The Instigator
MagicAintReal
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Cobalt
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abiogenesis Is A Sound Explanation For The Origin Of Life On Earth

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,038 times Debate No: 92061
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (40)
Votes (3)

 

MagicAintReal

Pro

*1st round is acceptance.
*Definitions are agreed to by accepting the debate.


Full Resolution
Abiogenesis is a sound explanation for the origin of life on Earth.

Pro
Has the BoP and 4 sets of 10,000 characters, with 3 days to post per argument, to AFFIRM that abiogenesis is a sound explanation for the origin of life on earth and refute Con.

Con
Has also 4 sets of 10,000 characters, with 3 days to post per argument, to NEGATE that abiogenesis is a sound explanation for the origin of life on earth and refute Pro.


Definitions

abiogenesis - the concept that organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms, on earth, first originated from inorganic substances.
https://www.merriam-webster.com...

sound - based on reason, sense, or judgment.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

explanation - a statement or account that makes something clear.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

origin - the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

life - the condition that distinguishes animals, plants, fungi, protista, archaea, and bacteria, from inorganic matter, including the capacity for metabolism and reproduction.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

Earth - the planet on which we live that is third in order from the sun.
https://www.merriam-webster.com...

the sun
- the star round which the earth orbits.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Cobalt

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks for accepting Con.
Also, thanks for agreeing to all of the definitions.
This topic has always intrigued me, so I look forward to our discussion.

*Outline of Abiogenesis*

1. With an atmosphere, water salinity, inorganic compounds, electricity, and UV rays likely of a prebiotic earth, inorganic compounds can naturally become organic compounds in the form of amino acids.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

2. Amino acids make up proteins, in chains called polypeptides, and the sequence of the amino acid chain causes the polypeptide to fold into a shape that is biologically active.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

3. Biologically active amino acid sequences can in fact metabolize compounds.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

4. Amino acids are catalysts, because they tend to increase the rate of chemical reactions, and in a prebotic network full of amino acids, RNA can emerge due to its auto-catalytic property.
http://www.pnas.org...

5. RNA is also self-replicating, and because of this, was able to thrive in a prebiotic amino acid network.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

6. With biologically active amino acid chains and self-replicating RNA, membranes can form, which all combined forms a protocell.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

7. Protocells can metabolize with amino acids and replicate with RNA, and this is the origin of genetic polymers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

8. A protocell with a membrane and genetic polymers that can metabolize and self replicate is a full blown living cell, and these single cells are life; they're simple life, but they're life.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

9. These simple life forms would need to eventually consume more, and the network of amino acids and other compounds in the region were in fact edible.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

10. Given all of this evidence, abiogenesis is a sound explanation for the origin of life on Earth.

Inorganic compounds of a prebiotic Earth can be come organic amino acid compounds, which themselves can become biologically active and can catalyze reactions that favor an emergence of auto-catalytic RNA, which can self-replicate and thus allow for a an encapsulated cell with a membrane and genetic polymers that replicates and metabolizes available compounds in the prebiotic network.


*Explanation of Abiogenesis*

1. Inorganic-->Organic Amino Acids

Compounds covalently (sharing electrons) bonded to carbon are organic.
Compounds not covalently bonded to carbon are inorganic.

Inorganic = H N C O (cyanate)
Organic = C 2 H 5 N O 2 (glycine, an amino acid)

You can tell that the difference between inorganic and organic carbon compounds is rather insignificant.
One more carbon atom, four more hydrogen atoms, and one more oxygen atom...that's it.

The Miller-Urey experiment in the 50's demonstrated that with an atmosphere, water salinity, electricity, and inorganic compounds likely of an earlier earth, inorganic compounds will produce organic amino acid compounds.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The link above has a very informative video of how the experiment is done and how you could plausibly do it too.

That's what abiogenesis is...the idea that inorganic compounds can become organic compounds which lead to subsequent life forms.


2. Replication of Inorganic-->Organic Amino Acids

Though people agreed that lightning occurs without life and in atmospheres on other planets, people still complained that the atmosphere of earlier earth had more oxygen than the Miller-Urey experiment accounted for.
The replicated experiments of the Miller-Urey took that into account, and used:

1. H2, CH4, NH3, H2O, H2S and electricity, and yielded the amino acids cysteine, cystine, and methionine.
2. CH4, C2H6, NH3, H2S and UV rays, and yielded alanine, glycine, serine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and cystine.
3. CH4, H2O, H2S, NH3, N2, and electricity, and yielded methionine.

"When reduced gases, including CH4, H2S and NH3, are emitted from a volcano into a lightning-rich atmosphere, hydrogen cyanide, ethylene, and acetylene can be generated."
http://www.pnas.org...

So we know that amino acids, organic compounds, can come from inorganic compounds.
But what about genetic replication?


3. Amino Acids-->Biologically Active Network

Amino acid chains (polypeptides) can fold onto themselves and become biologically active.
"The sequence of nucleotides in DNA has now been converted to the sequence of amino acids in a polypeptide chain."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Yes, amino acids fold onto themselves and become biologically active and functional.

So we have biologically active amino acids...how do they replicate?
Well amino acids tend to speed up reactions; they're catalysts.
So before there was life, there were pre-biotic catalysts, amino acids.

"catalysis in a pre-biotic network initiated...the emergence of RNA as the dominant macromolecule due to its ability to both catalyze chemical reactions and to be copied in a template-directed manner."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So, from inorganic compounds of earlier earth, we got organic amino acids, which, when folded, become biologically active, and can catalyze reactions that lead to the emergence of RNA, which is necessary for genetic replication.


