"Why not less complex?"
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?
"Because that's not what the theory of evolution requires. It absolutely requires the addition of complexity."
Did anyone charge you for your science education? If so, sue that person or corporate entity--you were defrauded.
Just don't ask the theory to make any predictions in this regard, because the subject will immediately turn to weather.
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?
""Why not less complex?"
Because that's not what the theory of evolution requires"
You have put your foot in it big time. There is no "upward direction" to evolution, only in finding more fitness. Consider parasites.