The Instigator
Sswdwm
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
creationtruth
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abiogenesis

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
Sswdwm
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,801 times Debate No: 52908
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)

 

Sswdwm

Pro

This debate is impossible to accept.

Message in comments if you are interested in participating.

I am Pro Abiogenesis. I am looking for an opponent somewhat knowledgeable in science and would rather not have a pure philosophical/theological discussion, even if there are such motivations.

8,000 characters.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening arguments, Con may rebut me
Round 3: Rebuttals/Arguments
Round 4: Rebuttals/Conclusions - No new arguments/brand new rebuttals

That is all, good luck!!
creationtruth

Con

Thanks for the challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
Sswdwm

Pro

Initial Words:

I am sorry for this short reply.

I kind fo forgot about this debate and haven't had much time to put thought into it, and am quite busy now.

Preface:

Abiogenesis is the study of how one can get from raw chemistry to life, which is a prediction made by a naturalistic origin of life (OOL) and must have occurec at least ~3,700 MYa, from our oldest stromatolites [1]. To clear up a misconception very quickly, abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation, a long discarded hypothesis for the OOL. Furthermore abiogenesis does not depict the formation of the universal common ancestor for life [2], although they are chronologically close in the concentional timeline for life.

RNA World Hypothesis:

The hypothesis I will be defending in this debate is the RNA World Hypothesis, there are other independantn hypothesis currently being investigated each with their own advantages, such as metabolism-first, lipid world and even more extravagent ones such as extraterrestial material etc. The RNA world hypothesis depicts a habitat with everyhting mediated by purely RNA based structures, and precedes the current protein/DNA driven biological systems we have today.

There are reasons from our current biology today to assume off hand this is a plausible explanation. One is the make-up of the ribosome. Ribosomes are found in every single living thing today and are a critical component of these cells involved in tranlation of mRNA to form peptide chains. There are aproximately 60% rRNA by weight and functions very much like a ribozyme, furthermore other critical structures (which form parts the foundational systems of all current living cells) such as Acetyl-CoA, ATP, FAD & NAH+ are indeed largely RNA based [3].

If evolution was thought of as a house that's being built, the most important features, such as the foundations, the frame and supporting columns would be the ones both build first and the most difficult to change once the house has been built on top of it. This is very much the same case in the RNA World Hypothesis.

Abiotic formation of RNA:

Note that the conditions of the early Earth predicted and found by conventional science are very different to what we observe today. First and foremost there was no oxygen in the environment, the Earth formed from the same material the sun was formed from, and therefore contained an enormous amount of hydrogen, which set the Earth in a largely reduced state [4]. Therefore the same problems that would occur today with regards to oxygen-driven drgradation of RNA molecules would not have been originally possible.

Moreover, simple pyrimadine nucleotides have been synthesized under conditions thought to occur during the Early earth [5][6], these include the use of cyanamide, cyanoacetylene, glycolaldehyde, glyceraldehyde and inorganic phosphate, all very plausible simple early earth feedstock molecules (many are released geothermally). What is most striking is that careful controls are not needed to allow the reactions to procede, as the pH is controlled by the inorganic phosphate present (which isn't incorperated until late in the synthesis) and furthermore the synthesis bypasses the formation of the free ribose and nucleic base synthesis to form the nucleotides, which signfiicantly reduces the amount of 'luck' required to make these nucleotides.


Formation of polynucleotides:
Given that we have a synthesis of nucleotide monomers, oligomers and polymers are formed by the coupling of multiple monomers into a linear chain. These don't occur readily at room temperature, but is know that inorganic clay, which were likely present on the early Earth, are perfectly capable of the catalysis of the formation of these chains [7]. These chains will be largely random in the order the amino acids are in. What is interesting is that very long polymers and 'tarred' impurities, which is basically the 'gunk' you get if you heat a mixture of chemicals too hot and too long, these impurities naturally remain as a solid phase, and do not significantly pariticipate what occurs within the solution phase.

