Intelligible results that only the intelligent designers can discern as 'this is what I wanted,' whereas the process if left to continue, would just keep iterating because a dumb mechanical process does not have a way of knowing it has achieved a useful result?
Intelligible results that
continually get more useful. The designers do not know what they want in particular, they have a problem to solve and make something else to come up with the solution. The design itself is not an intelligent process, the intelligent involvement is establishing the system that creates ever-better answers and deciding when it's good enough. The initial state has little, if any, resemblance to the final result.
Just because you need an intelligent actor to discern the process was successful does not mean the process isn't happening without one. The created unintelligent designer creates a successful design, then the intelligent actor uses it.
Statistical odds on the order of 10^79,000,000,000. That's all the matter in the universe (counted in atoms) with another BILLION ZEROES added on.
You might have those odds from life originating in one immediate freak accident. We literally have not figured out how to build life from raw chemistry in a lab yet, let alone how it'd have happened naturally (which, mind you,
is that man's primary argument), and each function that happens by random chance makes others more likely as you have more of the components interacting with eachother. The Earth had billions of years, the
low estimates are billions of earth-like planets per galaxy, there are billions upon billions upon billions of galaxies in the observable universe.
The argument about the insane complexity where you timestamped the video starts with how
describing the result with scientific confidence is nightmarish, and the fact you have to go back to the start if you get one thing wrong. Except you're not going "back to the start", you have all the world's oceans constantly undergoing variations for hundreds of millions of years at the
least, easily thousands of attempts on components per square meter every fraction of a second, and every square meter constantly shifting conditions.
That video is entirely "Nobody knows, therefor God". He brings up how nuclei and mitochondria have yet more dissimilarly of cell membranes from the already heterogenous main cellular membrane, completely ignoring how this undermines his point about homogenous lipids being used for testing because dislike lipids
still can form together anyways, and also makes no mention of the symbiosis theory that's established for mitochondria by them having their own nucleus and protein assembly.
Abiogenesis is a religious doctrine, not science. It is in point of fact anti-scientific. Since the time of Darwin, the improbability of evolution has only become more and more apparent.
Abiogenisis in particular has gotten more frustratingly mind-melting to pin down because avenues of approach keep turning out wrong because as it turns out backtracking things
billions of years is a rather astonishingly difficult task, but evolution in existing life has only gotten more firm because we keep finding more intermediate stages and locating more examples of mutations proliferating in populations to cause them to be more adapted to their environment.
If it's provably true for life around now, able to be quite readily inferred with high logical coherence for billions of years back in increasingly-scarce bits and pieces, why wouldn't it
keep going back to the start?