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

I thank Con for their reply and acceptance of this debate. "2. There is no legend that allows that molecule to stand for something else. In coding, there is an element of arbitrariness in the assignment of symbols. There is no particular reason, for example, that the crossed lines in the letter "T" should stand for the tisound English speakers make, we have just arrived at that particular construct by tradition and shared participation. If everybody agreed tomorrow, there's no reason we couldn't allow the letter "U" to stand for the ti sound. There is nothing arbitrary about DNA." This is incorrect. It is not physically necessary that the codon CAA signify glutamine. It would be possible for CAA to denote any other of the amino acids if its respective tRNAs were modified. While it is not arbitrary in the same way that language code used by people is, the association between the codon and the amino acid is still to an extent an abstract one. The same is true for computer programming. If 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. "1. Scientists have discerned 34 different types of humpback whale sounds with distinct meanings like invitations to mate or mothers calling for their calves. 2. Likewise, birds advertise for mates, mark territory, or warn of approaching predators via codes of elaborate syllables. Here's a graphic showing the syllabic structure of zebra finch song:" You would have to demonstrate how these languages were formed by non-intelligent means for this point to be an effective counter. Also animal and human languages are of a different type (I"ll refer to as type 1) of code than that of DNA and computers (type 2). With type 2 there are physical characters that chemically and/or physically interact with a system to cause it to perform a function. The specific order of the characters is significant, with different sequences producing different results. Also there is a level of abstractness or potential for interchangeability involved as I mentioned. Type 1 codes convey messages that flow from one intelligent source to another. The code is read, heard, seen, felt, etc., and then the message is consciously interpreted. Such is not the case with DNA or computer programming, as neither cells nor computers are conscious entities. Instead the code, via chemical and/or physical interactions, forces the system to respond in a certain way. "1. Success in synthesizing pyrimidine ribonucleotides under conditions that might have existed in the early earth was reported in 2009. [1] [1] http://www.nature.com...; There was an article in the NYT discussing this study: http://www.nytimes.com...; This experiment posited was a hypothesis for how two of the four nucleotides could have emerged through natural processes. Whether or not the described process is probable or even possible still seems up for debate, as Dr. Shapiro pointed out that one of the starting materials needed is very unlikely to have been found in a pure state on the early earth as it is "quickly destroyed by other chemicals". Dr. Sutherland"s response seems very weak. He says that cyano-acetylene (the starting material in question) is the fastest consumed chemical in his reaction. This is only another illustration of the chemical"s high reactivity rate and doesn"t undo the problem of finding it in a pure form in nature. He also defends by pointing out that it has been detected on Titan, so there"s "no reason" it wouldn"t be present on the early earth. This is completely ridiculous as Titan"s and Earth"s atmospheric and surface conditions are extremely different, not to mention that the average surface temperature on Titan is W22;179.2 "C. Lower temperatures result in decreased rates of chemical reactions, so it would make sense that cyano-acetylene would be more likely found on Titan than on Earth as it is far more difficult for nearby chemicals to react with it. 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 encyclopedia 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. What I just said should also address your second source. "it would be false to say that DNA has not been reproduced abiotically." It is true to say that functional DNA has not been reproduced by natural means, which is what I originally said. I don"t see how your last two paragraphs explain why my main argument is false. However let me give an analogous example to illustrate how my argument follows historical science methodology/logic: Let"s say scientists discover a large crater on the ocean floor. They first suspect that the crater was either caused by a volcanic eruption or a meteorite. Upon closer inspection they observe that the crater floor is lower than the surrounding environment, that the crater rim is circular and that there is an ejecta blanket covering the surrounding area. Because the scientists know that this combination of features are caused primarily by meteorite impacts, and are not known to be formed by any other natural phenomenon, they logically assume that a meteor hypothesis is the hypothesis most likely to be true. The reasoning of the ID argument I proposed is analogous to the method of deduction used in this scenario.