Moreover these RNA strands can duplicate using nothing but heat, which was in abundance at the time due to the geology of the Earth at the time. This process is frequently in use today in the polymerase chain reaction, where many billions of copies of genses are produced rapidly via a cycled heating/cooling process.

What's more is that these RNA strands can fold on itself to form three dimensional structures, similar to the structures we see in proteins. What the RNA worl hypothesis needs is just one of these randomly produced structures to show some ability to assist the replication of RNA (the role that was initially taken by the clays).

Compartmentalisation:

Will expand on this in next round, as I'm running out of time. These involve abiotic lipid membranes that naturally form and comparmentalize these replication systems. Allowing for a simple system of purification and drive for replication.

Autocatalysis:
Once we have a strand of RNA that assists the replication of other RNA molecules, the system becomes autocatalytic, and hence evolution takes over, and the role of abiogenesis is done. The first primitive RNA based life is formed.



References:
[1] http://www.paleosoc.org...;
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(biochemistry)
[4]
[5] http://www.nature.com...
[6] http://www.wired.com...
[7] http://www.sciencedirect.com...;
creationtruth

Con

I do not accept the claims of long geologic ages and the age of the Earth being 4.5G years old, nor do I accept the claims that micro-evolution extends to macro-evolution given enough time, but since this debate is about abiogenesis, I will not argue these points. I understand that spontaneous generation is different and I understand that abiogenesis does not involve the formation of a universal common biological ancestor.

Ideas of abiogenesis began with the protein world hypothesis. The famous Miller-Urrey experiment is an example of the thinking of the day. Because they produced a few amino acids, the experiment was hailed as support for the hypothesis. As scientists learned more about biochemistry and genetics, they soon realized life could not have arose from simple proteins alone. They then hypothesized a DNA world, but this soon fell through as DNA was found to be a very delicate molecule which cannot self-replicate without proteins, and proteins cannot be made without RNA. So now many adherents to naturalism hypothesize a RNA world.

I don't contend that if we were to begin with belief in purely natural causes as our axiom that RNA is a good candidate for abiogenesis. What I would argue is that, axioms aside, abiogenesis is an unproven hypothesis. The RNA hypothesis is a feeble one at best and has many inherent problems.

You say, "Note that the conditions of the early Earth predicted and found by conventional science are very different to what we observe today." What conventional science are you referring to?

You also say, ". . .the Earth formed from the same material the sun was formed from. . ." Are we to assume the veracity of the "Big Bang" standard model?

Allow me to point out a few problems with your RNA world hypothesis:

1.) I would argue that your "conventional science" does not prove early Earth atmospheric conditions. But even assuming the "Big Bang," a 4.5Gy old Earth, and the absence of O2 in the early Earth atmosphere, you would not get the formation of the first RNA based life. As you know, the presence of O2 would entail a sure degradation of any RNA strand. But when attempting to solve this problem by removing O2, a new problem arises. If there is no O2, then there is no O3, and if there is no O3, then by consequence, there is no ozone layer to guard the RNA from solar radiation, and despite the common claim that entropy does not pertain to abiogenesis, without a mechanism to utilize the energy coming from the sun, the RNA molecule would be broken down and you would consequently not get the first RNA based life.

2.) Even if you were to produce a strand of RNA, there is no evidence of a self-replicating RNA strand as you seem to acknowledge when you say, "What the RNA worl hypothesis needs is just one of these randomly produced structures to show some ability to assist the replication of RNA. . ." This is detrimental to the tenability of the hypothesis. Besides this, self-replicating RNA would be very bad, as the worst viruses are RNA viruses. Such a pathogen would be unstoppable as it would not be recognized by any protein and would be able to be passed on to any organism, be it plant or animal. This RNA replicator would also be very persistent, and yet we find no evidence of it today.

