A simple case for intelligent design

[leroy]

People tend to complicate things, but the concept of inteligetn design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design: If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)


The objective method that Dembski and others propose is “specified complexity” something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”


The argument is that life is specified and complex

even the simplest life forms would require many amino acids (1) organized in a very specific order and pattern (2) and nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that they would produce functional self replicating “things”


*For simplicity lets define life as: something organic that can reproduce.


In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People tend to complicate things, but the concept of inteligetn design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

Hold it, before you even start there is no "theory of ID". You clearly do not know what a theory is. For a concept to be a theory it has to jump through quite a few hoops. Odds are that you do not even have a "hypothesis of ID". Tell me, what reasonable test could show ID to be wrong?

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

So what are the objective ways?

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design: If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)

Fine, you need to come up with some objective methods.

The objective method that Dembski and others propose is “specified complexity” something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

Many parts does not imply intelligence. Any mass has "many parts".

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

Still not indicative of intelligence. A crystal has an "organized pattern".

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”

This seems to be rather nebulous. How is anything found in biology "independent from the forces of nature"?

The argument is that life is specified and complex

even the simplest life forms would require many amino acids (1) organized in a very specific order and pattern (2) and nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that they would produce functional self replicating “things”


*For simplicity lets define life as: something organic that can reproduce.


In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

Life fails the third nebulous test. A fuzzy test is worthless since it is interpretation at best. Plus you failed the first qualification to be a theory. What reasonable test would refute ID?

 

[Brickjectivity]

In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument

Usually most see it as creationism.

and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

In what way does it differ from creationism?

there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial

How does Evolution not qualify as intelligent design?

 

[leroy]

Life fails the third nebulous test. A fuzzy test is worthless since it is interpretation at best. Plus you failed the first qualification to be a theory. What reasonable test would refute ID?

This seems to be rather nebulous. How is anything found in biology "independent from the forces of nature"?

Well, I even provided an example, there is nothing in the laws of nature that “forces” ink to produce letters and words. This is what I mean with “independent”

For example if you have a series of different liquids with different density, the laws of nature would “force” the liquids to organize themselves, based on their density, (heavy liquids would go to the bottom, light liquids will go to the top)……or to put it this way; the laws of nature “try” to put the heavy substances I the bottom and the light ones at the top.

In the case of ice crystals, there is a natural principle that forces water to form hexagonal patterns.

In these cases the pattern is not “independent” the laws of nature impose this pattern. The laws of nature “try” to produce these patterns

In the case of amino acids, there is no known natural principle that would “force” them to organice in such a way that they would produce self replicating proteins. The laws of nature dot seem to “try” to organize amino acids in to self replicating agents.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Aren't the rules that no debate is allowed in a discussion area?

 

[leroy]

Usually most see it as creationism.

In what way does it differ from creationism?

well at the end of the day these are all labels, but usually creationists assert that their own personal interpretation of the bible is true, and then they try to fit the facts to accommodate into that truth.

Intelligent design, simply asserts that life requires an intelligent designer. The bible is irrelevant for ID,

How does Evolution not qualify as intelligent design?

Define evolution

 

[osgart]

Even if intelligent design is true, how do you test for it so that it qualifies as a theory? Intelligence is obvious enough, but design is haphazard at best.

And would evolution qualify as something that is done intelligently?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I even provided an example, there is nothing in the laws of nature that “forces” ink to produce letters and words. This is what I mean with “independent”

How is a poor example support? That is nothing like what we see in life.

For example if you have a series of different liquids with different density, the laws of nature would “force” the liquids to organize themselves, based on their density, (heavy liquids would go to the bottom, light liquids will go to the top)……or to put it this way; the laws of nature “try” to put the heavy substances I the bottom and the light ones at the top.

In the case of ice crystals, there is a natural principle that forces water to form hexagonal patterns.

In these cases the pattern is not “independent” the laws of nature impose this pattern. The laws of nature “try” to produce these patterns

Then your third test fails again. Natural selection "forces" life that is best adapted to an environment to thrive.

In the case of amino acids, there is no known natural principle that would “force” them to organice in such a way that they would produce self replicating proteins. The laws of nature dot seem to “try” to organize amino acids in to self replicating agents.

