Points: 28

Abiogenesis Is The Best Explanation For The Origin Of Life On Earth


The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Points: 2
1. The definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate.
2. All votes *must* have thorough reasons for voting.
3. Moderators *must* remove inadequate votes that a) fail to address the majority of resolution-impacting points made by both debaters, b) are lies about debater performance, or c) are vendetta votes/overtly biased.
4. No kritiks, counter plans, or semantics, particularly on the term "best" i.e. running the argument,
"A true 'best' explanation for the origin of life would include someone having been there to have verified it, and since that's impossible, no explanation could be the best." Con should argue exclusively against abiogenesis or provide a better explanation.
5. Death23 and his related accounts may not vote on or participate in this debate.
*Full Resolution*
Abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origin of life on Earth.
Has the BoP and 4 rounds of 10,000 characters, with 3 days to post per argument, to AFFIRM that abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origin of life on earth and refute Con.
Has also 4 rounds of 10,000 characters, with 3 days to post per argument, to NEGATE that abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origin of life on earth and refute Pro.
abiogenesis - the concept that organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substances on earth.
the best - that which is the most excellent.
explanation - a statement or account that makes something clear.
origin - the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived.
life - the condition that distinguishes animals, plants, fungi, protista, archaea, and bacteria, from inorganic matter, including the capacity for metabolism, inheritance, maintaining homeostasis, and reproduction.
earth - the planet on which we live that is third in order from the sun.
the sun - the star around which the earth orbits.
Round 1

Thanks for accepting Con.
This subject is fascinating and explanatory.
It deserves a complete debate.


The resolution has Pro (me) affirming that abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origin of life on earth and I'm attempting to meet that burden by providing an outline, a summary, and an explanation. 
The origins of earthly life are best explained by the natural causes within abiogenesis.

*Outline of Abiogenesis*

1. With an atmosphere, water salinity, inorganic compounds, electricity, volcanic activity, and UV rays representative of a prebiotic (before life) earth, inorganic compounds naturally become organic compounds in the form of amino acids.

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.

3. Biologically active amino acid sequences in fact metabolize compounds.

4. Amino acids are catalysts, because they increase the rate of chemical reactions, and in a prebotic network full of catalyzing amino acids and catalyzing hydrothermal vents, RNA emerges due to its auto-catalytic property.

5. RNA is also self-replicating, and because of this is able to thrive in a prebiotic amino acid network by replicating in a template-directed manner.

6. Available phosphorous in this network encapsulates and acts as a barrier for the biologically active, metabolic amino acid chains and auto-catalytic, self-replicating RNA, which, all components combined, is a collectively compartmentalized protocell.

7. These protocells can metabolize with amino acids and replicate with RNA, and this is the origin of genetic polymers.

8. A protocell with a phosphoric 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.

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.

10. Abiogenesis has the most excellent evidence for the origin of life on Earth.


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

*Explanation of Abiogenesis*

1. Inorganic Compounds-->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 elements are essentially the same.

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.

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 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."
So we know that amino acids, organic compounds, come from reactions of 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."
Yes, amino acids fold onto themselves and naturally become biologically active and functional.

So we have biologically active amino acids...how do they replicate?
Well amino acids speed up reactions; they're catalysts.
Hydrothermal vents use the heat from the earth to catalyze reactions and supply inorganic compounds.
So before there was life, there were prebiotic catalysts, like amino acids and hydrothermal vents.

"catalysis in a prebiotic 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."
So, from inorganic compounds of earlier earth, we got organic amino acids, which, when folded, become biologically active, and can catalyze reactions, exacerbated by hydrothermal vents, that led to the emergence of RNA, which is necessary for genetic replication.

4. RNA network-->Cells

In this prebiotic network, any available phosphorous encapsulates the amino acids and RNA acting as a membrane, thus sufficing as a protocell, but because this encapsulation concentrates replication, it allows for genetic polymers, which makes it a full blown living cell, the origin of life.

"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."

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."


So, I affirm that abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origin of life on earth, because abiogenesis has a) the most demonstrated, replicated, and substantiated evidence, b) the most testable, applicable, and reasonable pragmatism, and c) the most plentiful, accessible, and free resources that further solidify the explanation.

On to Con...

