a new organism. There is nothing special about life. It is just a collection of polymers that can be synthesized from ‘nonliving’ chemicals and replaced. The only glimpse of hope for Abiogenesis is the Miller-Urey experiment. Again no one is assuming proteins formed first. An important difference between RNA and proteins is that RNA is built with 4 possible nucleotides while proteins have 22 possible amino acids. This would dramatically alter Con’s calculations along with the various other issues I brought up last round that you have not refuted. Any metabolism/protein first model relies on specific environments for protein formation as the RNA world model. No one is assuming that life formed by random processes [4]. There is no fixed sequence for functional proteins or RNA. There are many regions in proteins where any amino acid could be changed without changing its function. Some functionally equivalent proteins can be formed with 30-50% of the amino acids different (this would also be true of the RNA that coded for this specific protein). There are proteins in yeast and worms that can be replaced by human proteins without causing a problem. “It claims there is a natural force that governs the molecular interactions and leads them to form RNA strands of Fatty acids.” Yes and I stand by this claim. RNA strands form naturally in specific environments from nucleotides. All that is needed to form a fatty acid membrane is an excess of fatty acids in an area. Scientists have worked with single RNA stands enclosed in fatty acid membranes and proved that the double stranded will form from a single strand in a solution with nucleotides and that the strands divide with heat leading to replication [13]. Fatty acid membranes can easily form around RNA strands. “In the source, it only speaks of spontaneous formation for both, and we both know what spontaneous means. It means by chance.” ‘Spontaneous’ in context means that they will form without any outside intervention such as catalysts. [6]. Experiments in this article have proven that RNA strands will form naturally from nucleotides especially in the presence of certain minerals and clay, which are widely available in nature. “You mentioned there are 2.5E112 efficient ligases of a 220 nuleotide RNA. But you didn't mention the total number of combinations.” My point is that you are assuming specific molecules where many variations will do. Your statistics just are not relevant. The mind bogling number of possible configurations of these chemicals should point out that there is no way to know how many combinations could be useful in the formation of some kind of life. Even if pro presented an accurate probability it would not be meaningful because it would still assume our specific form of life is the goal. - Con has focused on a probability argument that depends on many flawed assumptions, which he has not refuted. He has not presented any alternate theory for life and I have presented sufficient evidence to conclude that this is the most likely explanation for life. [14] http://www.sciencedaily.com... [15] http://en.wikipedia.org... [16] http://www.bbc.co.uk...