You may be interested in reading about more detailed problems, which I am not prepared to defend but are given for your prospective interest:
(http://www.arn.org...) and (http://creation.com...).
Debate Round No. 2
Sswdwm

Pro

Early Earth & abiotic ‘axiom’:

There are plenty of reasons to assume that abiotic generation of life is a reasonable assumption to make. First of all, is the clear trend in the fossil record of organisms going from simple to complex in our earliest to latest layers respectively[1]. Moreover is the organism predicted by the universal common ancestor hypothesis from evolution .Which depicts a single celled organism with an encapsulated genome and metabolic pathway, from comparison of the genes that all life shares.

Moreover the planet is well suited for complex chemistry, with multiple environments where high concentrations of reactive molecules can enter in an liquid environment at temperatures suitable for synthesis, namely in geo-active areas on the Earth’s crust, which we know that from the accretion models, and from the known rate of radioactive decay of Uranium & Thorium within the Earth, that there was more internal heat within the Earth, which equates to a greater internal heat and hence greater geological activity

The conditions of the early Earth and the length of time the Earth had to generate life is of great important to the feasibility of abiogenesis. Our oldest measurements of the Earth’s age from radiometric dating of our oldest zircon crystals (via Uranium-Lead dating) yields ages of ~4.3 billion years[2],which is pretty much in line with the ages found from our oldest asteroids (4500 Mya) [3].Our best scientific explanation for this is the formation of the solar system is from an accretion event, well studied computationally and is backed up by direct observations within the milky way [4].

RNA Synthesis:

My arguments regarding the atmospheric composition at the time stand on the solar system accretion models, as well as analysis of the atmospheric composition of other planets within our own solar system. We find largely reduced environments on the coldest (and therefore best preserved) planets such as Pluto & Neptune, which have high concentrations of Hydrogen & Methane. Furthermore, given that Hydrogen is so abundant, any molecular oxygen present would have rapidly reacted with this hydrogen to produce water before the Earth had even finished accreting.

Pro drops the points regarding the direct abiotic synthesis of RNA, what was interesting from the Urey-Miller experiments and other alike are the production of some of these reactive precursors, such as hydrogen cyanide and formamide in situ, therefore we know with great confidence that the ingredients I have listed before for RNA synthesis were likely present on the early Earth and were accessable by a number of pathways.


It is true that the RNA world hypothesis is ‘unproven’, I never contended it was, but I do contend it is a very plausible hypothesis for the origin of life on Earth . Essentially every step towards autocatalysis, and therefore life has been performed experimentally [5]. There are multiple paths available within the RNA world hypothesis, and while it is is unlikely we will find the most likely one, just showing there are plausible pathways demonstrates abiogenesis is a likely hypothesis for the OOL.

Encapsulation & UV Radiation:

Pro is quite right in asserting there could be no O3 (Ozone) in a reducing atmosphere, which would increase the amount of UV Radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, however Pro gives no evidence that increased UV radiation would lead to much increased cleavage of RNA.

Moreover, ironically, it may well be the case that the increased UV levels would actually drive the formation of nucleotides (!) [6].

One other important factor is encapsulation, which I did not get to discussing the in the last round. For encapsulation you need lipid-like molecules around on the early Earth. These were likely much more abundant than the RNA around at the time, as there are so many sources of these. For example, molecules found in meteorites, were found to self-assemble into vesicles (lipid capsules), and hydrothermal synthesis of lipid-type molecules is possible using carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide & water at high temperature/pressures such as those found at deep hydrothermal vents or geysers catalysed by various transition metals [7-10]

The importance of encapsulation are several:

  1. 1. It solves any potential problem with UC radiation (as the vesicles absorb UV radiation)
  2. 2. It ‘traps’ inside long RNA chains (such as the ‘proto-genome’, or ribozymes)
  3. 3. It filters out large impurities and is permeable to small monomeric reactive molecules
  4. 4. It protects the RNA chain from degradation from other environmental factors

My opponent asserts there is no evidence of self-replicating ribozymes, but this is demonstrably false, as this is exactly what has been reported numerous times in the literature, one example was just 196 nucleotides in length. Of course we have not addressed the search-space of all possible configurations of RNA that would be active in self-replication, but only a minor rate of activity is required to drive reproduction to self-sustaining levels [11-13].

