Replies

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.

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.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winnah!

Now why is this article posted in Tech?

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.

Maybe you counted the genome base pairs, but there's more to 'complexity' than that.

If it will help you to accept my argument, I have had this assertion backed up by several leading toad philosophers as well as the board of complex amoeba.

4 out of 5 higher paired genome creatures agree- humans are more complex than they are

Just where do genome pairs prove the lack of intelligent design? If everything thing that is offered by evolutionists today is true (and we know it's not or there wouldn't be constant changes to the theory). But, if everything is true and accurate, what portion must exclude a Designer?

I must sign off now. I need to concentrate on increasing my complexity to that of a toad, or dare I hope- an amoeba.