Is there a legitimate argument for design?

This does seem to be where he is going with this, although this is something that I have seen creationists attempt to argue multiple times and I have never seen any quality evidence for the idea that information requires a higher power more than just random chance and keeping what happened to work a little better.

Maybe it was Frako's poor English that made you misunderstand him, but your laughter was directed at a strawman of the argument that he was making.Initially he stated that obviously life must be present for evolution to happen. However, we could see just the RNA strand replicating itself based on laws of chemistry through chemical reactions. Frako, then stated "Or would we call that life?" He is pointing out that it becomes very murky water when it gets to the levels of life versus non-life in this scenario. It can replicate itself, but it is still simply a chemical molecule, doing what it must based upon the laws of chemistry. Would you consider something such as RNA just replicating itself but nothing else as life....or must it begin to build other proteins and code for actual processes before you would call it life?Frako then goes on to mention how errors in the code through replication could allow the molecule to attract lipids, which could form the very basic structure of a cellular membrane, giving us the first cell. Again, still only using the laws of chemistry. Where the designation between life and non-life comes is a part of what scientists researching abiogenesis are looking for.Finally, your laughter at an entirely plausible idea, simply because you could not understand his meaning (hence why you attributed several ideas ("'all it needs', you seem to be saying, 'is a PRE-EXISTING simple form of LIFE'") to Frako which he did not state) is not beneficial to academic discourse. Perhaps trying to get a better graso instead of relying on your own intellect would allow you to clarify before spouting off answers that do not apply and laughing at someone presenting a reasonable hypothesis to your very minimally fleshed out idea of a cosmic "intelligence"