What is most striking is we have already demonstrated that RNA oligomers of >120 bases have already been synthesised abiotically in water in the absence of any catalysis using just concentrated solutions of cGMP and cAMP. There are a number of other reports for shorter length oligomers also being formed [14-15]

Conclusion:

I have pretty much well-stated my case for the plausibility of abiogenesis, and the conditions that allow for the complex and rich chemistry involved in the process. Back to Con!

References:

  1. 1. (http://news.illinois.edu...).
  2. 2. http://www.amnh.org...
  3. 3. http://elements.geoscienceworld.org...
  4. 4. http://www.dailygalaxy.com...
  5. 5. http://www.biologydirect.com...
  6. 6. http://arstechnica.com...
  7. 7. http://www.pnas.org...
  8. 8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
  9. 9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
  10. 10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
  11. 11. http://www.pnas.org...
  12. 12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
  13. 13. http://adsabs.harvard.edu...
  14. 14. http://pubs.rsc.org...
  15. 15. http://www.jbc.org...
creationtruth

Con

I previously said, "I do not accept the claims of long geologic ages and the age of the Earth being 4.5G years old, nor do I accept the claims that micro-evolution extends to macro-evolution given enough time, but since this debate is about abiogenesis, I will not argue these points." But since you bring up these things as part of your argument, I must address them.

You say, "First of all, is the clear trend in the fossil record of organisms going from simple to complex in our earliest to latest layers respectively." Fossils are only evidence for evolution within the framework of the geologic column and evolution models. Within the Flood/Creation model, these fossils are evidence for a global hydrologic catastrophe within a short period of time. In fact, the fossil record better supports the Flood model rather than the geologic column and evolution models (http://creation.com...).

You say, "Moreover is the organism predicted by the universal common ancestor hypothesis from evolution .Which depicts a single celled organism with an encapsulated genome and metabolic pathway, from comparison of the genes that all life shares." Homologous genes is as much evidence for a common Designer as it is a common ancestor; it depends on the model you choose. Therefore homologous genes are a poor evidence for both models.

You say, "Our oldest measurements of the Earth"s age from radiometric dating of our oldest zircon crystals (via Uranium-Lead dating) yields ages of ~4.3 billion years. . ." First of all, there are many dating methods which can be used to date the Earth. They are all tentative, but many are reasonably good for setting upper limits. You give one example, radiometric dating of zircons using U-Pb dating. I would question that date, but more importantly I would reject the assumptions (known starting ratio of isotopes, constant rate of decay, and known contamination). The problem with measuring isotope ratios (parent/daughter) is that, while these are precise measurements, the ages which are inferred based upon these measurements are not always reliable. Using different dating methods on a single sample may yield drastically different results. In fact, the example of U-Pb dating you give is an example of false "isochrons" (http://icr.org...). Also, Precambrian zircon crystals can actually be an evidence of an Earth ~6,000 years old based on helium diffusion data. Helium is a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements within zircon crystals. The measured rate of diffusion and amount of retention tells us that these crystals cannot be as old as they are purported to be. Since the Precambrian granite from which these zircons are found are the foundational rocks of Earth's crust, the Earth is therefore ~6,000 years old based on the findings (http://www.icr.org...)

You say, "which is pretty much in line with the ages found from our oldest asteroids (4500 Mya)." I think you meant 4.5 billion years old right? This again assumes the veracity of the standard model which I will address below.

You say, "Our best scientific explanation for this is the formation of the solar system is from an accretion event, well studied computationally and is backed up by direct observations within the milky way." Observations in the universe are model-dependent evidences for any model. This is ok, but the test of any model is that it makes predictions and is falsifiable. There are many failed predictions and evidences which falsify the standard model (Lambda-CDM). There are too many to cite and explain so for sake of time I will give one. Creationist physicist Dr. Russell Humphries made predictions about the magnetic fields of the planets in our solar system which, as we find out more about the planets in our solar system, are being vindicated. One in particular was his prediction of Mercury's magnetic field; the findings of NASA's Messenger spacecraft in 2008 fell right within the predictions of Dr. Humphries whereas other predictions made by secular astrophysicists fell short (http://creation.com...). Also you state that computational studies back up the standard model, but Dr. Humphries model fits the observable evidence much better so this cant be "our" best scientific explanation (http://creation.com...).

