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

Orangatang will not get away with his charges against me of "vague definitions," and constructing a "semantic riddled debate." Perhaps he has forgotten that I devoted a significant portion of round 2 to providing precise definitions for terms relevant to this debate, adding precise definitions for syntax and semantics in round 3, along with clear examples from both human language and genetic language. He does address my genetic language example of a stop codon. At the risk of being again accused of "nitpicking," and portraying him as confused, I need to point to yet another profound misunderstanding on his part. He claims the physical process by which a stop codon executes computational halting IS the information. Information - whether it is computer information, musical notation, or the English or genetic language - is instantiated into physicality through symbol systems, but the physical medium is not the message!!! This is a huge point! The ink and paper on which Lincoln scribbled the Gettysburg Address is the physical medium, not the message. The physical process by which your power point presentation is stored and transmitted is not the message. The physical processes by which genetic information is stored, shared and processed are not the message. It is surprising that someone who lists programming as an activity on his DDO profile would attempt to argue otherwise. We can describe the physical process by which computational halting is executed, but the physical process is not the decision to terminate the program at a particular point. In nature, TAA is thyamine, adenine, adenine, nothing more. In the rybozome, it programs the execution of (or symbolically represents) a stop command. Orangatang claims that the "theory (I)... am trying to prove is innately unfalsifiable, untestable." In fact,I have offered a very simple, concrete falsification: provide a single empirical example of natural processes creating UI. For the record, I have now invited this falsification in each of the last three rounds! Every OOL experiment amounts to a test seeking to falsify agent creation! One wonders, given that life is information based and always proceeds from life, what it would take to falsify abiogenesis? Orangatang asks how we know that this (genetic) material symbol system exists. The answer is because we observe it. "A linear string of discreet symbols that prescribes non-trivial function" precisely describes human language, computer language, and genetic language. Crick was the first to recognize this. "What is the message, action, and intended purpose of the sequence of physical nucleotides AATGCTCGGA?," con asks. My answer: the digital linear instructions for either the construction of a three dimensional functional protein needed in a living system via a 3-1 bijection code, , or for controls regulating the process. This process is aided by splicing codes, editing codes, and many other brilliantly organized information systems which constantly communicate with each other, analyzing data, and implementing solutions. Con wants us to believe that these very real information processes are nothing more than the product of our imagination. But this is not possible. Such data processing goes on in every single living cell. It has been a reality of life for billions of years before we came along! We did not construct it. We discovered it, and only recently. I have pointed out that as we replace our ignorance with knowledge, we continue to discover more and more function for the genome. Note that in the space of one round of debate, Orangatang has gone from claiming that 98% of the genome is "junk" to 65%. That's quite a leap! It is gratifying to see that he has begun to see the light! I only hope his research will take him beyond the outdated, slanted, contradictory Wiki article he has cited[16]. Orangatang correctly notes that we cannot know the origin of life. The question before us here is this: Given what we do know, what is most reasonable to believe about the origin of life? Here are some of the relevant facts: *UI undergirds all life *Intelligent agency is the only known cause capable of creating UI *natural processes have never been observed to produce the abstract representational meaning of UI *Even the best hypothetical abiogenesis proposal is operationally falsified (as a point of reference, consider that peer reviewed literature estimates the chance formation of a single protein at 1 in 10^77[17]. This is well beyond both Borel's Theorem and the Universal Plausibility Metric. It also puts the lie to this round 4 claim: "If...codons were significantly randomly rearranged, these codons would still code for a protein." Not even close!). My case springs from our observation that the genome IS an information storage and processing system, that this system is what makes all life possible, that this system operates in every single living cell, and that the more we study this system, the more we recognize that we are looking at an interdependent holistic data sharing network. This is empirical reality. My case acknowledges our most current understandings. I have called to the stand a collection of formidable witnesses. Their testimony is magnified in two ways: 1) each is a recognized giant and pioneer in his respective relevant discipline, 2) most, if not all of them would prefer that the truth were otherwise(contra con's claim that they agree with me, they seek a naturalistic OOL). I have pointed to new fields of research that have sprung from our new knowledge (note con's own definitions of the fields. His own terms - "data, signs, codes" - only make sense in a UI context). Life is a state of existence far from equilibrium. This state is achieved and maintained by the most advanced information storage and processing system we have ever encountered. We have every reason to believe that this system is a necessary condition for all life, to include any other life form that may exist elsewhere in the universe. We have absolutely no reason to believe otherwise. On the other hand, my opponent brings no empirical evidence to the table at all: abiogenesis simply states that it happened. No good evidence exists, only speculations springing from the faith that it must be so. He insists on defending a pre-Watson/Crick paradigm which views the revelations of the past six decades as a dark, mysterious forest which must not be entered, and still believes that most of a genome that is now known to be almost completely functional, is "junk." Most of his case is an exercise in rationalizing why he does not need to engage the issue of genetic information! I believe I have earned your vote, but more than that, I urge you to consider the implications that arise from the reality of the UI of life. For 30 years I believed as Orangatang does. Sometimes we need to decide whether we will cling to the truth or cling to our worldview. Sometimes, unless we allow truth to guide us, we cannot have both. [16] This article merely asserts that 65% of the genome is "know junk" without defending the claim at all. It downplays the small amount of function that it concedes. It still calls this portion of the genome "non-coding." It may be non-protein coding, but it certainly codes for something! Telling is the following: "It is assumed that the unknown 26.3% is most likely junk." Why, in an era where hardly a month goes by without the discovery of more function, is this an assumption? It is both nonsense and bad math to assert that 65% of a genome which is known to be 80% functional ( a figure that is constantly rising) is junk [17] Axe, 2008 Note: every argument deserves a response. Should con introduce a new argument in his conclusion, I reserve the right to address it in the comment section of this debate. For example, there is a TED video that is popular with abiogenesis fans. It is very misleading. If introduced, it should not enjoy unique immunity.