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

I tried to post my argument last night but when I pressed the submit button I was given this message: Active Server Pages error 'ASP 0115' Unexpected error /errors/500/default.asp A trappable error (C0000005) occurred in an external object. The script cannot continue running. Active Server Pages error 'ASP 0115' Unexpected error /debates/debate/default.asp A trappable error (C0000005) occurred in an external object. The script cannot continue running. I don't know what this means or why it happened, but it was extremely frustrating as it prevented me from posting my argument and caused me to forfeit the round. Anyways I apologize for that nonsense. Here is my response- "Using Pro's analogy, DNA would correspond to a CPU rather than computer code." This is incorrect as my analogy stated that DNA corresponds to computer programming not CPUs. It 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. Also there is a level of abstractness or potential for interchangeability involved. Cells and CPUs are systems that are acted on by the DNA and programming codes to cause purposeful actions. You can take the same strand of DNA and same set of programming and put them in seperate cells and CPUs respectively and get similar results between the different cells and different CPUs. A CD can be used to play the same video game on different computers and protein producing sequences can be implanted into different cells and the same polypeptide will be produced. For example insulin is produced when the human insulin gene is injected into yeast cells. For these reasons it makes more sense to compare DNA to computer programming and living cells to CPUs, rather than vice versa (granted you didn't say that cells are analogous to computer programming). "We are discussing whether the application of code to patterns inherently suggests an intelligent source for those patterns. Humpback whales and finch may demonstrate a kind of animal intelligence, but the fact that their communications can be codified does not suggest they have the capacity to design the universe. Rocks clearly have no intelligence but the patterns of rocks can likewise be codified. Just because a pattern can be codified does not suggest that it was designed." There is a disconnect in our debate. Simply put I 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. The problem with this counter is that we are talking about two different categories of things. 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. "Things that can be codified", from what I understand of Con's definition, includes anything that is observable and from which information can be obtained. This is a separate and much larger grouping than the one I am discussing. Rock formations do not belong to the same kind of code that DNA and computer programming do. There is not a greater system with which rock formations interact with to produce a specific effect, not in the way that DNA does with cells and programming does with CPUs. Also the level of abstractness/potential for interchangeability does not exist with rock formation 'code'. There is a physical reason why the presence of certain types of stone indicates corresponding features of geological history. The same is not true for why GUU signals the addition of Valine or why 100 0010 translates to "B" in ASCII. However I should note that I am also at fault here. 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. "It sounds like we are in agreement that the elements of DNA are abiotically reproducible." We are not. "Although no ribozyme in nature has yet been found that can replicate itself, ribozymes have been synthesized in the laboratory that can catalyze the assembly of short oligonucleotides into exact complements of themselves." Source please "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 "In short, your complaint is that those constituent components have not yet evolved." Which constituent components? "Pro's argument is that because scientist have not yet reproduced the billion year evolution of RNA into DNA, they never will and therefore DNA must be an intelligent construct." 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. "We weren't able to replicate an atomic explosion for decades following our understanding of atomic fusion, did that suggest that only an intelligent design could account for the Sun?" 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. "To use your meteorite analogy, a DNA=intelligent design argument more closely resembles scientists who have discovered their first meteorite impact ever, observed how impressive circularity of the impression and decided that some intelligence must have made it this way " Not so. 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. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.genome.jp...