Abiogenesis Is Possible

My opponent continues to rely on erroneous probability calculations and incorrect assumptions on how life first began on Earth. For example, first off, my opponent claims that I was simply explaining the abiogenesis theory in round 2. What I actually did was give an account of how life formed from a collection of simple organic molecules - I provided empirical evidence to support each of my claims. If he had read my argument more carefully, he wouldn't have made the claim that amino acids directly coalesced into proteins. However, as I explained in my argument, RNA came right after the agglomeration of amino acids from organic compounds, and proteins came after RNA: "Within a day, the mixture had turned pink in colour, and at the end of two weeks of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. "[5][6] "Instead, it is assumed that RNA acted as a precursor of both protein and DNA, in the sense that it can serve both as catalyst (like protein enzymes) and as carrier of genetic information. Even in the modern cell ribozymes (catalytic RNAs) still play a vital, albeit limited, role. In the ribosome, the synthesis of the peptide chains of proteins from RNA code is accomplished by ribozymes. They also catalyze splicing of RNA. " I mentioned in the last round a study that showed how RNA could form from amino acids and organic compounds that were already on Earth. [1]So how did proteins synthesize? Proteins can be assembled by RNA: "Catalysts drive reactions between molecules. They reduce the amount of energy required for the reaction to occur, and they make sure the reaction is specific and accurate. Protein catalysts are known as enzymes, and RNA can also behave as a catalyst. In fact, the ribosome relies on the catalytic functions of rRNA to assemble proteins. RNA catalysts are called ribozymes. Ribozymes can "cut and paste" links between nucleotides in a strand, a process known as splicing. Some mRNA molecules must splice themselves before they can be accurately "read" by the ribosome during protein synthesis. " Also, I find it ridiculous that my opponent expected proteins from the experiment in two weeks. It took millions of years for proteins to form from those chemicals. [2]In conclusion to this small chemical argument: "This origin of life based on small molecules is sometimes called "metabolism first" (to contrast it with the "genes first" RNA world). To answer critics who say that small-molecule chemistry is not organized enough to produce life, Shapiro introduces the concept of an energetically favorable "driver reaction" that would act as a constant engine to run the various cycles. " The possibility more complex chemicals like DNA and proteins could have easily come from simplier molecules like enzymes and RNA, which themselves came from simple molecules like methane. [3]My opponent then goes back to the probability arguments I already disproved in the last round. Using more realistic probability senarios, abiogenesis actually becomes a very viable theory: "However, an analysis by Ekland suggests that in the sequence space of 220 nucleotide long RNA sequences, a staggering 2.5 x 10112 sequences are efficent ligases. Not bad for a compound previously thought to be only structural. Going back to our primitive ocean of 1 x 1024 litres and assuming a nucleotide concentration of 1 x 10-7 M, then there are roughly 1 x 1049 potential nucleotide chains, so that a fair number of efficent RNA ligases (about 1 x 1034) could be produced in a year, let alone a million years. The potential number of RNA polymerases is high also; about 1 in every 1020 sequences is an RNA polymerase. Similar considerations apply for ribosomal acyl transferases (about 1 in every 1015 sequences), and ribozymal nucleotide synthesis. Similarly, of the 1 x 10130 possible 100 unit proteins, 3.8 x 1061 represent 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, RNA world systems, or RNA ribozyme-protein enzyme coevolution would seem to be entirely feasible, even with pessimistic figures for the original monomer concentrations, and synthesis times. " (Sorry if some of this is a repeat - my opponent repeats his erroneous probability arguments). [4][7][8]In conclusion to my arguments in this debate, simple compounds easily coalesced into enzymes, RNA, and finally, DNA and proteins. It is not very improbable because all of the necessary elements were already there. My opponent's sole argument relies on the supposed improbability of abiogenesis, but my opponent forgets the fact that biochemial reactions are oftentimes "loaded", and make my opponent's proability calculations irrelevant. Finally, because there are so many planets capable of supporting life (per the Drake equation), the supposed improbability works itself out on universal scales, even if it were that unlikely. Overall, abiogenesis is most certainly possible. Sources[1]: . http://www.talkorigins.org...;[2]: . http://learn.genetics.utah.edu...[3]: . http://www.livescience.com... [4]: . http://www.talkorigins.org...[5]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...[6]: Barton, Nicholas H. ; Briggs, Derek E. G. ; Eisen, Jonathan A. ; Goldstein, David B. ; Patel, Nipam H. (2007), Evolution, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, pp. 93–95. [7]: Ekland EH, and Bartel DP, Nature, 381: 442-4, 1996. [8]: Chyba C and Sagan C, Nature, 355: 125-32. , 1992. NOTE: Source 6 was quoted from source 5 and sources 7 and 8 were quoted from source 4.