Just because you can parrot the phrase doesn't mean you understand it. Your statement " everything in the universe degrades or rusts or tends towards decreasing complexity", which simply isn't true for a local subsystem such as the earth, demonstrating that you do not understand what it means for Earth to not be a closed system.
> But that still doesn't explain to me where the complexity came from.
It comes from energy from the sun forcing trillions of trillions of proteins together at random all along the earth's coastlines. The proteins, forced together, are more complex than the previous molecules. Most of them are unstable, but even a one-in-a-billion chance of forming a stable protein is almost guaranteed to happen when there are trillions of trillions of reactions occurring.
That lacks explanatory power. It is a hand wavy process. "Random movements caused by the sun". By what method of action? Tell me exactly. You can't because you don't know. You are just too arrogant to admit it.
1. It's strange that you've put quotes around something I didn't say.
2. I said a lot more than what you put quotes around, which explains the method of action. If you want more specific information, you'll have to engage enough with what I've already said to ask a more specific question. I won't waste my time explaining parts I've already explained and you've ignored.
Ah, there it is, the total nonsense I was expecting.
That's not even a coherent scientific claim: it's not provable or disprovable because you can't even clearly define half the words. You're just saying things with no evidence because they were told to you.
Next time, save everyone some time and just make your argument for creationism up front without asking questions as if you were interested in answers. This whole pretending to ask questions thing you did here was dishonest.
Ultimately this question is the question of why the universe isn't completely isotropic in all directions with a completely uniform distribution of matter and energy. To the best of our knowledge this is due to quantum effects at the beginning of time creating a temporary asymmetry whose resulting "sloshing" created everything more complicated than evenly-distributed hydrogen gas. Life on earth is the tiniest swirl of complexity in the vast waterfall of "wasted" entropy that is the sun burning out.
>Ultimately this question is the question of why the universe isn't completely isotropic in all directions with a completely uniform distribution of matter and energy.
I don't think it's a self-evident given that going against the grain of increasing entropy leads to complexity. The obvious but naieve opposite of increasing entropy is going towards something like relatively simple crystal structures.
That is rather hand wavy and doesn't explain where the complexity in DNA comes from, you just swept that problem under the rug with a blanket explanation that lacks explanatory power.
"Complexity" is not a magic force that must be conserved. In any system that has both an energy gradient and a path for that energy to travel that is not isotropic, complexity will emerge as entropy increases. That holds whether the system in question is a pool of water with a bumpy downhill slope or an entire ecosystem.
DNA is actually rather simple. It basically consists of about the fewest number of bases possible for encoding information (four), even though more bases are possible (and have been stably engineered into organisms). Even so, while these bases pair off well, there is some cross-talk possible (G-quadruplexes, G:T base-pairing).
Stir some milk into some coffee and just shortly after they make contact but well before it's even half way to being completely mixed, ask yourself where does the complex structure come from?
The only question is where the first self-replicating structure came from. As soon as you have a self-replicating structure, you have evolution. Evolution is driven by these self-replicating structures competing for the available energy. A more efficient replicator outcompetes its less efficient siblings at exponential speed. If more complex replicators are more efficient, then complexity evolves naturally. It's basically stochastic gradient descent, with the environment as the training data, and replicator efficiency as the objective function. Evolution prunes all the inefficient branches, and what remains may seem hand-crafted, but in fact it's just what remains after everyone else got outcompeted.
Now, the question is whether the first replicator can arise randomly from the primordial soup or not? Was the first such replicator simple enough to be spontaneously assembled from random inorganic molecules floating in water? I think on a long-enough timescale, the answer is yes.
Even crystals have random inclusions. Catalysis and replication without error is harder to achieve than catalysis or replication itself.
On a DNA/RNA level, various nucleotides have affinity not only for their normal partner, but less so for other partners. This becomes especially important as environmental damage (from the energetic systems we all live in) cause alterations in the chemical structure of the nucleotides. That's just one method of mutation.
But that still doesn't explain to me where the complexity came from.