Does complexity require intelligent design?

OK..?? I maintain that the fossil record does not support such claims. Most of the examples given me in this thread have largely consisted of jaw fragments. I spent two hours looking for some type of evidence that would support one earlier claim and found nothing but drawings and one jaw fragment. This was evidence of progression from a animal without horns into a completely different species with horns. If there exist actual fossilized remains, the location of them is a secret. I was referring to actual mutations, not splicing, and recombinations. I should have been more specific.You asked for an example of a scientist whose research led him in another direction, I provided :"...The information contained in the simplest of life forms is so complex that it led Sir Fred Hoyle to conclude that life could not have risen by chance on this planet..."You replied: Sir Fred Hoyle, a world-renowned astronomer, is acknowledged to be one of the most creative scientists of the 20th century. He has held the position of Plumian Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, and was also the founder of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge
He is best known for his seminal contributions to the theory of the structure of stars and on the origin of the chemical elements in stars.
Fred Hoyle's work on nucleosynthesis in collaboration with William A. Fowler and Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge led to our present-day understanding of the origin of chemical elements in stars. It was Fred Hoyle's original prediction of the presence of an excited state of the nucleus of the atom carbon via his studies of the structure and evolution of stars that heralded a long and profitable collaboration with Caltech nuclear physicist Willy Fowler.Apparently, Sir Hoyle did not believe in ID, but he prety convincingly, in my estimate, disproved abiogenesis on this planet with the laws of nature as we understand them. If accidental, or spontaneous, formation of life is impossible, what other options are left?
Hoyle claimed that the protein histone-4 could never be produced in small steps. Why? Histone-4 has a chain of 102 amino acids and the structure is extremely conserved in all eukaryote species . Bovine histone-4 differs in only 2 positions with peas! And that means extreme functional constraints must exist . Histones are necessary for chromosome condensation during cell division. The traditional neo-Darwinian step-by-step method must fail claimed Hoyle, because it implies 100 non-functional steps. The alternative: a jump of 100 mutations of exactly the right kind would be highly improbable. So improbable that it was on the order of 10 to the 100th power, or that it woldn't be possible in 100 billion years. Where have we ever seen spontaneous formation of any life form? The evidence all around us is that life is resistant to change, not prone to it.

The subject I was referring to originally, concerned the spontaneous formation of life on this planet. I was thinking about possible environments and combinations of chemicals that would have been present on earth 3-4 billion years ago. Specifically, I had in mind the Miller- Urey experiments, not that we could create any scenario, just any reasonable scenario.

It's not really chance if you preselect the material components and the other parameters. That sounded like a very groundbreaking experiment, but I would like to know a lot more, like how well it actually functions and what if components having nothing to do with electonics were mixed in, and how it differs from designs already in use? Is it as good or better? Kinda sounds like a parlor trick to me. I took a look and didn't really see any specs, which I would expect in an experiment like that.

It's been answered, by claims like Sylas' that had no provenance. As to gene duplication, which he mentions in his discourse, I suggest you do a search and compare the undesirable examples {many given} with the beneficial ones { I couldn't find any}.

It isn't a "tactic". I actually didn't see any on all the sites I looked at concerning gene duplication. Lots of them said it had to be possible, but they weren't offering examples. And I wasn't offering proof that it was impossible, just stating that reality shows it very unlikely to occur in the frequency needed for the formation of complex cells, much less living organisms.

It was good enough for the Webster's dictionary I used, but I doubt any definition I give will satisfy you.

Went to the article and yes it certainly appears that this poor kid has extraordinary strength. I grew up in the days when we had to carry water and the kids that couldn't keep up, but nothing like that. It would be great if that led to a treatment for MD as the article suggested might be possible.