Maybe they "could" in theory. (A theory that no antievolutionist has ever taken the trouble to lay out in detail, or even coherently outline, but which instead is invoked as mere possibility, as you do here, with wide arm-waving and airy assertion.) But the point is, since the advent of modern biochemistry and molecular biology, it's never been done in practice, or even discernibly attempted.
Against this hundreds of papers are published every year representing original research conducted on the basis of assumptions of or inferences from evolution.
You defending evolution by arguing from ignorance and speculation is a pretty common practice though.
Actually I'm arguing from results.
I'll be interested when antievolutionists have some results, when there's ANY indication that the employment of non-evolutionary assumptions has proven fruitful in generating new knowledge via original research.
All you've come up with here is more arm-waving. "Ah, gee, look at how complex these systems are. They're too complex to be the product of evolution." But if that argument were valid it would apply to complex systems that we already knew about. As to how some non-evolutionary theory accounts for the particular facts in this case, or any other, you got nothing.