Round 2
Round 3
Ah, gracias para "participar" en este debate, pero tengo que extender mis argumentos, particularmente los de la replicacion de cellulas de la origin de vida.
Abiogenesis. La explicacion mejor para el origen de vida de la tierra.
Round 4
Extend, vote Pro.
Yeah science!
I'm definitely going to need to do this debate again.
--> @Ramshutu
Oh, i figured it was a mistake.
--> @MagicAintReal
Sorry! That was an accident!
--> @Ramshutu
Dude what gives man?
He full forfeited!
--> @ethang5
Multiple sets of empirical data and experimentation presented in the form of a peer reviewed scientific paper that supports the position of Abiogenesis “Isn’t evidence”.
At this point, I don’t really have to say anything; I can just sit and watch you refute yourself.
Both of you can stop acting stupid. A link to a study is not evidence. Neither of you know what you're talking about.
Anyway, you have no reason to be bent. If you think you have evidence, more power to you. I don't have to accept it or agree with it, and I couldn't care less for what you ignorant dweebs think.
I don't have to debate you either, and again, I don't care for your 3rd grade taunts. If either of you had an argument, you wouldn't be trying to gain my attention.
You are too stupid to debate, go whine and moan to someone who cares. But if you ever want someone competent to take you on, you will have to lose the stupidity. Just sayin.
--> @ethang5
Please stop claiming there's no evidence.
Understanding this is key.
Stop acting like you've refuted anything.
Stop acting like a gigantic pussy.
You can read, right?
--> @ethang5
I find it personally hilarious watching you stamp your feet at how you feel there is no evidence for Abiogenesis in a debate where the opening rounds consists of MagicAintReal producing reams and reams and reams of evidence, supported by evidence, the appropriate study, and his own summarized explanation.
--> @Ramshutu
"Erm no, I’m afraid I’m not going to let you project on the this one."
As a liberal, it will be difficult for you to grasp that you can't "let" me do anything.
The man/boy challenged me to a debate. I declined. If his retort is that my refusal means I'm scared, it proves my refusal was the correct thing to do. If he becomes angry and calls my refusal an "attack", he certainly is not someone stable enough to debate.
Either way, he is too stupid to debate, and abiogenesis has no evidence for it. I will not debate flat earthers, UFO believers, water memory people, or whether Santa is married. Or abiogenesis pushers. I have better things to do with my time.
"Our last conversation consisted of you...."
By your self judgement. Sorry, your opinion is not fact. I don't share that liberal delusion.
"How about you debate MagicAintReal, and we can see...."
Stop begging and or taunting. I will not change my mind. As is my right, even though you losers view my not doing what you want as an attack. I never debate for others, so what you will see is never my interest.
Go find someone who thinks your opinion valuable. Surely there is someone?
--> @ethang5
Erm no, I’m afraid I’m not going to let you project on the this one.
Our last conversation consisted of you raising multiple false claims, each one being systematically shot down as either dishonest or otherwise false, only for you to raise yet another parroted false claim - culminating you being proven incorrect so many times in a row, and so obviously dishonest you stopped responding.
And again, rather than talk about Abiogenesis, you seem to be more adamant in hurling insults and accusations. How about you debate MagicAintReal, and we can see how valid your objections are to the broad wealth of explanations and data he’s linked in this argument.
--> @Ramshutu
And all you do is claim that you know but never show it. Oh, and go around the debate board voting for atheists regardless of the validity of their arguments.
It's not a complaint Vishnu, its a fact.
--> @ethang5
Complaining over and over again that there is no evidence, ignoring the evidence that is presented, then calling anyone who disagrees an idiot, is neither an argument, nor a rational position to hold.
You don’t seem particularly able to deal with either Evolution, or Abiogenesis, and instead are interested merely in irrational diatribes that only serve to emphasize your complete lack of ability to discuss science that you have an emotional aversion to on its merits.
--> @MagicAintReal
Because first, your posts make it clear you are an idiot. No pne wants to debate an idiot. Plus, anyone smart and confident enough to debate would already know abiogenesis has no evidence, and thus would know the debate is pointless.
--> @ethang5
How do you explain the lack of response from everyone when presented with this information?
--> @MagicAintReal
Very funny. If that doesn't confirm for you that you're an idiot and that people see you that way, I don't know what will. Everyone is wrong except you. Yeah, I'm laughing.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Uses sources to illustrate points and has arguments.
Other side has 0, full forfeit.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Full Forfeit
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Full forfeit
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Full forfeit