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

I DNA is not a codePro arguesIf you still want to use that argument to say that DNA does not qualify as a type of code then you must also admit that you don"t consider computer programming to either.I think computer code is a fine analogy for genetic code, both are human applications to complex patterns. Using Pro's analogy, DNA would correspond to a CPU rather than computer code. DNA is no more a code than a CPU is a code. Likewise, computer code is no more proof that computers are intelligent than genetic code is proof of intelligent design. All the code is made by man. II. The application of codes to patterns does not denote intelligence within those patternsPro arguesYou would have to demonstrate how these languages were formed by non-intelligent means for this point to be an effective counter.Not so. 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.III. Abiotic reproduction of DNAPro argues:The study gives no indication of how these nucleotides could have arranged themselves in a way that is "informational". Strings of letters can be written out at random, but they do not contain information in the conventional sense until something of intelligence, ie. people, arranges them in a certain way that gives them meaning. The RNA and DNA in living organisms are not randomly assembled, their sequences are arranged in such a way that they achieve a purpose which is the propagation of more copies of themselves. There has been some success with random RNA libraries that were able to produce sequences that were able to perform a limited number of relatively simple tasks present in living cells. However these achievements are analogous to producing a few short words when you string out random sequences of letters. Creating an isolated word here or there using this method is possible, but to get multiple words to form next to each other in a way that makes sense gets exponentially more and more improbable. These kind of accomplishments are miniscule when considering that the information present in the genomes of bacteria are akin to a ten volume encyclopaedism if not more so. A living cell consists of thousands of different kinds of chemical reactions all happening simultaneously and harmoniously working together for a common cause. The random RNA library method may be able to produce isolated strands with certain small scale functionality, but to get sequences in parallel that work together gets exponentially more difficult to achieve the higher you try to go with it, just like the case with random letter generation. And understand that the more improbable the situation gets the larger the libraries you need, which makes any proposed scenario for creating such RNA pools in the first place less and less likely to be possible. It sounds like we are in agreement that the elements of DNA are abiotically reproducible. 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. 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. In short, your complaint is that those constituent components have not yet evolved. Scientists have only succeeded in replicating the constituent components in the last 20 years. 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. This takes us back to my round 1 argument: 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? Did Alamogordo disprove that an intelligence designed the Sun? Pro ignored this argument entirely and failed to respond when I asked how this argument is meant to support dna=code/code=design/dna=design.I'm not really buying the meteorite analogy or how it is intended to refute my closing argument regarding insufficient data. The advantage of studying meteor impacts is that we have many craters to observe, and have had the good fortune the creation of impact craters. When a new crater is found, we have a lot of discrete incidents to compare. We do not have the same preponderance of data in the case of DNA. We may or may not have some interstellar organic molecules that have formed independent on earth's dynamic environment. We may soon have some real comparisons with organic molecules found on Mars. This hardly seems like enough data to make conclusions about how often or how likely organic molecules form DNA. 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 (A mistake that early human observers of meteor impacts often made.)