Abiogenesis is the most likely explanation for life.

Slight miscommunication with Con but I am ok with him using the linked argument just for the last round. -Con has not contested that the only other option is a supernatural creator of life, one that he has not offered any evidence for leaving abiogenesis as the only explanation for life with evidence on the table. He has not refuted any step in the RNA world model, many of which have been demonstrated to occur in certain environments.RNA World summary The three main building blocks of modern cells are DNA, RNA and proteins. [7]. Since RNA can potentially perform all tasks within a cell it is where most of the research is currently directed to find the mechanism to form the first self-replicating molecule to form [6]. Scientists are looking to reverse engineer steps to form the first self-replicator and do not assume it formed randomly. They have shown that RNA nucleotides and double helix strands can form efficiently in certain environments, again not random. They have shown that self-replicating RNA molecules can initiate a natural selection process selecting for efficiency, which is specific, not random. Successive generations have potential to catalyze the production of proteins or and ribosomes that could form a cell metabolism, strengthen cell walls or catalyze DNA, RNA and protein production. The first cells were likely short RNA strands enclosed in fatty membranes and we are aware of natural mechanisms that would allow these early cells to grow and divide initiating natural selection [4]. The RNA world model is in no way random making Con’s entire argument irrelevant. Scientists are looking for natural processes that would drive the formation of each step in the process by natural attractive forces in certain environments [6]. “Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry [10].” Cons entire argument hinges on proteins forming first, randomly. It is unlikely that proteins formed first and the processes were not random. “Put one right-handed amino acid in the chain and the protein will not function.” Proteins only formed first in the metabolism first model which is not favored by scientists [4]. Even in the metabolism first model scientists are looking for controlled not random possibilities. For instance the reverse krebs cycle provides a mechanism for how useful biomolecules could form from CO2. Also, there are several mechanisms to increase the number of left-handed amino acids in an environment. When formed by RNA, as in the RNA world model, left-handed amino acids are selected for anyway. “Both peptide bonds and non-peptide bonds occur in nature in equal amounts” Peptide bond is the name for the natural covalent bond that amino acids form when the carboxyl group on one amino acid reacts with the amino group on another [12]. They do not form non-peptide bonds. “Now, let's calculate the number of functional combinations:” “we will use the ratio of the functional proteins (1.08E-19)” This number is completely bogus because it assumes random processes in selecting left-handed chirality and peptide bonds. “Next step is to figure out the total number of amino acids available in the universe:” Proteins form and break down over and over again this is completely irrelevant. I’m sure you’re aware that bodies decay or can be burned. Hydrolysis will also break peptide bonds in proteins [12]. There is no fixed number of proteins! “==> Earth's share (actually the solar system's share) of protein = (3.38E+45)/(4E+22) = 10^23 molecules. With Con’s errors and false assumptions a he has still arrived at 10^23 self-replicating proteins each of which could initiate natural selection. Failed strains would degrade leaving amino acids for more functional models. Mutations could lead to RNA, DNA or protein catalysts and this begins the process of natural selection. Self replicating polymers have been shown to reproduce in hours [6] but lets say even the best self-replicators take a day to reproduce. We know that complex cells formed after about 2 billion years leaving self-replicating cells around 10E23 * 2 E9 = 2*10^32 generations for complex cells to form. “Now for the second part: In order to create the simplest living cell, we will need 600 different proteins of different lengths” No, you misunderstand. The first cells would be very simple and would have been consumed by the monstrous dinosaur bacteria we have today long ago. [6]. - It is plausible, even under Cons completely unwarranted assumptions, that the first replicator could form randomly leading to natural selection. The predicted process is not random and we have no way of knowing at this point how many possible functional proteins there were and RNA likely formed first anyway. [10] http://www.evolutionfaq.com... [12] http://en.wikipedia.org... [13] http://en.wikipedia.org...