You say, "My arguments regarding the atmospheric composition at the time stand on the solar system accretion models, as well as analysis of the atmospheric composition of other planets within our own solar system." Well if your arguments stand on the standard model, then your arguments will fall. Nevertheless, lets continue.

You say, "Moreover, ironically, it may well be the case that the increased UV levels would actually drive the formation of nucleotides." Increased radiation from the sun would damage any formed RNA strands and would ultimately have oxidative effects (http://www.nature.com...). ". . .all reactions must have taken place well out of the ultraviolet sunlight; that is, not only away from its direct, highly destructive effects on nucleic acid-like molecules, but away too from the radicals produced by the sunlight, and from the various longer lived reactive species produced by these radicals" (Cairns-Smith, A.G., Genetic Takeover: And the Mineral Origins of Life, Cambridge University Press, 1982).

After reading some literature on encapsulation, I found the hypothesis to be very optimistic. There are just too many things which have to be "just right," such as the supposition of readily available and suitable lipids. Even if such molecules were produced, ions such as magnesium and calcium, which are themselves necessary for life and have two charges per atom, would combine with the fatty acids, and precipitate them, making them unavailable (http://origins.swau.edu...).

You say, "My opponent asserts there is no evidence of self-replicating ribozymes, but this is demonstrably false, as this is exactly what has been reported numerous times in the literature. . ." These experiments done in controlled settings do not account for the following problem:

"'Unless the molecule can literally copy itself,' Joyce and Orgel note, 'that is, act simultaneously as both template and catalyst, it must encounter another copy of itself that it can use as a template." Copying any given RNA in its vicinity will lead to an error catastrophe, as the population of RNAs will decay into a collection of random sequences. But to find another copy of itself, the self-replicating RNA would need (Joyce and Orgel calculate) a library of RNA that 'far exceeds the mass of the earth.'

In the face of these difficulties, they advise, one must reject

'. . .the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential. If you doubt this, ask yourself whether you believe that a replicase ribozyme would arise in a solution containing nucleoside 5'-diphosphates and polynucleotide phosphorylase!'" (http://www.arn.org...)

There is also much evidence that the early Earth conditions, assuming the veracity of the geologic column, were not anaerobic or "reducing." (http://geology.gsapubs.org...) (http://creation.com...)
Debate Round No. 3
Sswdwm

Pro

Thanks Con,

Age of the Earth:

I only briefly mentioned Uranium-Lead dating, but dozens of other techniques exist which converge on the same age.[1]

Uranium-lead dating has the distinct advantage in that both of Uranium’s extant isotopes (U235 & U238) decay at different rates and to two independent isotopes of lead (Pb206, Pb207 respectively) which allows for a very straightforward internal cross-check of the dates obtained. The assumptions work for any original starting concentration of Uranium, and the only thing that needs be controlled for is the original starting concentration of lead.[2] Zircon crystals have a distinct advantage in this aspect as lead is not incorporated in the crystal structure during the zircon crystallization process, whereas uranium freely substitutes with zirconium in the lattice.

Given that all the other methods also converge on essentially the same date found by U-Pb, it grants great confidence the results are genuine, and indeed numerous ad-hoc or special pleading layers are required to ‘explain away’ the results found, which quickly falls to Occum’s Razor with the simplest explanation being the Earth really is 4.5 billion years old.

The paper Pro cites for his anti-arguments and the helium diffusion data are not peer-reviewed, and are not replicated whatsoever in the literature. A search on WebOfScience [3] (a top library of scientific journals) for the terms “zircon helium diffusion” yielded 112 results, over half of these detailed the use of helium diffusion as a dating method and not one reproduces the findings that Pro asserts (they all cite tens/hundreds of millions of years). Therefore this research cannot be taken seriously unless independently ratified.

