A) I'd ask you to define "more going on", but it's irrelevant to the argument. Even if true, it does not change how we recognize design.
B) If you're talking about abiogenesis, then it's even easier. We may not have any conclusive answer as to how life arose here on Earth yet (that I'm aware of), but we do have viable explanations based on evidence that it is at least possible through purely natural means. Though even if we didn't, assuming that it must have been designed would be, as I said before, a false equivalency, as well as an appeal to ignorance ("I don't understand x, therefore it was designed").
A) So just to clarify, how do you recognize design?
B) And so you have no proof of your hypothesis, it's merely 'well this might be possible therefore life came about by natural means'.. you're assuming life is natural based upon faith and belief.