Intelligent Design is the most likely to be true hypothesis for the origin of life.

Regarding DDO glitch resulting in forfeit:I can attest to seeing the same errors as Pro. I don't feel that it would be fair to credit Pro with a forfeit due to what looked like a memory fault on the web server side.I DNA is not a codeIt is more accurate to compare DNA to computer programming and living cells to CPUs. Both DNA and programming are commonly referred to as codes, while CPUs and cells are not. Both DNA and programming are composed of physical strings of characters: Adenine, Cytosine, Thymine and Guanine for DNA and electrical characters represented by 1's and 0's for CPUs. As I stated before the specific order of the characters is significant, with different sequences producing different results.We're drifting deeper into what is essentially a semantic argument. Yes, DNA is commonly referred to as code, but this is just speaking in shorthand which has led to this misnomer. A code is information. DNA contains genetic code, it is a medium for code, it is not itself code. DNA is a molecule, the physical properties of which are expressed by a human invention, genetic code. A living cell is more analogous to a computer in that it is always composed of the same basic components but can assume many forms and functions. If you don't like CPU as an analogy for one of those components, try memory. A memory chip is encoded in ones and zeros, it is not itself binary. DNA is encoded in ACGT, it is not itself genetic code. Genetic code describes the the behavior of DNA strands in the same way that binary code describes the behavior of electric pulses travelling through switches. The codes themselves are human artifacts. The behaviour described does imply a design just because the observation and description imply intellect.II. The application of codes to patterns does not denote intelligence within those patternsI am arguing that since DNA qualifies as a specific type of code, then it is logical to assume that it was intelligently designed. Con is arguing that DNA qualifies as something that can be codified. There are other types of objects that can be codified that were not necessarily intelligently designed (e.g. rock formations), and therefore DNA might not have been either.Not quite. I am arguing that all code is a human application to patterns. Pro is arguing that at least one code (genetic) precedes humanity.In my opening argument I stated "The only known source by which all types of codes form is intelligence." I now see this was a mistake as I should have written "The only known source by which the type of code that DNA belongs to forms is intelligence." I apologize for that.I am referring to a specific type of code to which DNA and computer programming belong. I have described the features that characterize this type of code. By which I think you mean that genetic code and computer code are both programmable. But at its essence, binary is just a human application to the pattern demonstrated by electricity flowing through switches. We can employ this behavior to produce programmable results because the behavior of electricity is static and predictable. Genetic code is a human application to the patterns demonstrated by chemical reactions to the physical properties of DNA. We can employ this behavior to produce programmable results because the behavior of DNA is static and predictable. What evidence do we have to prove that this chemical reaction was designed more than any other chemical reaction?Request for source regarding synthetic ribozymehttp://en.wikipedia.org...Response of "Conjecture" to "The base functions of life probably began with RNA and only later did proteins take over the catalytic machinery of metabolism and DNA take over as the repository of the genetic code."Conjecture, yes, but a conjecture that led Altman and Cech to discover the catalytic properties of RNA and win the 1989 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.From the textbook Life: The Science of Biology, H. Craig Heller, David M. Hillis:"Given that RNA can be both informational (in its nucleotide sequence) and catalytic (due to its ability to form unique three dimensional shapes), it has been hypothesized that early life consisted of an "RNA world" - a world before DNA. It is thought that when RNA was first made, it could have acted as a catalyst for its own replication as well as for the synthesis of proteins. DNA could eventually have evolved from RNA. Some laboratory evidence supports this scenario:*When certain short RNA sequences are added to a mixture of nucleotides, RNA polymers can be formed at a rate 7 million times greater than the formation of polymers without the added RNA. This added RNA is not a template, but a catalyst.*In the test tube, a ribozyme can catalyze the assembly of short RNAs into a longer molecule. This may be how nucleic acid replication evolved.*In living organisms today, the formation of peptide linkages is catalyzed by ribozymes.*In certain viruses called retroviruses, there is an enzyme called reverse transcriptase that catalyzes the synthesis of DNA from RNA."Which constituent components?17 of the 20 amino acids used in protein synthesis, and all the purines and pyramidines used in nucleic acid synthesis. I didn't say they never will. However until they do whether or not there is a natural process that can cause this is unknown, and the premise of my argument still stands. Also I never stated that DNA 'must' be an intelligent construct.That's right, Pro said "most likely to be true." This analogy fails. If instead the situation was: "We have only ever known atomic fusion to occur via intelligent means. We know of no natural process that creates atomic fusion." Then it would be a comparable scenario. It obviously isn't.The analogy is fine. Just because a sound hypothesis has not yet been proven doesn't make the hypothesis wrong.Scientists have access to numerous instances of DNA's type of code being created by intelligent means. Some early humans may have made the false assumption that near-circular crater rings were intelligently made since they didn't know of any other phenomenon that caused such circular objects. However as soon as we discovered and understood meteorites and the craters they formed their premise was shown to be false. The same cannot be said of the origins of DNA type code.Likewise, Scientists will likely soon reproduce the process by which DNA evolved from RNA in an abiotic environment. The absence of proof of one theory does not stand as proof that another theory is "most likely to be true."