So your problem at best is not evolution, but abiogenesis. Do you realize that? And I am sure that experts in the field could correct you on this claim of yours. Let me see if you are being genuine before we move on to abiogenesis. Do you realize that for evolution there is a "force"? Do you realize hat ID fails when compared to the theory of evolution, which is a testable theory?

Also I have yet to see you retract the claim of "theory". Do you need links on what the concept of scientific theories? I could understand you being reluctant to take back the false "theory" claim without support.

What Is a Scientific Theory?

Scientific theory - Wikipedia

And from the second source the reason that your idea is not a "theory" is because it does not appear to meet this qualification:

"

• It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).".

 

[leroy]

How is a poor example support? That is nothing like what we see in life.

But is the concept of "independent" clear?

Then your third test fails again. Natural selection "forces" life that is best adapted to an environment to thrive.

Yes natural selection forces life to be adapted, but it doesn't force life to become complex......using just "natural selection " and no other guiding mechanism, why would simple bacteria-like creatures evolve in to complex animals?

So your problem at best is not evolution, but abiogenesis

.

I have "problems" with both the idea that I amino acids became life, and the idea complex life came from simpler life by a proces of random genetic change and natural selection.

Also I have yet to see you retract the claim of "theory

".

Sure, ID is not a ",theory" in the same way gravity is a "theory".......the word theory has many definitions, you can't say that I am wrong just because I am not using your own personal favorite definition of theory

"

• t makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).".

I did told you what would falsify ID.

 

[shunyadragon]

People tend to complicate things, but the concept of inteligetn design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

Of course, they are detecting human design, and not design in nature.

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design: If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)


The objective method that Dembski and others propose is “specified complexity” something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”


The argument is that life is specified and complex

even the simplest life forms would require many amino acids (1) organized in a very specific order and pattern (2) and nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that they would produce functional self replicating “things”

Nothing here relates to finding evidence of design in nature. All examples of so called 'specified complexity' in nature have been shown to be capable of forming naturally.

*For simplicity lets define life as: something organic that can reproduce.

In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

ID is simply Creationism by another name. It is only Christian, Islamic and some Jewish Creationists that propose ID no one else.

Abiogenesis is possible based on sound science, and there has never been a proposed Intelligent Design hypothesis that can be fallified by scientific methods.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But is the concept of "independent" clear?

For your failed concept, yes. I

Yes natural selection forces life to be adapted, but it doesn't force life to become complex......using just "natural selection " and no other guiding mechanism, why would simple bacteria-like creatures evolve in to complex animals?

What do you mean by "complex"? If you are going to claim that the eye is "complex" then you are demonstrably wrong.



.

I have "problems" with both the idea that I amino acids became life, and the idea complex life came from simpler life by a proces of random genetic change and natural selection.

So an argument from incredulity? Not too convincing.


".

Sure, ID is not a ",theory" in the same way gravity is a "theory".......the word theory has many definitions, you can't say that I am wrong just because I am not using your own personal favorite definition of theory

Wrong again. There is a theory of gravity. It is called General Relativity. And you are conflating something that has been observed, such as gravity or evolution, with something that has not been observed, such as ID.

"

I did told you what would falsify ID.

Where? You didn't. What reasonable test could falsify ID?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aren't the rules that no debate is allowed in a discussion area?

Technically there is no debate when it comes to evolution versus creationism, and ID is creationism in a cheap lab coat, merely correction.

 

[rageoftyrael1987]

People tend to complicate things, but the concept of inteligetn design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

I don't actually see how we could conclude any such thing. In the example of a pyramid on another planet, I imagine it's more than fair to say that there is a certain level of uncertainty to making any such claim that a pyramid on another planet is definitely designed. There will certainly be many factors about this planet that are different than earth that may well explain how such a thing could occur naturally. While this may seem unlikely, it doesn't seem outside the realm of the plausible. Also, even if we could conclusively prove that something such as a pyramid on another planet was designed, we'd really only be proving that there was something complex enough to make it, but we certainly don't have to accredit that to a deity.

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design:

If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)


The objective method that Dembski and others propose is “specified complexity” something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”


The argument is that life is specified and complex

even the simplest life forms would require many amino acids (1) organized in a very specific order and pattern (2) and nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that they would produce functional self replicating “things”


*For simplicity lets define life as: something organic that can reproduce.


In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

To me, the idea of taking a concept that works quite well for things we know are designed, and simply slapping that on life is unreasonable. It's comparing apples to oranges, in my view.

