The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed

I instigated and have the burden of proof. My opponent has not addressed the points I put forward. He did not defend the circular logic being used to deny the evidence, in point 1 of round 1. Nothing in my first argument was for Intelligent Design, which holds to probability and irreducible design. He shows pictures of natural bridges and caves, and yet subjectively he exclaims they could be mistaken for designed. Not with the method of Inferred Design as I put forward. Inferred Design method just from environmental factors like wind and erosion, and form from substance would declare these things "Natural". It's important to note that the method I outlined can give a false "Natural", because it fills in the gaps of understanding a process by assuming a natural process. My argument is not an Argument from Design (AFD). It is an Argument from Construction (AFC). I will show it has roots in Non-Intelligent Design and Non-Creationist research. Inferred Design is being used in Computer Science stating that form follows implementation. [1] This is a top-down approach investigating the environments or implementations needed to produce a living cell. George V. Luader, an evolutionary biologist from Harvard wrote a paper in criticism of AFD. He finishes the paper with these words: "Let us refashion the argument from design. Instead of aiming to infer processes retrospectively from a design endpoint, we could choose to focus on the process of building the design: Argument of construction. .. The extent to which such research will contribute to our understanding of biological design will be a function of how willing we are to abandon assumptive practices about evolutionary mechanisms to focus instead on patterns of biological design and the many possible mechanisms by which such patterns may have arisen. "[2] Dr. Luader says this is a Darwinian fabrication. Taking a Top-Down approach and treating the biological system as a designed system is not unheard. As stated in round 1, design is the constraining, refinement, or arrangement of natural processes. Not surprising evolutionary biologist are using this to discern the principles in this act of design. "It is becoming increasingly recognized that new interdisciplinary approaches are needed in biology to transform data and information into knowledge about general principles that explain the function and evolution of life. We are developing a complex systems biology framework to meet this need. "[3] Another article that says such lessons can be applied to engineering and computer science is from Macmillan Magazines. [4] There are university departments that look to glean engineering principles from biological "design". [5] The cases all attempt to make design attributes more objective, scientific and measurable. Most take the stance that it is evolution that does the designing (the point my opponent tries making). The problem with this is the origins of life are chemical and mechanical. Before life there was no evolution. Unless of course you want to say evolution is a principle inherent in the matter and energy of the universe, a principle physicist have been completely blind to. This must be because it takes billions of years for galaxies to exhibit Natural Selection. My opponent has not addressed my point 1 from round 1. He has not disputed the attributes of design I set forth, He has not shown how they are reflected in his natural bridges or in his 52 card pickup?3. The Inferred Design process as it applies to the basic cellA. Scope: A basic cell the HalobacteriaB. Environment: Micro-environments are the environments needed to make a cell part. The overall environment is the Archeon Ocean as described by a Non-enzymatic glycolysis and pentose phosphate pathway-like reactions in a plausible Archeon ocean paper (2014)[6] Archean ocean was carbon rich and contained significant concentrations of Na, Cl, K, BO3, F, PO4, Mg, Ca, Si, Mo, Co, Ni and Fe. To clarify this iron is ferrous Iron Oxide. C. Form follows Material Morphology: For sake of time and space I'll move on to the next point for cellular life. But while here I'll remark that B and C would be enough to determine my opponent's caves and land bridge as "Natural". D. Micro-Environments are not naturally compatible:In the cell we have DNA, and it's almost identical half RNA. We will talk about RNA, because its use is critical to the RNA world hypothesis. The backbone of the RNA chain is ribose sugar. The inside is nucleotides. The Sugars are right handed orientation, or chirality. And the Nucleotides are left handed. Is chirality needed for the first life forms? Most certainly as stated by Georges H. Wagnière in his book [7] He states, "In the absence of homochiral structure of the polymer, the long range order induced by the H-bonded base pairs could not exist. "What kind of natural environment could produce right handed sugars? Biologically useful chemicals are three dimensional structures. They are effected by mechanical vectors called kinetics. Stirring is a simple kinetic to accomplish this. [8] However if the stirring is to produce left handed sugars this would also produce left handed nucleotides. So we need 2 stirring actions moving in different directions. This would make them mutually destructive to each other. So we have 2 parts that must be produced in different micro-environments before being brought together to make RNA. Then, when being brought together in a convergent environment, it could not be the Archeon ocean that has a alkaline condition. That would be destructive to the RNA by aiding in self cleaving hydrolysis. There are thousands of such examples in cellular biology of pathways being mutually destructive to each other. This is why, and credit belongs to the scientist for their honesty, papers describing such molecular biology more often than nought have a phrase like, ". .. there must be a protective mechanism. .. " The cellular machinery is implausible to have arrived in a natural abiotic conditions.4. The chemical arrangement of informationNature is capable of odering things. Stoichometric minerals and crystals all order themselfs based on their atomic structures. If there was a natural enviroment capable of bringing cellular molecules into existence the arrangements of their chains would be either totally random or repetative. The evidence not support this. The arrangement has an inherent meaningfulness to it. As you well know the DNA is called the blue print of the cell. It does more then describe how to make things. In basic life like Halobacteria it is also the controler for signals of when to devide and where to go. This information has to be encoded and decoded. But before even addressing this chicken/egg problem lets think about how chemicals actually act. If these chemicals came together in an enviroment, what forces would control one set to correctly read another component of the cell, say the cell wall, and transport this information to be transcribed into DNA. None. There are some papers saying this spontaneous information can occur in RNA. They are known to interact with each other and trade information and are used in correcting transcription errors from DNA. This is different then them reacting with other cellular components and recording the information to build say a cell wall. [1]. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...[2]http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu...[3]http://systemsbiology.case.edu...[4]http://ebookbrowsee.net...[5]http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...[6]http://msb.embopress.org...[7]http://www.wiley.com...[8]http://arxiv.org...