Because that's not what the theory of evolution requires. It absolutely requires the addition of complexity. You start with primordial soup. You end with human beings. Actually, we're at human beings now, but the theory says that something else will come after us. Unless you are saying that human beings are less complex than primordial soup (Bill Clinton not withstanding), there has to be complexity added in there somewhere.
Do you even know what you're defending?
I do know a bit about evolution, mostly from the fossil man side, but I hever heard that increasing complexity was required by the theory. What is your source for this?
"I do know a bit about evolution, mostly from the fossil man side, but I hever heard that increasing complexity was required by the theory. What is your source for this?"
Kent Hovind, aka "Dr. Dino," who knows about as much about the theory of evolution as he does about the Internal Revenue Code. :)
Sounds like a confused 2nd Thermo law argument to me.
"What is your source for this?"
I'm pretty sure the source is one of those creationist web sites. They get the TOE wrong all the time. Pity.
"I do know a bit about evolution, mostly from the fossil man side, but I hever heard that increasing complexity was required by the theory. What is your source for this?"
My source is the theory of evolution. Where do you think the added complexity came from? God?
Do you deny that the theory of evolution has to account for added complexity? That a class of animal must be able to evolve to a more complex class of animal via nothing more than changes in environment and random changes?