[js1138]

What is your standard for complexity? I would say there are numerous possible standards, but chromosome count is easy to visualize.

I think you could argue that variations in existing genes is not what we ordinarily think of as an increase in complexity. It is possible, however to get large variations in form and appearance with trivial variations in genes. For example there is an insect that can vary its leg count with a single mutation. There are rats whose ability to smell can be increased by a thousandfold with a single mutation.

Bu increases in chrosome count offers a platform for building more complexity by successive variation. Like adding more disk space to your computer, it is initially blank, but offers room for expansion.

The articles I linked to offer some simple, observable examples of variation in chrosome count.

[biblewonk]

What is your standard for complexity? I would say there are numerous possible standards, but chromosome count is easy to visualize.

I believe Downs syndrom is the result of an extra chromosome. It may be arguable that it is more complex but the result is clearly less survivable. So again we have that semantic problem of better vs more complex vs more survivable. 2 are subjective and the third, complex, is too simplistic. But we can jump to the chase and say that protozoa are "more evolved" than bacteria, insects and plants are more so, reptiles and fish more yet, mammals and birds. Or maybe we are stuck with a set of creatures which are just different. I tend to think that a mammal is more comlex, and "better" within the confines of the concept of evolution. As a creationist I tend to thing that each is designed for a purpose and is as it is suppose to be with no developmental advantage over the other so it is a stretch for me go to back to my pre Christian way of thinking.