mikey writes:
... we know that amino acids naturally left alone will form an equal mixture for chirality.
No, we don't know that. We know that many pathways do produce racemic mixtures. However, pathways that make use of catalysis can produce homochirality. Until you have investigated
every possible pathway, you can not invoke a need for intelligence.
mikey writes:
This is why people that create proteins in the lab need to add an amino-acid at a time, by intentional intelligence.
There's no reason why a series of events can't add one protein at a time, without intentional intelligence. As I have often said, all intelligence can do is rearrange existing processes. It can not create new processes.
mikey writes:
We can see that with very specific complexity and order, the problems are solved by an intelligent agents' presence, much better than by random chance.
Better, maybe. But what does "better" mean. You have to have intentions before one process can produce a "better" result than another. That doesn't mean that a series of random events can not produce the same result. All intelligence can do is influence the probability.
mikey writes:
You see this is the problem evolutionists will always have, that they are arguing that an intentional intelligence is not a good answer for complexity, which is directly analogous to saying the following: "No, it is not a good answer that a cook cooked a well baked cake."
I'm not arguing that intentional intelligence is not a good answer. I'm arguing that it is not
necessary. But when the existence of that intelligence is unsubstantiated, it becomes a worse answer. It's analogous to saying, "No, it is not a good answer that Bigfoot cooked a well baked cake."