Order of Fossils:

I will not say too much on this other than it literally flies in the face of everything known in geology. Not a single extant mammal found in pre-cretacious layers, and not a single tree found below the cambrian layers (which would be expected if they had existed when the flood occurred), amongst a plethora of other issues. I don’t see this as a sustainable objection given the lack of evidence.

Solar System Accretion:

Pro drops my points for visual confirmation of the formation of solar systems from gaseous clouds. I also have a number of issues with Con’s arguments against the accretion disk model.

  1. 1. Pro doesn’t substantiate why the magnetic field argument makes the accretion model unlikely
  2. 2. The lambda-CDM model is irrelivent to the accretion model
  3. 3. None of the papers cited has been peer-reviewed, nor reproduced, and therefore are poor quality evidence

It is quite simple what the accretion model entails. It entails high abundance of H2 gas distributed throughout the accretion disk, which would react with any O2 to form H2O, which is a highly energetic reaction. The fact we never observe O­2 in any non-earth object in spectroscopy pretty much confirms this.

There are many methods to determine the oxygen composition of the early Earth athmosphere, such as ‘red beds’.[4] Fe(III) is the oxidation state of iron formed in the presence of O2, and is insoluble in water, whereas Fe(II) is the oxidation state of iron in a reducing atmosphere, and is much more soluble in water. As the atmospheric oxygen levels increased, the amount of red band laid down will increase, as the Fe(II) acts effectively as an ‘oxygen sink’, and vice versa. Banded red beds stopped forming after 2.1 billion years, which clearly indicates the atmosphere was now rich in oxygen and was oxygen poor in the past.


RNA Synthesis:

Pro drops my points regarding RNA synthesis and also clay-catalysed replication. Please note I provided just one of several potential pathways for synthesis of RNA. Ideal locations for the generation of these compounds include hydrothermal vents, heated ponds, or volcanic regions.

Encapsulation:

Encapsulation as I argued, solves multiple potential problems very quickly:

1. Absorbs UV radiation

2. It ‘traps’ within it large molecules

3. It filters out large impurities and is permeable to small monomeric reactive molecules

4. It protects the RNA chain from degradation from other environmental factors

Moreover, it’s not a particularly unlikely event to occur either, since the conditions to produce RNA are similar to the ones that naturally produce lipids (hydrothermal conditions). The lipid membranes need not be perfect or pure either, as it’s these imperfect membranes that allows small molecules to easily diffuse into the formed vesicles.

I have already shown a number of abiogenic pathways to lipid formation although there are others, moreover it is known that these lipids naturally form micelles and vesicles under the conditions I have described. [5]

Pro argues that they run into issues with divalent chelating metal ions such as Ca2+ & Mg2+, and this is true. However this is not a black and white situation, for these salts are in equilibrium and not ‘locked away’ as Pro asserts. Moreover different lipids have different salt association properties, with simpler lipids associating more weakly with these ions (and therefore less subject to precipitation), which conveniently are the lipids most accessible abiotically.[6] Chen et al.[7] has shown that fatty acids with glycerol monoesters (a precursor to fatty acids) stabilize the vesicles to Mg2+ and are capable of ribozyme Mg2+ activated activity. Other studies have also demonstrated the much improved stability of mixed-membranes.[8] The vesicles that formed generally are stable at temperatures exceeding 100oC those akin to the conditions found at hydrothermal vents, demonstrating great robustness.

Ultraviolet Radiation:

Now, regarding Pro’s assertions regarding UV radiation. First of all, his original reference did not control for oxygen-free conditions, which are well-known to initiate some of the radical degradation pathways involved. Secondly, there are numerous environments which are indeed dark, such as underwater hydrothermal vents, for which many of the building blocks of life I have already mentioned are known to spew from, as well as providing the heat required for these processes to occur. Also, as already mentioned encapsulation resolves many of these potential issues.

