Hi Vidqun. I owe you a response, but it will have to be quick and brief. I might not be able to get back to this for a while. Here it is:
1. Complexity:
"scientists and researchers can’t work out above processes as yet..."
This the whole point of my coloured car analogy. If I observe wheel tracks outside my house, I can't tell the colour of the car that drove by. Just because I can't tell you the colour doesn't mean I have to conclude there was no car.
"In nature, one sees gradual decay, deterioration and disintegration, and not constant improvement as the evolutionist contend. This is contrary to nature and will not change even in a billion years."
The second law of thermodynamics leads to that result, in a closed system. Anything that eats or absorbs energy in some way is, by definition, not a closed system. I think I am going to have to create my own O.P. on the laws of thermodynamics, because there have been fallacious posts on various threads by a number of people.
2. "Coming back to complexity, evolutionists argue that our immune system (highly complex) originated from these processes (very basic and simplified). I find such claims difficult to digest."
This is the complexity argument again. Not a separate argument.
3. "symbiogenesis refers to the genesis of a new species or kind of life through the merger of two or more existing species. Endosymbiogenesis refers to the origin of a new lineage..."
Surely if symbiogenesis is proven to occur, then endosymbiogenesis is likely to occur.
4. "points to the fact that the process of natural selection do not favor xD amoebae, that underwent endosymbiosis, to survive in a natural environment."
That is hardly surprising. It is probably why xD amoebae isn't found in nature. However, in a certain artificial lab environment (the environment in which it evolved) , it appears to survive better than its D amoebae relative. Isn't that what you would expect.
5. I think this is the complexity argument again.
6. This is the complexity argument again. I again point to my coloured cars analogy.
7. "So a fork in evolution would take place at some juncture that would send archaea, bacteria, fungi and plants in one direction and animals into a different direction with no intermediate forms. This would happen randomly and spontaneously. In my mind that’s a long shot and why evolution should be viewed as a theory and not a fact."
Why would there be an intermediate form? Why would an animal evolve to photosynthesize if it can just eat grass instead?
8. "At least the researchers are big enough and honest enough to admit this. So if you oppose this point, are you really being honest?"
I did not oppose anything. I just pointed out that your source seemed to say the opposite to your point.
9. "Somewhere along the line the open processes became closed, which in our day can only be unlocked and changed by scientists and genetic engineers in specialized labs."
Did it become closed? Perhaps genetic engineers don't have a spare million years or two to wait around, so they do things to speed up the process.
.