[Alamo-Girl]

Er, if I may:

"Higher" or "lower" are purely subjective terms; not biological terms. Lines of descent from ancestors are only that; bull snakes and dodos share ancestry, but it's not clear how "higher" or "lower" could apply.

Their not being biological terms goes to the heart of the problem with the acceptance of evolution by many (such as those who argue against equal rights for laboratory animals) - and the tension between mathematicians and biologists.

Complexity is the difference. It is not generally acceptable to say an amoeba and a human have the same level of complexity.

The contention starts when the combatants try to define the complexity.

On the one hand are those who see complexity as least description: Kolmogorov complexity, self-organizing complexity, physical complexity. On the other hand are those who see complexity as least time: functional complexity, irreducible complexity or punctuated equilibrium.

But to deny there is a "higher" or "lower" structure of natural living organisms over time is to deny complexity altogether and cast evolutionary biology as a laughable ideology under color of science.

[js1138]

It is not generally acceptable to say an amoeba and a human have the same level of complexity.

Are you saying the blueprint has more elements? What are you saying? I'm sure there are differences in the length of the genome for various species, but I'm not convinced the human genome is the longest.