The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed

Thanks Pro.I. Preface:The distinction between inferred design and (traditional) ID is understood, but given that no argument was made for the ID of life, which the title of this debate specifies, I proceeded to provide my own arguments. And from Pro's second round arguments, these arguments remain very much relevant. Pro shoots himself in the foot by not advocating for any IDer, since it greatly reduces the number of testable traits of design to determine it.II. The arguments against ID:Pro has so far dropped my argument regarding purpose in life. The argument formally follows like so:P1. All things designed are done so with purposeP2. Life intrinsically has no purposeC1. Life is not designedP1 is defended by similar reasoning to what Pro uses to justify 'design attributes', without purpose there is no reason for a design to arise, and would violate the PSR. P2 I have defended in 2 ways, first are the long timescales involved in life, which is a good fraction if the age of the universe. Second is the lack of useful products life produces to what would need to be a highly advanced intelligence.Pro also attempts to circumvent criticism of ID by mapping the arguments in the his cycle:P1. The living cell was not intelligently designed because there is no evidence for an intelligent designer.P2. There is no intelligent designer because there is no evidence of anything being intelligently designed.C1. Where ever your at in the cycle refer to the other premise.However this of course is not how the criticism is performed. One makes the following argument against ID:P1. Anything intelligently designed requires an intelligent designerP2. No intelligent designer existed at the OOLC1. Before life existed, there was no intelligent designerOf course the premise in contention is P2, and Pro would need to show how this is unsound. I already made the argument that all IDers known are life-based. Moreover this 'circular logic' isn't even an argument, as it depicts a process rather than an argument, and could easily be broken by inserting 'there is evidence in the cell that it is intelligently designed' or 'there is evidence of an intelligent designer', or by showing evidence of examples of life that are intelligently designed (in the context of the origin of life).A good argument for ID will be that it will have established examples of life being intelligently designed, perhaps on planets, around the time of OOL on Earth, if the probability of an intelligent designer is greater than that it occurring non-intelligently, then we can conclude that ID is the best explanation for life on that instance. Which if course, Pro has not done.III. Pro's argument for ID:It is unclear what pro is attempting to show with his initial argument, as no conclusion logically follows from them:P1. An intelligent designer constrains, refines, arranges (CFA) natural processes to produce a fabricationP2. A fabrication will have a significant number of attributes arising from the design processI will attempt to formulate Pro's argument for him.P1. Life contains a number of attributes arising from a design processP2. A fabrication will have a significant number of attributes arising from the design processC1. Life is a fabricationP2. An intelligent designer CFA's natural processes to produce a fabricationC2. An intelligent designed CFA'd natural processes to produce lifeThis argument is fallacious, of course, but there was no argument to argue against otherwise. C1 is a non sequitur from P1 and P2, since a correct P2 would need to be "P2ii. All things with a significant number of attributes arising from a design process". Which is a Premise that Pro has not sustained whatsoever. Even if we accepted C1, C2 is also invalid, as the correct P2 would be "All fabrications are from an intelligent designer that CFA'd natural processes to produce it"IV. Design attributes:"This states that the shape and edges of a part are directly related to the material the part is made of. Each breaking of this natural principle is a point for design. Each repetitious breaking, as a whole, is counted as one point."This is one of the more interesting takes on design, but by what reason do we have to accept this statement? Pro provides zero argumentation for such, and as a matter of fact, most things that we know are designed are done so with simplicity in mind, extraneous 'repetitious breaking' is a trait of poorly, or non-designed things."If the environment needed for one part is destructive to another and can not be nested to sustain 2 parts it is a point for design"The example Pro uses, is an already 'advanced' form of life, why should we accept that the halobacteria did not evolve from a simpler precursor when we have abundant evidence of other life forms doing the same non-intelligently over the life course of the Earth? Pro makes the point that before life there was no evolution, so it appears that he is now arguing against abiogenesis, which does not address the formation of halobacteria, it addresses the formation of a much, much simpler organism than this. [4]Moreover Pro is now making it crystal clear his argument is indeed, another negative argument against non-intelligence to show intelligence, which I have already argued is unsound.V. Negative Argument against RNA:Firstly, this is an argument ad ignorantum, jumping from 'I don't know how it could occur non-intelligently, therefore design' falls flat the second a non-intelligent explanation is found. The search space of possible ways for it to occur needs to be fully addressed, and the other variables, such as the number of cards one has to deal, the versatility in the order they can be dealt and still have a 'winning hand', and the number attempts one gets at making a winner.While the stereochemistry of life today lacks a cogent explanation, it doesn't necessarily have to be a problem at all. Pro argues that connecting a polymeric chain of racemic (left and right headed) monomers will yield a useless material. I would argue against the fact that such a chain is perhaps unlikely to arise in the first place. One potential explanation is well understood in the kinetic resolution of chiral compounds, one chiral molecule will preferentially react with a specific enantiomer of another molecule, due to thermodynamic/kinetic reasons.One famous example is the reaction of menthol with mandelic acid,[4] with each specific isotope 'choosing' which isomer of mandelic acid it reacts with, based on its own stereochemistry. Now extrapolate this to RNA, with each nucleotide 'choosing' a specific isomer of other nucleotides from the racemic mixture to oligomerize with. Ergo, the 'mutually destructive effect' is nowhere near as significant. I am not claiming this is the solution, but the simple fact that a plausible pathway exists boldly highlights the fact this is simply a bad argument ad ignorantum. Moreover chiral amplification of nucleoside precursor has already been reported several times.[6]VI. Chemical arrangement of information:Pro's final argument attempts to establish that DNA is information, which falls pretty much in line of what 'mainstream' ID attempts to show. I freely grant that there is an appearance of 'meaningfulness' in the arrangement of cellular structures. However, this is one gigantic appeal to intuition, as it does not set an objective criteria for determining the 'meaningfulness' of any particular arrangement.Moreover, we already have non-intelligent mechanisms (such as evolution) that would drive the formation of what appear to be meaningful arrangements as previously discussed.VII. Conclusion:Pro has a long way to go before establishing that life is ID.VIII. References:4. http://www.nature.com...5. http://rsbm.royalsocietypublishing.org...6. http://www.nature.com...