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

I appreciate joepalcsak for extrapolating on his round one definitions and piecing together a new argument relating DNA to universal information (UI). Regardless of the new argument my opponent still has yet to provide a shred of evidence which would suggest his position to be true. He relies solely on the soundness of his argument. In this round I will show the points of inconsistency in his arguments and respond to his rebuttals of mine. Rebuttal to Round 2 Argument Comparing DNA to Universal Information (UI) is an equivocation fallacy. In an evolutionary sense DNA could be loosely comparable to a type of information represented as a sequence of nucleotide triplets (codons) but it is all within the grounds of complex biological chemistry (as opposed to something abstract and immaterial posited by UI). The useful DNA sequences with proper transcription definitely have potential to eventuality produce various physical traits through transcription of DNA into protein structures and eventually whole organisms. But no physics and chemistry-based process in between requires any appeal to anything metaphysical or any intelligent agency, in fact the inefficiency our biological processes and the many errors involved in DNA transcription infer otherwise. The only symbols that arise from these codons are the ones we assign to them: A for Adenine, G for Guanine, C for Cytosine, and T for Thymine (in DNA and U for Uracil in RNA). The only reason we assign these symbols is so we can specify, communicate, and study them in a more precise manner. Therefore DNA is not at all a message or a language in the same sense as a phrase in English they are chemical structures which have evolved over a very long span of time to produce a wide array of simple and complex organisms. Premise (2) is just another unfalsifiable assumption. Rebuttal to Round 3 Arguments The central issue with joepalcsak’s argument is that he assigns DNA to be some sort of non-physical type of symbolic information. He quotes, "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" and "DNA is a neutral carrier of information, independent of its physics and chemistry.” The main problem here is that my opponent fails to recognize that DNA is in fact nothing more than complex chemistry, and it is exactly what one would expect if evolution by natural selection would take place. Yes specific codons do eventually code for specific body parts but none of this would take place if it were not for all the physics and chemistry which systematically transcribe these codons into protein structures one by one. The entirety of the process works perfectly without any assumption of some nonphysical/symbolic information system and especially without any intelligent design. My opponent fails to reveal to the audience that over 98% of human DNA is junk DNA, so they do not encode any meaningful or functional protein sequences. Yes, there is some evidence that small portions of this junk DNA still may have some other miniscule functions (such as being transcribed into functional non-coding RNA sequences) but it is not conceivable that all of this DNA is actually utilized by cells. A significant portion of the non-coding DNA isn’t even transcribed in some cells at all. This serves as two points against any type of intelligent creation as well as against any meaningful symbol as a large portion of DNA is inactive and makes for a very inefficient design flaw. Furthermore many of the biological processes involved in transcribing this DNA are vulnerable and actually highly likely to perform errors in DNA replication. This is what leads us all to have slight genetic mutations and diverse physical characteristics. These various mutations may be beneficial, detrimental, or completely neutral for any particular organism. If this biological process were highly efficient, there were less transcription errors, less junk DNA, and mutations were significantly more beneficial then we may then begin to suspect some type of intelligent creator but all the evidence thus far says otherwise. The error prone, inefficient, chemically composed and overall indifferent biological processes which govern our cells and our existence is exactly what one would expect from abiogenesis along with evolution through natural selection. My opponent may add as many unnecessary assumptions as he likes but he is blatantly breaking Ockham’s razor as well as Hitchens razor which states, “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” Joepalcsak writes: “ …it was scientific discovery that led them to realize the essential role of intelligent agency in the OOL[Origin of Life], and it was their worldview which drove them to conclude that "aliens done it.” Even if aliens DID create DNA for life on earth, this would still not prove that intelligent agency is the best explanation for the origin of life in this universe. The aliens themselves could have developed through completely naturalistic causes in their own environment. There are many different pathways to abiogenesis which I listed in round 2 we may not know with absolute certainty which occurred or even if all possibilities have been listed. Nonetheless, we can say these naturalistic explanations are much more likely than some intelligent agency because they actually have various sources of evidence. Joepalcsak writes: "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!" I do not see any reason to assume that symbols are immaterial. Symbols are represented by various physical mediums how does my opponent even know that something nonphysical exists (I include energy as physical)? Colloquially, information is some amount of data, code or text that is stored, sent, received or manipulated in any medium so yes it exists as materials. I do not see any reason why my materialism is challenged by this quote, you have not shown any inconsistencies in my position nor shown any evidence to support the assertion that symbols or information are anything more than material representations of what we conceive in our brains. Joepalcsak writes: Indeed, in his opening argument, my opponent promises a "mountain of evidence," but delivers instead a mountain of speculation. Well I did provide tons of evidence just look through all the possible sources referenced in my wiki entries and other linked articles. No amount of evidence will ever tell us with absolute certainty which exact path actually took place 3.5 billion years ago. It is long past any direct empirical observation and is indeed impossible (with the limited technology we have now). The best we can do is replicate early Earth conditions and see if organic compounds form which they do spontaneously and in abundance! I’m sorry joepalcsak that scientists are only being too honest and humble in speculating (with valid experimental data) things that may have happened 3.5 billion years ago. I do not have the intellectual dishonesty nor the audacity that my opponent seems to have in asserting life was created through an intelligent agency with no evidence at all. My opponent blatantly mischaracterizes what DNA truly is throughout this debate using customized definitions and semantic games for his benefit. Considering that my opponent has yet to provide a shred of evidence for his position, I do not expect any to be forthcoming and it will be his greatest downfall among the others. I await my opponent’s response.