Replies

I have equated nothing with goodness

I have stated that EVOLUTIONARY charts show increasing complexity as the evolutionary line progresses.

I have never seen an evolutionary chart that shows an amoeba being the RESULT of human evolution.

I have never heard the theory postulated that lifeforms were intrinsically more complex in earlier stages of evolution.

This seems to me (threw that in just so you can ignore the rest of this comment) to be consistent with the term 'evolution' which in and of itself carries an impression of positive change (as opposed to the terms 'random change' or 'devolution')

You then instituted straw man arguments concerning better and goodness. According to you, if these things even exist, it would be based only on my own perception.

To answer your question, it seems to me (getting tired of that yet) that the toad's genome is perfect for the toad, and my genome is perfect for me.

Why?
Sounds like an argument for intelligent design doesn't it.? Thanks for pointing it out.

I have equated nothing with goodness

I doubt anyone is certain of what's being equated with what in your posts, least of all you. You started with "higher" and "better" and moved rather inelegantly to "more complex". The theory of evolution does not argue that later creatures are "better" than earlier creatures, so that's just your own misunderstanding.

I have stated that EVOLUTIONARY charts show increasing complexity as the evolutionary line progresses.

Nor does the theory argue that later creatures must be more complex than earlier creatures - in fact, I gave you one example where a creature from a much older family than yours is measurably more complex than you. Since you brought up the amoeba, A. dubia has the largest genome yet known, 670 billion base pairs. Despite the fact that its origins predate yours, and almost certainly the toad's, it is measurably more "complex" in a very real sense than both you and the toad.

Maybe you saw the chart, but there's a bit more to it than that.