The Instigator
WhoPutYouOnThePlanet
Pro (for)
The Contender
killshot
Con (against)

The RNA world hypothesis is a valid explanation for the origin of life as we know it.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Argument Due
We are waiting for WhoPutYouOnThePlanet to post argument for round #3. If you are WhoPutYouOnThePlanet, login to see your options.
Time Remaining
02days09hours58minutes56seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2019 Category: Science
Updated: 14 hours ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 199 times Debate No: 120265
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (0)

 

WhoPutYouOnThePlanet

Pro

Id rather let con start on this one.
killshot

Con

This was too easy.

RNA world hypothesis does not explain how life originated, Only that it could have/most likely was a precursor to DNA. This theory requires life to already be initiated in it's beginning stages.
Debate Round No. 1
WhoPutYouOnThePlanet

Pro

WhoPutYouOnThePlanet forfeited this round.
killshot

Con

Well then. .
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by killshot 2 days ago
killshot
I agree with what you said, Except one thing, And this is what I've been saying all along. RNA does not explain how life initially came to be, From inorganic to organic. An example of what I mean is abiogenesis. Abiogenesis does explain how life can arise from simple inorganic beginnings. It seems to me that you have merged abiogenesis and RNA world together into one hypothesis and they are separate. RNA starts at simple beginnings (self replicating structures), But it doesn't start at the very very beginning (inorganic). This is what I have meant all along.
Posted by FUCKU01 3 days ago
FUCKU01
Well if you want to be really deep about it, Then technically we can't prove exactly how anything happend to absolute certainty.

Although this kinda delves into the creationist debates a bit, I still believe the point im about to make is equally valid here.

Can we prove without a shadow of a doubt that the RNA world was a real time period in earths history, The answer is no, But if we could demonstrate that such a model was possible on the prebiotic earth with evidence to support it, And demonstrate how life as we know it could arise from such a situation, Then it doesn't really matter weather or not that was the exact way it happend, Because if the model works, The model simply works, It just may mean we discovered one way life is able to arise naturally from simple chemistry, Which would still finally give us the scientific theory of abiogenesis, Instead of just a group of competing hypothesis's.

We can't know to exact certainty how a certain mountain formed, But we can still investigate the processes that lead to the formation of mountains, Life is no different in this regard.
Posted by killshot 3 days ago
killshot
"So put simply your problem isn't the entire RNA world hypothesis itself but how we get a RNA polymer from prebiotic chemistry. "

Correct. I think RNA is more than likely the precursor to DNA and this hypothesis has strong weight. But there is still a huge leap from non-existent life to RNA. Even if the conditions match our early earth, It doesn't prove this is the mechanism that took place. I'm not saying it isn't what took place, Just that there is no way currently to prove it. I'm familiar with the experiments you listed, But those are not conclusive, Still in active research, And they are all dependent on pre-existing building blocks for RNA. It would still need some form of abiogenesis.
Posted by FUCKU01 3 days ago
FUCKU01
So put simply your problem isn't the entire RNA world hypothesis itself but how we get a RNA polymer from prebiotic chemistry.

This is also a part of the RNA world hypothesis, Because in order for there to be RNA on the early earth RNA has to come from some sort of chemistry, In the same way evolutionary theory needs to explain where different species came from, The RNA world hypothesis also has to explain how RNA can be prebioticly synthesized in a early earth environment.

And whats probably most important here, This has already been done, Well almost.
By using an intermediate molecule formed through evaporation, A team led by John Sutherland at the university of Manchester were able to create cytosine ribonucleotides by simply introducing the intermediate molecule to the remaining simple chemicals that originally wouldn't combine, And when these cytosine ribonucleotides were exposed to simulated sunlight, Some of the cytosine ribonucleotides were turned into uracil ribonucleotides "two for the price of one" work is still being done on how guanine and adenine ribonucleotides could be formed prebioticly, But it still demonstrates that this isn't a we don't know question anymore or a we need to fill in a blank with a new hypothesis.