Also, you explain that nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that would produce self replicating things. This may be true, but nothing stops them either. Given enough time, it seems like these patterns may naturally occur and not require any kind of intervention at all.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well, I even provided an example, there is nothing in the laws of nature that “forces” ink to produce letters and words. This is what I mean with “independent”

For example if you have a series of different liquids with different density, the laws of nature would “force” the liquids to organize themselves, based on their density, (heavy liquids would go to the bottom, light liquids will go to the top)……or to put it this way; the laws of nature “try” to put the heavy substances I the bottom and the light ones at the top.

In the case of ice crystals, there is a natural principle that forces water to form hexagonal patterns.

In these cases the pattern is not “independent” the laws of nature impose this pattern. The laws of nature “try” to produce these patterns

In the case of amino acids, there is no known natural principle that would “force” them to organice in such a way that they would produce self replicating proteins. The laws of nature dot seem to “try” to organize amino acids in to self replicating agents.

Sorry to have to say it, but you demonstrate quite literally no real concept of what science is, and you compound that with an inability to imagine real complexity. More, the fact that you try to anthropomorphize the laws of nature by suggesting that the "try" to do anything at all confirms your essentially magic/religious thinking.

As others have said, there is precisely zero "science" in Intelligent Design, and this has been resolved so many times, even in a secular court of law run by a Christian judge (Dover PA v Kitzmiller) that it only shows real desperation for some simple, unchallenging belief that can be clung to that people keep coming back trying to find inane analogies (like ink producing letters and words).

Trust me, actual learning is much, much better than blind, uninformed belief.

 

[Jose Fly]

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

For clarity, can you state what the "theory of ID" is?

1 Intelligent design is detectable:

there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

Can you point to something in the biological realm that you've determined to be "designed" and describe the methods by which you made that determination?

The objective method that Dembski and others propose is “specified complexity” something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”

This seems confusing. If "specified complexity" arises via mechanisms that are outside the "forces of nature", what non-natural mechanisms generate this "specified complexity"?

even the simplest life forms would require many amino acids (1) organized in a very specific order and pattern (2) and nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that they would produce functional self replicating “things”

So does that mean every single self-replicating organism that's ever existed was specifically and deliberately "designed"? Does that also apply to self-replicating molecules?

In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

Then let's tackle that. You can start by answering the questions above. Remember, you're the one here making the positive case, so it falls on you to support it. It does not fall on everyone else to disprove it.

 

[David T]

People tend to complicate things, but the concept of inteligetn design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

: If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)


The objective method that Dembski and others propose is “specified complexity” something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”


The argument is that life is specified and complex

even the simplest life forms would require many amino acids (1) organized in a very specific order and pattern (2) and nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that they would produce functional self replicating “things”


*For simplicity lets define life as: something organic that can reproduce.


In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

"if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design"


You make atheists look and feel like Einstein. ID is Horrible science even worse religion. In fact you are going to hell when you die if you still believe in ID. WHY? Because being blantly naive about nature when ones potential is so much more is a sin. Like being so lazy the person never bothered to get out of bed their whole lives

Ok not true but hey we are just making garbage up here anyway!!!! iD HAHa ha ha ha ha .. No.

 

[Revoltingest]

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …

I quoted the worst assumption.
The TOE is all about explaining the patterns using forces of nature.
In effect, #3 simply denies this explanatory power.
So the OP is an objection which doesn't rise to the level of an argument.

 

[Bear Wild]

People tend to complicate things, but the concept of inteligetn design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design: If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)


The objective method that Dembski and others propose is “specified complexity” something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”


The argument is that life is specified and complex

even the simplest life forms would require many amino acids (1) organized in a very specific order and pattern (2) and nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that they would produce functional self replicating “things”


*For simplicity lets define life as: something organic that can reproduce.


In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

Intelligent design is a arrogant explanation to justify an unwarranted explanation to put humans above all other life. It needs to information just rhetoric. If you say it enough you can make yourself believe it as long as you do not make any effort to understand the natural world around us. It is unprovable so those that believe in it do not have to prove anything. You just say and it is so. You have to ignore so much but for what ever reason it makes you feel special or superior.

There are so many reasons why intelligent is incorrect that it is hard to start. When information is given you justify in your mind it is wrong because the information is not complete or you do not understand what is known. It is a type of blindness that keeps you from seeing how amazing the world really is without some imagined supernatural being making a world for you that places you at the top of the intelligent design pyramid.

