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

In our quest to understand the OOL, it is important to recognize that what needs to be explained is the origin of genetic information. Genetic information drives all life. What is the origin of this information? This is the key to unlocking the mystery of the OOL. Shortly after elucidating the DNA structure with James Watson, Francis Crick discovered that DNA is actually a genetic code[4]. We now know that the DNA/RNA/protein synthesis system is a genetic information system. Moreover, this information system manifests code, syntax, and semantics, just as information systems we are familiar with do; information systems such as human language and computer language. This specific type of information has been called Universal Information(UI)[2], and Prescriptive Information(PI)[3]. As defined earlier, code is a representational symbol system. The symbols of the DNA/RNA/protein synthesis system are the four nucleotides(adenine, cytocine, guanine and thyamine/uracil). Syntax is defined as the rules of grammar. The syntax of this system recognizes that the string of nucleotides must be read as unbroken triplets (codons). Semantics is defined as abstract (representational) meaning. For example, the symbols d-o-g in our language combine to represent that loveable four legged creature. They are not a dog. They represent a dog. In genetic language, the symbols TAA represent a command to stop building the growing chain of nucleotides. They are not the command. They represent the command. Crick understood the implications. He knew that the presence of UI meant that intelligent agency had to be the cause. True to his atheistic worldview, he proposed an alien intelligence as the agent behind life on earth[5]. It is worth noting that in their paper proposing directed panspermia as an explanation for the origin of the information of life, Crick and Orgel confessed that they were biased and their proposition lacked scientific support. In other words, it was scientific discovery that led them to realize the essential role of intelligent agency in the OOL, and it was their worldview which drove them to conclude that "aliens done it". Crick's discovery changed everything. At least it should have. Before the sequence hypothesis, the working assumption was that the mystery of the OOL was a matter of understanding the right physiochemical pathway. Therefore, the study of the OOL was wholly devoted to discovering that pathway. But this was an assumption that was ignorant of the inner workings of the cell. Knowledge has replaced ignorance. In the wake of the sequence hypothesis, there are those who have come to terms with the new reality: "The genetic information system is the software of life and, like the symbols in a computer, it is purely symbolic and independent of its environment"[6], "It is sequences and codes that make the difference between life and matter. It is semiosis (symbol translation system) that does not exist in the inanimate world, and that is why biology is not a complex form of chemistry"[7], "DNA is a neutral carrier of information, independent of its physics and chemistry"[8]. In fact, new research fields have opened up under the inspiration of the new paradigm. Bioinformatics studies the information of living systems. Biosemiosis looks at the symbol systems of life. Symbol systems are distinguished by their immaterial nature. Yockey recognizes this:"The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from non-living matter,"[6]. Norbert Weiner, the father of Cybernetics adds, "Information is Information, neither matter nor energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day"[9]. Such a materialism my opponent suffers from. Note that his opening argument does not address genetic information at all! Recall that in round two I observed that if the primary axiom (life is the result of purely natural processes) that drives OOL research is false, the entire enterprise is doomed to failure. We have seen that genetic information undergirds all life. Unless purely natural processes are capable of creating UI, the primary axiom is false. Things do not look good: *UI requires the intentional states of agents. Natural processes are incapable of intentional states. *UI is an immaterial, abstract reality. Natural processes are purely physicochemical reality every step of the way. *UI is based on voluntary, arbitrary rules. Natural processes are governed by deterministic laws. There is no choice. *UI requires choice contingency at the decision node level, free from determinism. Deterministic law destroys the ability to create UI by freezing logic gates. Based on everything we know about the properties and qualities of abstract reality and of natural processes, both the causal sufficiency of intelligent agency and the casual insufficiency of purely natural processes seem to be ontologically evident. I make the bold claim that intelligent agency is the only cause capable of producing the UI of life. This claim is remarkably easy to falsify: produce a single empirical example of natural processes creating UI. At this time it is impossible to discern my opponent's insights into the origin of the UI of life, as he has yet to even address it. Thus far, his entire argument is built upon a pre-Watson/Crick understanding - or to be more accurate, a lack of understanding - of the genetic information that drives all life. While it is now known that abstract information systems, symbol systems, arbitrary rule based assignments, and holistic cybernetic networks are what need to be explained, my opponent remains content to wallow in the tar [10] of the Miller/Urey experiment. Indeed, in his opening argument, my opponent promises a "mountain of evidence," but delivers instead a mountain of speculation. For example, one short paragraph on the hypothetical "RNA world" hypothesis contains as many speculative musings as it does sentences: "may be...may have...may have been...might then." Note that where speculation exists, empirical confirmation does not. In other words, even before he addresses biological information, my opponent has failed to support even his pre-Watson/Crick position. In addition to being completely beside the point and unable to defend even the outdated model it defends , my opponent's argument suffers from many other problems. While I intend to continue to focus on my own positive argument, I will highlight these problems as space allows. [4] "The Sequence Hypothesis," Crick [5] "Directed Panspermia," Crick and Orgel, 1972 [6] " Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life," Yockey, 2005 [7] "Life is Semiosis - the Biosemiotic View of Nature," Barbieri [8] "Evolution and Me," National Review 7/17/06, Gilder [9] "Cybernetics," 2nd edition, p. 132 [10]"The predominant product (produced by the Miller/Urey experiment) was a sticky, black substance made up of numerous carbon atoms strung together in what was essentially a tar," Thompson and Harrub. Note that Thompson and Harrub are merely stating here that which is commonly reported. The fact is that biologically relevant molecules do not hang around, waiting for other biologically relevant molecules to bind to. The physical world contains many more non-relevant molecules than relevant. This is major problem for any purely physicochemical OOL model