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

The definitions provided by Joe in Round 2 are indeed quite vague and become even less differentiable with his conflation of many other terms. The definition of UI includes “abstractly represented message” which requires a definition and explanation in itself. So does “linear digital PI” in the definition for symbol system. Throughout the debate he conflated the terms: DNA, message, universal information, prescriptive information, code, syntax, language, sign, and symbol. Regardless of all the possible interpretations of these definitions, the greatest source of confusion comes from these statements: “Information is Information, neither matter nor energy” and “UI is an immaterial, abstract reality.” If information is neither matter nor energy than how could it possibly exist? This entire debate my opponent has ignored providing any type of proof of this so called “abstract reality” where UI allegedly exists. This debate is entirely riddled with semantics because of the horde of synonyms, metaphors, and analogies given to DNA. DNA is nothing more than complex chemistry which has developed through natural evolutionary processes. Positing abstract representations that are instantiated into physicality (through some unexplained unfalsifiable process) and correspondent to DNA is indeed a vague, unnecessary, and clear violation of Ockham’s razor. The debate has become quite redundant and somewhat boring so I will respond to my opponents Round 5 statements swiftly. Joe states: “He claims the physical process by which a stop codon executes computational halting IS the information.” I never said the physical process IS the information that is either a desperate lie, or an oblivious misunderstanding of my argument. I explained how specific stop codons in effect stop a ribosome from continuing to link amino acids. This does not mean I believe in an abstract UI which holds some sort of “stop” message that is instantiated physically. By now my opponent knows very well that I do not believe in UI to be existent so I am inclined to believe he is desperately lying. Joe states he offered a simple falsification of his argument in this form: “provide a single empirical example of natural processes creating UI.” As an side, if I did provide such an example, it wouldn’t disprove that an intelligent agency created UI. Joe’s claim is unfalsifiable because the very existence of UI is impossible to prove or disprove due to it’s being nonphysical but abstract. Joe says: “The answer is because we observe it.” And claims that is his answer to me asking for “(genetic) material symbol system.” No I asked for proof of the existence of abstract UI stop conflating terminology here. I am aware that genetic materials exist and that symbol systems exist physically. I am not aware of some abstract UI nor is it possible to observe it (how convenient). Joe states my wiki article labeled [10] is: “outdated, slanted, contradictory Wiki article he has cited.” This has to be the most predictable response so far. Joe claims to be seeking the truth yet he has constantly rejected every piece of evidence presented to him thus far. He rejects ALL experiments regarding the creation of amino acids from organic materials as well as all the other experiments relating to the origins of life. He huddles with his one savior of data (80% of DNA is functional) from the heavily criticized ENCORE group and will continue to do so in light of any actually reliable data. He later states “65% of DNA is known junk” is an undefended claim in the article. Here is only (1) of the 10 footnoted sources present in that article: [11. http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca...] This won’t matter for Joe though; rest assured he will find a way to deny any real information and suggest abstract information at the same time. Just to repeat my key points: If these biological processes 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. ALL changes in DNA are allowable in terms of the resulting output and a great deal of mutations (beneficial or not) are constantly generated. The trial and error function of evolution makes it such that DNA need no intelligence behind it at all. Furthermore DNA has sequences that are highly repetitive which even further alienates it from any type of intelligent or human language/code. I would like to extend all my round 2 arguments as none of them have actually been shown to be inaccurate or false rather they are asserted to be (to no effect). I find it incredibly dishonest of my opponent to state that I “bring no empirical evidence to the table at all.” It is cute because he is now trying to use my statements in Round 5. This statement is clearly indefensible, I provided the best possible evidence for abiogenesis in Round 2 which is in itself much more than simple speculation. I provided more evidence of junk DNA and the physical process behind stop codons in Round 4. I invite the audience to see it all for themselves. My opponent made a note of addressing new arguments in the comments section. Of course he can do so but I urge voters to vote on what is strictly within the context of the debate. The only reason I desire this is because I simply do not have the time to respond to each comment (thoroughly) due to my double commitment of being a full-time student with a part-time job. I thank my opponent for the lively debate but alas it has come to an end. The resolution falls as all the evidence, probabilities, and rational inferences converge towards one satisfying answer: Abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origin of life in this universe.