Experiments also led by Jack Szostak at Harvard's medical institute showed that RNA nucleotides will automatically catalyze into RNA polymers when exposed to simple clay surfaces like montmorillonite which would have been present on the early earth.

I could go on, But my point is simply that the RNA world hypothesis also deals with the emergence of RNA on the prebiotic earth, Which is what you count as the "origin of life" so the RNA world hypothesis is also a hypothesis of abiogenesis which includes other competing hypothesis for the origin of life as well.
Posted by killshot 3 days ago
killshot
@fucku

1) It's something in your reply, Try rewording it and posting again. I couldn't post the numerical value for the speed of light once because it was bugging out over it.
2) I was replying quickly from my phone - my bad.
3) I understand it perfectly.

I'll keep this very simple and short for you so you can keep up. It's a hypothetical stage in evolutionary history where self-replicating RNA molecules "existed and proliferated" before the eventual evolution of DNA and proteins. This was likely the precursor to DNA.

This excludes the biochemistry stages prior to the point where self replicating RNA was available.

This hypothesis, Even if it's true, Is only a small step in the overall process of evolution. It still needs to be coupled with another hypothesis or theory such as abiogenesis to explain the chemistry that made the initial self replicating RNA. This is why I said it's NOT a origin hypothesis. It requires life to already exist. It only explains the gap from simpler beginnings to DNA, It doesn't explain the beginning.
Posted by FUCKU01 3 days ago
FUCKU01
I would suggest watching the video i sent you, Since its quite obvious you didn't since its seven minutes long and you responded in less then two.
Posted by FUCKU01 3 days ago
FUCKU01
A: i told you its not letting me post my debate responses.
B: its a hypothesis not a scientific theory.
C: i shouldn't have to prove a negative because you don't understand something.

Also what do you mean by "creates life" what exactly do you think life is? A further insight into the RNA world hypothesis explains that RNA polymers were the first self replicating chemical systems before cells even showed up on the scene, These RNA chains evolved and competed with each other growing in diversity and complexity, Which includes their enzymatic function as ribozymes, At some point one or multiple of these self replicating RNA's became trapped in a lipid liposome made of simple fats and alcohols easily generated on the prebiotic earth, These would have been the first "protocells" which are essentially minimal cells that only compose of self replicating polymers and membranes, These RNA polymers would continue to evolve over time as they duplicated inside the membranes while membranes also grew and divided by acquiring new lipids/micells.

All life is at its core is a self replicating chemical system, So if your asking where the RNA world hypothesis creates life, Then the first RNA polymer capable of self replication synthesized on the prebiotic earth would be "the first life" these polymers would acquire membranes thus leading to the first cells on this planet, Once that happens its simply a climb in complexity and diversity from there that has led us to the biodiversity as we see today.
Posted by killshot 3 days ago
killshot
@fucku - Here's what you can do. PROVE ME WRONG. Show me where RNA theory "creates" life. Do that and I concede, Otherwise stfu and lets debate.
Posted by FUCKU01 3 days ago
FUCKU01
i also made a new account because the previous one is glitching out. <- just so you know.
Posted by FUCKU01 3 days ago
FUCKU01
If you were familiar with the topic you wouldn't be saying what your saying, And i refuse to be straw manned by you as if this was some random topic i decided to debate for whatever reason, I am very familiar and educated on this topic.

In the little snip-it you are obviously referring to done by some simple google search, You are only scratching the surface of what the hypothesis is about, What you are doing here is similar to if someone started a debate on evolution, And you responded that "evolution is simply change over time and has nothing to do with biology" and i think we can both agree we should hold ourselves to higher standards then that, Right?

Here is a simple video i recommend to you from 2016 that goes into more detail about the hypothesis > https: //www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=K1xnYFCZ9Yg

I really suggest watching this before responding to me.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.