Abiogenesis Is Improbable

The Meaning of the Resolution Definitions Abiogenesis is "a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter." [1. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...]. There is no exact definition of "living." Suppose we try the definition, "an ordered structure than grows and replicates itself using energy from the environment." That sounds pretty good, but salt crystals meet that definition. Moving up in complexity, "viruses are entirely composed of a single strand of genetic information encased within a protein capsule." [2. http://serc.carleton.edu...] Vruses are a borderline case between living and non-living material. They replicate themselves and have genetic material, so they can evolve, but they can also be crystallized. [2] We need a new flu vaccine every year because they evolve quickly. Evolution is not confined to living things. Higher animals are definitely alive, so we don't need the precise definition of living so long as there is an evolutionary path from non-living to living matter. My point is that abiogenesis occurs when the simplest of life foms emerges. We need a definition of "improbable." The probability of dealing any particular hand of bridge is so low that a particular hand would occur only in a trillion lives of the universe. Yet, every time the cards are dealt, one of the wildly improbable events occurs. In this debate we are concerned with the probability of life originating spontaneously on any planet having environmental conditions suitable for life. Suitable conditions include enough gravity to hold an atmosphere and temperatures that sustain liquid water. If life occurred with one chance in a hundred million, would we say it is probable? Yes, given Pro's clarification that we are discussing "the probability of abiogenesis taking place anywhere, at any time past or present.". The bogus calculations of Creationists purport to show that it unlikely to have happened anywhere in the universe. [3. http://earthfusion.org... explains] The known universe has bout 100 million galaxies, with an average of about 100 million stars in each. Hence even a one in a hundred million occurrence who produce illions of instances. Calculation of the probable occurrence of life in the universe is summarized by the Drake Equation. [4. http://en.wikipedia.org...] This debate is about one term in the Drake Equation: fℓ = the fraction of potentially habitable planets that actually go on to develop life at some point If fℓ is greater than, say, one in a hundred million, then it is not improbable. For abiogensis to be improbable, it must not have occurred around any of the 10^16 stars in the universe. Burden of proof Pro has assumed the burden of proof in the debate, both as instigator and by affirming the resolution. Pro must show that enough is known about the origins of life to affirm that abiogenesis is improbable. If not enough is known to establish the probability, then the resolution fails. Estimate from the time to originate life on earth We know that abiogenesis occurred at least once, on earth. That it occurred once des not mean that it is probable, per the analogy with dealing a bridge hand. However, the length of time it took to occur is additional information that permits a probability calculation.. [4] cites "In 2002, Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis (at the University of New South Wales and the Australian Centre for Astrobiology) estimated fl as > 0.13 on planets that have existed for at least one billion years using a statistical argument based on the length of time life took to evolve on Earth." Abiogenesis not only occurred on earth, it occurred fairly soon, a few hundred million years after conditions permitted it. If the event were improbable, we would expect it to have occurred much later in the 4.5.billion year history of the earth. There are probable evolutionary paths to life To better understand the probability of abiogenesis, scientists are attempting to understand paths from non-living to ling material. The work is described in [6.] The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology by Pier Luigi Luisi], summarized “This book presents a systematic course discussing the successive stages of self-organization, emergence, self-replication, autopoiesis, synthetic compartments and construction of cellular models, in order to demonstrate the spontaneous increase in complexity from inanimate matter to the first cellular life forms. A chapter is dedicated to each of these steps, using a number of synthetic and biological examples.” A focus of current research is in the description of a minimal cell. Scientists do not know how simple a cell can be and still meet a reasonable definition of living.The simpler the first life form, the more likely the evolutionary route will occur. current science, as described by [6] is that the minimal cell is much simpler than supposed by creationist. Expert opinion says abiogenesis is inevitable. Forty of the top scientists studying abiogenesis have collaborated on a book, [7] Origins, Abiogenesis and the Search for Life in the Universe, Michael Russell, et al.. They conclude that abiogenesis is not merely likely, but inevitable, “Be it on Earth or some other world, life had to begin via processes known as abiogenesis Obviously, there must have been an evolutionary progression beginning with simple chemical compounds to proto-life, then to DNA-equipped life capable of replicating itself. As detailed in this text, those prebiological evolutionary steps may have taken place in submarine alkaline hydrothermal vents and required various chemical interactions and divisions involving amino acids, polyphosphate-peptide synergy, the creating of biosynthetic pathways and the emergence of sparse metabolic network, and the assembly of pre-genetic information by primordial cells, with some championing compartmentalizaton, others, vesicles, and all this leading to an RNA world in which viruses and retroviruses played an important part. The origin of life and evolution of prokaryotes was not a matter of chance, but deterministic, probable and necessary and that these bioenergetic principles are likely to apply throughout the universe …” http://www.amazon.com... Hoyle's Fallacy produces erronously low probabilities. The fallacy was described by Musgrave in [3]. The faulty calculation assumptions that lead to a low probability estimate are summarized in [5. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Hoyle and others err because: 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. They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life. They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials. They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation. They underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences. The root of the errors in the probability calculations is a failure to assume that life evolved in steps, with each step governed by physical laws. For example, calculate the probability of a snowflake forming. If one suppses that each of the illions of water molecules randomlyarrives at it's position in the six-pointed snowflake, then there is no chance of a single snowflake forming in the history of the unverse. In fact, snowflakes form as a consequence of rules that are part of the properties of water molecules. The probability is correctly calculated only from an understanding of the governing laws and the process.