The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed

My opponent is still attempting to straw man my arguments by collectively referring to them as Intelligent Design. The resolution is, "The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed". The method used to come to this conclusion is Inferred Design. A top-Down approach to the processes and environments needed to produce the subject in question. It relies on the evidence at hand. My opponent says it is an argument of ignorance because we don't know how the origins of life happened. But that is what science is about making predictions based on the evidence at hand then further testing to see if the micro-environments truly are self destructive and so forth and so forth. It is why I pointed out that this process is being investigated by biologist to include evolutionary abiogenesis biologists! The conclusion life is intelligently designed may change as more evidence presents itself. But to hold back the merit of an investigation performed in this manner in the hopes that one day it will be explained is a show stopper. In fact this process leads research into what kind of experiments are central to the explanation.Rebuttals PurposeBecause designing needing purpose was your argument not mine. We can not know the purpose of an object from it's form or any other markers. Refer to Ariel in little mermaid when upon asking what a fork was used for was told by a seagull it was to straighten ones hair out. She used the fork as a hair brush. Again my opponent attempts a straw man and is an argument or assertion of purpose driven design I never took up. Design is the refining or constraining of natural processes.Rebuttal Circular LogicMy opponent rewrites my words."P1. The living cell was not intelligently designed because there is no evidence for an intelligent designer.P2. There is no intelligent designer because there is no evidence of anything being intelligently designed.C1. Where ever your at in the cycle refer to the other premise.However this of course is not how the criticism is performed. One makes the following argument against ID:P1. Anything intelligently designed requires an intelligent designerP2. No intelligent designer existed at the OOLC1. Before life existed, there was no intelligent designer"To Shift the burden of proof so that I have to proof there was some other life intelligently designed. or that there is a non human intelligent designer some where. Neither of these is possible with out the circular logic I addressed in round one being confronted. My opponent and any one else that prescribes to that logic will never be able to see any evidence for an intelligent designer because their circular minds will regurgitate back there is no intelligent designer but man. What would be good evidence of an intelligent designer?? What I am presenting. That the components of something could not arise from natural process alone!I don't care who you may think the intelligent designer at the OOL is. My opponent assumes if it wasn't man it was God. But I am not making a case for God. I am making a case that the construction of the living cell was an intelligently governed process.He further minces my words into syllogisms of his own making. The premises are simple. Fabrications will have attributes of design. Life has attributes of design. Life is a fabrication. I have already shown that some biologist accept this but prefer to state that evolution is a natural designer. This does not apply at the beginnings of life.Rebuttals of Design Attributes CriticismForm follows Substance: My opponent reasons, "This is one of the more interesting takes on design, but by what reason do we have to accept this statement? Pro provides zero argumentation for such, and as a matter of fact, most things that we know are designed are done so with simplicity in mind, extraneous 'repetitious breaking' is a trait of poorly, or non-designed things"No most things exhibit a repetitious breaking or constraining of the natural form a substance wants to take. This is how we can tell the difference between an arrow head and a banged up rock. The silhouette is symmetrical and though possible not likely from a natural process. The arrow head is chipped. This is different then rocks chipping each other in that the chipping exhibits linear progressions along concentric to the arrow head edge. Countless other examples can describe how an ice crystal is formed from it's atomic structure, and why a hammer's iron head is designed because it's flat surface is unusual and non natural.My opponent states, "Pro makes the point that before life there was no evolution, so it appears that he is now arguing against abiogenesis, which does not address the formation of halobacteria, it addresses the formation of a much, much simpler organism than this" I have been arguing abiogensis since the resolution.The example I provide is RNA. This is not indicative to just halobacteria. It is in everything. Even the Virus. It is directly related to any less developed precursor to halobacteria. The case being made is that a nonliving archeon ocean environment would be implausible to make a substantial amount of RNA for use. EVEN if that use was in a precursor to life.Finally my opponent attempts to attack the chirality, kinetics, and ... Oh he does not address that the early ocean would destroy RNA in the alkaline conditions. And in his explanation to discredit the chirality argument he refers to a simpler acid that is mostly inert accept for the one bond used to make mandelic acid. This is what RNA looks like: It has many parts ready to chemically react to other things.My opponent cites and links to a paper that the readers of DDO will more than likely not have access to reading. I think experiments like this have great benefit. I'll consume my characters to break it down to the readers. The researchers started with a near even split of equal chiral amino acids. Dissolved in ethanol. Let that evaporate and remove any excess waste. Then added water and a truly equal or racemic molecules. These were not RNA, or event he precursor to RNA. The reaction then made a precursor to RNA if the water was cooled -4 degrees Celsius. So this is a completely different micro-environment scenario to make the precursors of RNA. Where did the Amino Acids come from? They did not form in the Archeon Ocean. No the researchers allude this to meteorites. Amino Acids found in meteorites are of such a low parts per million this could not be a sustained process to account for all the RNA needed to make even the first self replicating chains of 300 molecules. And the paper my opponent uses did not make homochiral RNA.InformationIn the previous paper my opponent cited, the chiral amino acid was proline. This is what's called a non essential amino acid because it is produced biosynthetically in the cell. So Essentially the first precursors to life were, "hey this stuff we get from meteorites is cool, lets start making it ourselves" The question arises if the environment to make such an amino acid is literally out of this world, how did it get absorbed to a intracellular environment? It can not. Where did the information to make the proteins to produce proline from glutamate come from? The collection of this information for the synthesis would destroy or block the pathway from performing. And then to record this information in DNA, a centralized deposit. To have the transcription of the information stopped and then moved to the spot in the cell where the process is then un-paused and allowed to continue, is remarkable.We do not know if nature can do all these things. What we do know is that chemicals react. They do not coordinate with each other in goal orientated activites. Based on the evidence we do have of the properties of these biological chemicals. It is reasonable to conclude that the most basic living cells at the origin of life were intelligently designed.