If you are willing to open your mind and really look you will see that evolution through the alterations of the DNA/RNA sequences by way natural selection is not only amazing but explains everything.

 

[Valjean]

People tend to complicate things, but the concept of inteligetn design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design: If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)

Yes, there is complexity and mechanism, but biology describes the natural, unguided methods that created this. Did you not learn these in school?
What you're proposing is magic; intentional perturbation of natural laws. There is no evidence for this, nor is there any need for it, as there are natural, observable mechanisms that can account for the complex order.

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

No, the pattern is not independent of natural forces.
There are perfectly understandable, natural, observable, unguided mechanisms that create the ordered complexity.

The argument is that life is specified and complex

even the simplest life forms would require many amino acids (1) organized in a very specific order and pattern (2) and nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that they would produce functional self replicating “things”

And there is no need for magic to create these amino acids, membranes, &c necessary for life. We can observe Nature creating them if we look.

In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

But ID is creationism. What difference is there?
Those who deny magic do present an argument. They present whole libraries of research, observations and natural explanations for the complex life we see around us.

Well, I even provided an example, there is nothing in the laws of nature that “forces” ink to produce letters and words. This is what I mean with “independent."

In the case of amino acids, there is no known natural principle that would “force” them to organice in such a way that they would produce self replicating proteins. The laws of nature dot seem to “try” to organize amino acids in to self replicating agents.

Yes there is. Self replicating molecules and structures can be observed in the lab or in Nature anytime. There is no "trying" involved, just natural mechanisms.
See the above TED talk.

Yes natural selection forces life to be adapted, but it doesn't force life to become complex......using just "natural selection " and no other guiding mechanism, why would simple bacteria-like creatures evolve in to complex animals?

The mechanisms accounting for natural complexity are well known. These 'guiding mechanisms', I assume, are taught in every high school. How do you not know them?

I have "problems" with both the idea that I amino acids became life, and the idea complex life came from simpler life by a proces of random genetic change and natural selection.

I suspect that that's because you don't really understand the process.
What problems do you see in evolution by natural selection, exactly?

 

[Salvador]

There is indeed a mark of intelligence left in our genetic code as evident by how the numeric and semantic message of 037 appears in our genetic code. Each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us descendants of our cosmic ancestor(s) with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth.

“There is no plausible chemical logic to couple directly the triplets and the amino acids. In other words, the principles of chemistry where not the sought essence of the genetic code”

“The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.”

"The place-value decimal system represented through digital symmetry of the numbers divisible by prime number (PN 037). This arithmetical syntactic feature is an innate attribute of the genetic code. The PN 037 notation with a leading zero emphasizes zero's equal participation in the digital symmetry. Numbers written by identical digits are devised by PN 037*3=111 and 1+1+1=3 and appear regularly [from the figure: 037*6 =222 and 2+2+2=6, 037*9=333 and 3+3+3 =9, 037*4=444 and 4+4+4=12, 037*15=555 and 5+5+5=15, 037*18=666 and 6+6+6=18, 037*21=777 and 7+7+7 =21. 037*24 =888 and 8+8+8=24, 037*27=999 and 9+9+9=27.)"

"There is a complete set of information symbols utilizing the decimal syntax 111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777, 888, 999 in the genetic code. Each of these symbols consists uniformly of a carrier (balanced nucleons) and a meaning (the decimal syntax)."

Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov. Redirectinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code

This informational and artificial characteristic of the WOW signal of the terrestrial genetic code demonstrates intelligent design.

This intelligent signal transmitted via genetic code that has been documented and confirmed by scientists researching the WOW signal of the terrestrial genetic code is prima facie evidence for an intelligent designer.

The authors who discovered this mark of intelligence embedded in our genetic code show that "the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10–13). The patterns are profound to the extent that the code mapping itself is uniquely deduced from their algebraic representation. The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin. Plausible ways of embedding the signal into the code and possible interpretation of its content are discussed. Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to pass non-biological information."

Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov. Redirectinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code

Exactly who/what left its/their mark in our genetic coding might not ever get determined by anybody presently bound to Earth. The search for our cosmic relatives and cosmic common ancestor likely then needs to be done with advanced space exploration. I'd like to urge you then to please advise our Senate, Congress and President to expand our tax-payer funded resources for advance space exploration.