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

Thanks to Pro for the opportunity to debate.I'll refute Pro's hypothesis as evidence of Intelligence Design on the grounds that each of his 3 premises are less than sound.I. DNA is a type of code.A. Let's get a definition of "code" from OED:1. a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy.B. Genetic coding is a human construct used to describe the molecular structure and function of genes. 1. In the context of genetic observation, it may be appropriate to describe DNA as a code of genetic instructions. 2. In this context, DNA sequencing can be seen a substitution for the elaborate interactions of nucleotides, but the coding aspect is strictly for human convenience and not inherent to genes.C. Strictly speaking, DNA is a molecule that carries genetic instructions. 1. Neither the molecule nor its nucleobase perform any kind of symbolic function or substitution. 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 ti sound 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. 3. DNA is not a symbol that represents a molecular function, that molecule's function is defined by its shape and composition and never acts in any other way. D. Therefore, DNA is not a code.II. The only known source by which all types of codes form is intelligence.A. Codes don't form, they are applied. Codes are are objects, not subjects.B. There are plenty of example of non-intelligent codes. 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: 3. Even rocks offer a code to understanding geologic history: When was this area underwater? When was the last earthquake? C. Codification is a human application to patterns. When some element of a pattern frequently repeats, we substitute a label for the purposes of simplification. III. Despite decades of extensive research there are no natural means by which functional DNA is known to form abiotically.A. This premise is a bit of a non-sequiter following the DNA=code, code=intelligence, formulation. How is this premise meant to support DNA=intelligence? 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?B. Simple abiotic experiments like Stanley Miller's have demonstrated that most of the essential organic molecules form naturally in the space of a week just by boiling water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen and precipitating evaporates through an electrical charge. Ribose is the tricky molecule, but has been abiotically reproduced in a number of experiments1. Success in synthesizing pyrimidine ribonucleotides under conditions that might have existed in the early earth was reported in 2009. [1]2. Ribose can be synthesized by the treatment of formaldehyde with calcium hydroxide, molecules commonly found near deep oceanic vents. Experiments have established that ribose can and does form under the specific pressure and temperature ranges documented in hydrothermic environments. [2]3. So, while ribose synthesis is tricky and conditional, it would be false to say that DNA has not been reproduced abiotically.IV. It is therefore logical and follows historical scientific methodology to conclude that an ID explanation for the origin of life's DNA code is the hypothesis most likely to be true.A. I have shown that all 3 of Pro's premises are invalid.1. DNA is not a code.2. Codes are human constructs, and humans apply codification to all kinds of natural patterns without necessarily inferring an intelligent source from those patterns.3. DNA can be reproduced abiotically.B. Even if the premises themselves were valid, the argument has a kind of anthropocentric circularity. In ancient times, humans discerned patterns in the stars and so applied meanings and portent to astrological signs. But is the Zodiac a code that proves an intelligent arrangement of the stars? No. Those signs are a human application that allows us to organize the geography of space. Likewise, genetic coding is a human application to describe the chemical reactions at work in DNA. C. One undeniable fact regarding the origin of life is that we humans have insufficient data. We are limited in our understanding of the universe by our confinement to a single solar system in a single galaxy. We barely have the computing power to calculate the infinitesimal fraction of the Universe we are able to observe, much less explore. Even our understanding of observable concepts like human intelligence and sentience is vague and limited. Why then are we so eager to form conclusions about the origins of life? Acknowledging how much we don't know seems like the wiser course.[1] http://www.nature.com...[2] http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl...