Intelligent Agency is the best explanation for the origin of life in this universe

I am truly flattered that Orangatang chose to devote his entire round 3 argument to addressing my case. However, as I will show, his objections to my case are rooted in a profound fundamental misunderstanding of what it is he is objecting to. I promised to defend two premises which flow logically into the conclusion that life is the result of intelligent agency. I have done exactly that. My opponent raised no objection at all against my second premise, therefore it is safe to assume that we are in agreement that intelligent agency is the only cause capable of producing UI/PI, It is my first premise, then, to which he objects. Orangatang accuses me of an equivocation fallacy in referring to the DNA/RNA protein synthesis system as UI. Yet as much as he wishes he could, he is not able to distance himself from the truth. Notice:"DNA could be loosely comparable to a type of information represented as a sequence of nucleotide triplets (codons)," and, "Yes, specific codons do eventually code for specific body parts." (this is a little incomplete. Specific codons code for specific amino acids. Growing linear chains of amino acids then prescribe specific proteins). In these two brief passages, con admits to all of the attributes of UI (code, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics)! He simply attributes the process purely to physics and chemistry and denies that what is being described in his own words is information. He won't get away with either. Orangatang claims: "No physics and chemistry based process in between (the DNA to protein process) requires any appeal to...intelligent agency." Later he adds, "DNA is...nothing more than complex chemistry." Note that by his own (albeit inaccurate) admission, he is aware that it is the specific sequence of nucleotides that prescribe each successive amino acid (aa), and the specific sequence of aa's that prescribe proteins. Thus, it is the sequence that is of paramount importance. But contra Orangatang, the sequencing of the nucleotides is physico-chemically inert! In other words, there is NO physical determinism in the sequencing! Yet the sequences are clearly meaningful, and they are meaningful in an abstract way! Similarly, there is no physico-chemical determinism involved in the codon assignments. For example, I pointed out earlier that TAA represents a "stop" command. To my statement that symbol systems are distinguished by their abstract nature, Orangatang replies:"I do not see any reason to assume that symbols are immaterial" This reply betrays a foundational misunderstanding of UI. It is not the symbols themselves that are immaterial; it is the abstract representation - the information flowing from the specific sequence of symbols that is immaterial. Apart from the rybozome and the lab, and absent the syntax and semantics of the UI of life, TAA will never influence a growing chain of aa's to stop growing. The problems for a physico-chemical explanation for this abstract representation is indeed very real and despite my opponent's bravado, physics and chemistry alone do not explain the UI system of life. They do not explain the sequences nor the symbolic meaning. Three different times in round 3, Orangatang claims that I have not produced any evidence at all to support my position. In defending my first premise (All organisms that can be unambiguously defined as being alive manifest and owe their existence to UI/PI), I have allowed recognized giants and pioneers in their relevant disciplines to make my case: Crick(biology), Orgel(chemistry), Yockey(information theory), Barbieri(biosemiosis), and Weiner(cybernetics). With the possible exception of Barbieri, all of these men desperately hope(d) for a naturalistic pathway to the origin of life. To this collection, permit me to add one more: Richard Dawkins is arguably the world's most recognizable apologist for both atheism and Darwinian evolution. In this embedded interview, he says, "genes are...coded information," and that "a chromosome is a great long computer tape."[11] Furthermore, I have pointed to not just one, but two new scientific research fields which have arisen out of the reality of genetic information: bioinformatics and biosemiosis. For my opponent to insist over and over that I have presented no evidence is unhelpful and clearly dishonest. But please allow me to add even greater evidence: Until this point, the case for the UI of life has been made solely on the DNA/RNA protein synthesis system. Let us now turn to yet another profound misunderstanding revealed by Orangatang in the last round. He charged: "My opponent fails to reveal...that over 98% of human DNA is junk DNA, so they do not encode any meaningful or functional protein sequences." If I had claimed that over 98% of the genome is "junk," I would be lying. The assumption that non-protein coding DNA was "junk" was an assumption from the evolutionary paradigm. The assumption was dead wrong. In just a little more than a decade, function has been discovered for more than 80% of the genome[12], and this number only gets higher as ignorance and wrong-headed assumption is replaced with knowledge and understanding. The function being discovered reveals higher level function (termed "epi-genome," or 'above the genome"). These are additional information systems which control expression of the protein coding system. We have also learned that a single line of DNA can produce multiple independent messages[13], and that separate codes exist for splicing and transcription[14]. In this century alone, 20 new independent genetic codes have been discovered, each operating according to arbitrary conventions, not physical determinism. Some examples: protein address codes, acetylation codes, and cytoskeleton codes. The deeper we look into life, the more cybernetic and the more advanced it becomes. This is not at all what we would expect from natural processes. My case is very well substantiated, and the more we learn about living systems, the stronger it grows. The support I have produced is 100% empirical: UI clearly exists in the world in many ways, including in the genome. Indeed, the genome manifests the most advanced UI system we have ever encountered. Intelligent agency is always the source of UI. No counter example exists. On the other hand, my opponent continues to insist that he has presented evidence, when in reality all he has presented to this point is speculation. He has invoked more than once, 176 Wikipedia references supporting abiogenesis. Indeed, he triumphantly claims that "abiogenesis is not only likely, but inevitable." This appears under the round 2 heading, "Expert opinion..." The truth is that when those who hope for an abiogenesis epiphany are honest, they sing a much different tune. Here is Richard Dawkins: "Nobody knows how it happened"[15], and Klaus Dose from the 7th annual conference for the international society of the OOL: "here, for the first time, several scientists attested without contradiction that all theses on the evolution of living systems from spontaneously occurring polynucleotides are totally without experimental basis" Of course, one empirical example from my opponent could settle the issue! In round 3, Orangatang adapted a strategy of pure denial and avoidance, riddled with falsehoods and misunderstandings. The challenge remains: defend a purely naturalistic origin for the UI of life! [11] [12] the encode project has many public access papers available online [13] "The Programming of Life," Johnson, 2010 [14] "Without Excuse," Gitt, 2011 [15] "Climbing Mount Improbable," Dawkins