Stumpy::"Is a series of horses possessing progressively fewer and fewer toes an example of change overtime?"
Bright Eyes.: "Yes, of course"
Stumpy.:" And is it an example of complexity arising from simplicity through generation of new genes through mutation?"
Bright Eyes.: "Well, no, not really."
Stumpy: "So is it 'evolution'?"
Bright Eyes.: "Uh...., well, it depends on what you mean by the term 'evolution','".
Stumpy: " Exactly."
Everyone believes in "evolution", ("change over time") including the most ardent fire-breathing creationists, who believe that Africans, Asians and Swedes all descend form Noah.
So "evos" should understand that demonstrating "change" in and of itself doesn't advance their argument. It must be change of a very specific type. The sequence of "Horse-Toes" doesn't cut it. You need simplicity---->complexity, not the other way 'round.
I disagree. Complexity, in of itself, is not necessary for evolution to occur. Rather, what we're looking for is adaptation to the species' environment. A horse is a running machine and hooves are better suited for running than regular toes. The fact that a hoof is less "complex" is irrelevant. The fact that a hoof makes a horse a better runner is quite relevant.
Strawman. Evolution simply means "change." There is no predisposition to either complexity or simplicity.
One of these days we'll encounter a creationist who actually knows what he's talking about...