Replication Issues:
It is true that having ribozymes free to duplicate any strand of RNA would be disasterous, which is yet another issue encapsulation conveniently resolves. When a polynucleotide is encapsulated, it has no other macromolecule to replicate. It can replicate itself, however, once isolated. Isolated from external macromolecules, self-replication can repeat, with only small molecules, such as nucleotides, able to enter the protocell.

Conclusion:
I have highlighted several important factors which make abiogenesis likely:

  1. 1. The conditions of the early Earth allow for the complex chemistry required for RNA World abiogenesis and also the long timescales that favour the chances of an improbable event to eventually occur
  2. 2. There are numerous pathways for producing the required compounds
  3. 3. The steps required up to active encapsulated ribozyme activity has been demonstrated experimentally
  4. 4. Many of the problems in RNA world hypothesis are dynamically and conceniently solved with general considerations (hydrothermal vent locations, encapsulation)


I am most grateful to Con for taking this debate, I wish him best of luck in his future debates, over to Con for his closing!
Vote Pro!

References:
[1] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[2] http://www.tulane.edu...
[3] http://apps.webofknowledge.com...
[4] http://www.globalchange.umich.edu....
[5] http://pubs.acs.org...
[6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[7] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[8] http://online.liebertpub.com...
[9] http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu...;

creationtruth

Con

creationtruth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sswdwm 2 years ago
Sswdwm
Try to have a read anyway, it might be interesting learning material, and debates are all about clinic sting ideas clearly and effectively, so you can definitely penalize if one side was overly-complicated etc
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
I wanted to vote on this, but I'm afraid that the knowledge presented here is far past mine and I don't understand very much (without "googling" every other sentence). I don't want to give points to the side that doesn't deserve it.
Posted by Sswdwm 2 years ago
Sswdwm
Sucks... Looked like it was going to be an exciting finish.
Posted by creationtruth 2 years ago
creationtruth
Sorry I didnt respond in time :( i was really busy...
Posted by Sswdwm 2 years ago
Sswdwm
Ugh, well that sucks....
Posted by Sswdwm 2 years ago
Sswdwm
Pls don't forfeit...
Posted by Sswdwm 2 years ago
Sswdwm
Ugh what an embarrassing first round, so many errors.. Should have left myself more time to do it.
Posted by Sswdwm 2 years ago
Sswdwm
I'm going to open the debate to you creationtruth. If Pitbul wants it and it still isn't accepted I'll forward the debate to pitbul if he's interested.
Posted by creationtruth 2 years ago
creationtruth
I'd be willing to debate the topic. Abiogenesis is definitely a disproven theory per the law of biogenesis and the many failed attempts to produce life in the lab.
Posted by johnlubba 2 years ago
johnlubba
Life comes from life, end of story.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
SswdwmcreationtruthTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: In my voting I only focused on the abiogenesis points and not the earth age points etc. Pro showed that the chemistry makes sense, while Con did not offer any rebuttals that held up to scrutiny.Argument points to Pro (also as a chemist, I am impressed by Pros arguments). Con used a scientific reports study to show RNA damage, however this is not a good reflection of the study as it deals with damage induced by very intense light at specific wavelengths. Other sources from Con were not relevant and so Pro gets source points. Forfeit in the last round so conduct points to Pro.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
SswdwmcreationtruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, the forfeit definitely didn't help. The real issue of importance in this debate was RNA World Theory, and while I found Con's responses to it in R3 intriguing, Pro's counter responses were good enough to at least leave a good possibility of this theory being correct. From what I've read as well, his view on the theory is well-supported, though the best holes to exploit (mainly involving how RNA metabolizes chemicals of all sorts, and the likelihood of it being able to participate in all necessary actions within a small space) were untouched. There simply wasn't enough put into taking out this theory, and the lack of response in the final round is deafening. Hence my vote. I found Pro's sources to be on the whole more applicable and better used as well.
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
SswdwmcreationtruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro brought many sources while Con brought only a few sources from creationist websites (sources Pro). Pro addressed the probability of abiogenesis while Con simply rejected science with no good arguments to support his rejection (arguments Pro). Con forfeited the final round (Conduct Pro).