js1138: This is a fundamentally incorrect characterization of evolution.
How so? If man evolved from primate, I assume you would say that this is a step in the higher complexity direction? How does a troglodyte become modern man? Is this not a move toward complexity. How do single cell creatures become multi-cell? The whole foundation of Darwinism must rely on this assumption. Can you name a creature that has de-volved??? Is de-evolution the norm?? Please explain in more detail my improper assumptions...
Part of that evolution involved the loss of a prehensile tale as well as a relative loss of strength. So, it's not clear that humans are any more "complex" than their primate ancestors.
Can you name a creature that has de-volved??? Is de-evolution the norm??
There is no such thing as "de-evolution." However, there are plenty of examples of species that have lost certain abilities and/or traits as they have evolved to adapt to their environment. Penguins can't fly. Land-dwelling animals have lost the ability to breathe in water. Hooved animals have seen their fingers and toes merge into one structure. Whales have lost the use of their legs. Fish that live in caves or in the deep oceans have lost the ability to see. Ants, as descendants of wasps, have mostly lost the ability to fly. The list goes on and on.
Your incorrect assumption is that evolution has a direction.
The overwhelming bulk of life is single celled. It is doing just fine.
The undelying incorrect assumption is that things that look more complex by your standards are in fact more complex by some mathematically objective standard.