4. RNA network-->Cells

In this pre-biotic network, any encapsulation of the amino acids and RNA would act as a membrane, thus would suffice as a protocell, but because this encapsulation concentrated replication, it allowed for genetic polymers, which makes it a full blown living cell.

"We have proposed that a simple primitive cell, or protocell, would consist of two key components: a protocell membrane that defines a spatially localized compartment, and an informational polymer that allows for the replication and inheritance of functional information...protocells could take up nutrients from their environment...[allowing for] chemical genome replication and compatibility with membrane encapsulation."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

5. Primitive Cellular Life Must Consume

Any primitive organism would be replicating with RNA and metabolizing with amino acids, but what might they be consuming?

"Sixty years after the seminal Miller-Urey experiment that abiotically produced a mixture of racemized amino acids, we provide a definite proof that this primordial soup, when properly cooked, was edible for primitive organisms."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


*Affirm*

So, I affirm that abiogenesis is a sound explanation for the origin of life on Earth, because there's so much converging evidence that indicates such.
On to you Con...
Cobalt

Con

Cobalt forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Cobalt

Con

Cobalt forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MagicAintReal

Pro

I shall extend again.
Cobalt

Con

Cobalt forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
MagicAintReal

Pro

Abiogensis is such a sound explanation for the origin of life on earth, that there's nothing else to say.
Extend.
Cobalt

Con

Cobalt forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 months ago
MagicAintReal
@bigdebate
Did you read the replicated studies with different atmospheres?
Also, debate me on this with opt-in voting.
Posted by bigdebate 2 months ago
bigdebate
This is kind of depressing. The biggest flaw with Pro's argument was assuming that the amino acids were created without any sort of intervention from a creator. If you place a bunch of inorganic matter into a room (let's say the room has the same atmosphere at the early earth) it will not magically fit together to become amino acids. However, the smoking gun for anyone who was con is that:
1. scientists are actually torn over what made up the universe at that time period
2. the type of atmosphere that Pro suggests would not have been capable of making amino acids anyway. The famed experiment that supposedly "proves" Pro's point was actually very dissimilar to how the earth appeared. If you look up the experiment, you will see that in order for the inorganic compounds to become protein, they had to go through multiple different compartments that were relayed in a mechanical machine. This type of setup is totally antithetical to how things appear in nature.

Secondly, Pro is forgetting that amino acids need to bond in specific ways. You can't just slap a bunch of amino acids on top of each other and magically synthesize a living organism. It takes a very specific process to do so, a process that does not occur in nature without some sort of creative guide or DNA coding.

This brings us to the final point that abiogenesis is just not a possible origin for life on earth. The impossibility of inorganic compounds becoming organic compounds is simply impossible and there is a reason the law of biogenesis is considered a biological law. It is constantly replicated by nature itself and DNA coding expressly makes it impossible for new lines of code in DNA to be added anyway. The whole process of evolution is really scientifically impossible as it cannot explain the additions to DNA needed to code a human instead of a flower.
Posted by bigdebate 2 months ago
bigdebate
This is kind of depressing. The biggest flaw with Pro's argument was assuming that the amino acids were created without any sort of intervention from a creator. If you place a bunch of inorganic matter into a room (let's say the room has the same atmosphere at the early earth) it will not magically fit together to become amino acids. However, the smoking gun for anyone who was con is that:
1. scientists are actually torn over what made up the universe at that time period
2. the type of atmosphere that Pro suggests would not have been capable of making amino acids anyway. The famed experiment that supposedly "proves" Pro's point was actually very dissimilar to how the earth appeared. If you look up the experiment, you will see that in order for the inorganic compounds to become protein, they had to go through multiple different compartments that were relayed in a mechanical machine. This type of setup is totally antithetical to how things appear in nature.

Secondly, Pro is forgetting that amino acids need to bond in specific ways. You can't just slap a bunch of amino acids on top of each other and magically synthesize a living organism. It takes a very specific process to do so, a process that does not occur in nature without some sort of creative guide or DNA coding.

This brings us to the final point that abiogenesis is just not a possible origin for life on earth. The impossibility of inorganic compounds becoming organic compounds is simply impossible and there is a reason the law of biogenesis is considered a biological law. It is constantly replicated by nature itself and DNA coding expressly makes it impossible for new lines of code in DNA to be added anyway. The whole process of evolution is really scientifically impossible as it cannot explain the additions to DNA needed to code a human instead of a flower.
Posted by MagicAintReal 6 months ago
MagicAintReal
So Cobalt, you know that means you can post this round, right?
Just keep the debate going.
Posted by MagicAintReal 6 months ago
MagicAintReal
We beat the glitch!
Posted by MagicAintReal 6 months ago
MagicAintReal
You gonna make this post Cobalt?
Posted by Biodome 1 year ago
Biodome
Give me a shout if you want to debate the soundness of the Drake equation then :D Any other topics work too, as long it's adequately controversial and as long I am not up against a truism :D
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
@Wylted
No, that's what we call pseudoscience, and ET life has *never* been demonstrated to have visited earth...not once.
Posted by Fkkize 1 year ago
Fkkize
I guess Putnam, Searle and Strawson are no philosophers then.
Posted by AceAttorney01 1 year ago
AceAttorney01
Atheists claim that the idea of a god is absurd, but they believe we coincidentally appeared from a popcorn kernel in the sky.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 5 months ago
dsjpk5
MagicAintRealCobaltTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by Wylted 5 months ago
Wylted
MagicAintRealCobaltTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit and how was the glitch beaten?
Vote Placed by philochristos 5 months ago
philochristos
MagicAintRealCobaltTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Cobalt has forfeited.