Your argument was that the complexity and inter-dependence
evident in living systems was an indication of design.
I said that complexity and design are unrelated (in the sense
that your argument requires) pointing out that simplicity is
the hallmark of good design.
PaulK pointed out that many software projects (due to external
constraints on time, money, personnel, etc.) have an ad hoc,
iterative, additive development that leads to excessively
complex, highly inter-dependent software architectures.
You have now suggested that we cannot claim design without
knwing what is good, simple, etc.
Hopefully you can now see why it is that complexity cannot be
used to infer design ... no matter how much may wish to see
design.
I opened a thread some time ago asking for design criteria.
Not suprisingly there was little relevant response.
Oh, and I might add for those who argue from IC, that I have seen
software systems which have been built up in an ad hoc manner
over time that have increased in function (and complexity ... or
messiness as I call it
) where, due to the way that things
have been added, if a function is removed the whole program fails
to work ... and yet there is a revision history that shows
how the current program was developed iteratively.