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

My opponent accuses me of misunderstanding his argument. However, as I read his rebuttals the statement remains ironic. It seems that Joe would invoke this statement regardless of my argument as long as it is not in agreement with his. It is imminent in his strategy to degrade his opponents and try to portray them as confused in conjunction with his vague definitions and disingenuous argumentative approach. In all of my arguments throughout the debate I took the time to assess my opponent’s arguments in only the most impactful possible interpretation. I demand precision especially in semantic riddled debates. I will continue to assess all new arguments in an intellectually honest way and have/will back up every statement I made thus far. I accused my opponent of not providing any relevant evidence pertaining to the resolution of the debate and I stick with it 100%. Quote mining specific individuals who agree with your position or made some analogy between DNA and code does not in any sense count as evidence. The theory in which you are trying to prove (by your own definition) is innately unfalsifiable, untestable, and therefore you will never be able to produce any such evidence. I touched on this point briefly with my appeal to a blatant violation of Ockham’s Razor but it seems exceedingly significant to extrapolate further. My opponent says: “It is not the symbols themselves that are immaterial; it is the abstract representation - the information flowing from the specific sequence of symbols that is immaterial. “ He also labeled my quote, “I do not see any reason to assume that symbols are immaterial” as a fundamental misunderstanding of UI. He gets desperately nitpicky here because I didn’t say symbol “representations” so all of a sudden I have a profound misunderstanding. The point I was conveying is that how do you even know these abstract messages/immaterial information/whatever you want to call it actually even exist at all? How does my opponent know that individual sequences of DNA have some corresponding abstract message/action/intended purpose? Where and how would this abstract information exist? In some metaphysical dimension? In our brains/minds? What is the message, action, and intended purpose of the sequence of physical nucleotides AATGCTCGGA? The best Joe can muster is: “There is no physico-chemical determinism involved in the codon assignments... I pointed out earlier that TAA represents a "stop" command.” TAA is one of many stop codons which only through physio-chemical reactions will in eventuality terminate some mRNA translation [8. http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Specifically, “Stop codons signal the termination of this process by binding release factors, which cause the ribosomal subunits to disassociate, releasing the amino acid chain” [9.http://en.wikipedia.org...]. My opponent should have chosen a codon that has not yet been well studied perhaps it would strengthen his argument in his eyes. This entire process doesn’t require any abstract message to be explained, it is nothing more than a physical sequence with physical consequences. So no, my opponent has not provided any relevant evidence to show that abstract information is possible, let alone that it exists. I must also add that even if it were true that physical DNA somehow did correspond to abstractly represented information this would not prove that any intelligent agency created the first life form. Therefore, my opponent is again mistaken in assuming I agree with his second premise. I must apologize to the audience as well as my opponent for claiming that 98% of human DNA is junk DNA (from: http://en.wikipedia.org...), apparently the more correct statement is that 65% of human DNA is known to be junk DNA. There is a significant difference in these two terms which neither I nor my opponent seemed to realize. I found a brilliant article [10. http://rationalwiki.org...] which clears this up. Noncoding DNA discusses DNA that does not code for proteins but may still have some other utility in cell processes. Junk DNA is DNA that has no functionality whatsoever. It goes on to show that 8.7% of the human genome is known to be protein coding and noncoding DNA, 65% is known to be junk DNA, and the other 26.3% is unknown but most likely still junk DNA. This article also exposes how my opponent can inflate functioning DNA to a dishonest 80% using selective data from ENCODE. The reason is that ENCODE members assume functionality as their null hypothesis. All other real scientists who seek truth assume non-functionality until evidence is forthcoming. Bioinformatics is an interdisciplinary scientific field that develops methods for storing, retrieving, organizing and analyzing biological data. Says absolutely nothing about abstract representations of DNA sir be honest. Biosemiotics is a growing field of semiotics and biology that studies the production and interpretation of signs and codes in the biological realm. Basically they do not approach biology from the perspective of molecules and chemistry rather as “signs” conveyed and interpreted by other living signs in a variety of ways. This doesn’t count as evidence towards abstract information either, why would it? It is a truly useless field that cannot be categorized under any significant scientific discipline. People are basically assigning and interpreting biological processes as symbols/meanings, what a waste of time. Throughout the debate my opponent conflates the terms: DNA, message, universal information, prescriptive information, code, syntax, language, and sign. These are all ultimately metaphoric and help us understand DNA but can all be effectively reduced to physio-chemical interactions. DNA is not language because it has no abstract or objective meaning no matter how much my opponent likes to assert it. Nor is DNA like computer code as it has no operands. Take the example of 200 codons vs. 200 letters. If the codons correspond to a specific protein, and the codons were significantly randomly rearranged, these codons would most likely still code for a protein (yes probably a different one). However this is not the case for language or code. Only very limited combinations of language/code will produce meaningful or valid output. Rearranging 200 letters in any code or phrase will almost never yield any valid message but will yield many crashes. This is why DNA doesn’t need any intelligence behind it; ALL changes in DNA are allowable in terms of the resulting output. Many other variants of DNA mutations that do exist still allow the organism to continue without any degrading effects. The biologically complex and adaptive life forms we see today are indeed naturally realized through the trial and error process of evolution. I believe my opponent accused me denying some challenge: “to defend a purely naturalistic origin for the UI of life.” I don’t agree that UI is “of” life in the sense that it corresponds to DNA. That is what you have failed to prove since Round 3. The only information system I think exists is entirely man-made and is real rather than abstract. We humans assign meaning to a great number of things but I do not agree that DNA has some abstract representative message or objective meaning, that is unfalsifiable nonsense. It has the same weight in evidence of the claim that: “the entire universe was created 20 seconds ago including all of our memories.” Next time make me a valid challenge I am eager to answer anything. I had to delete 1000+ characters from this round to post it. So if I missed something please excuse it and refer to it with enthusiasm in the next round. Although I do try to maintain some level of respect for my opponent’s professionalism and skill as a debater, his arguments as a whole involves an unimpressive and wasteful semantic game based on vaguely defined terminology, quote mining, and unfalsifiable theories for which no evidence exists.