The word “evolution” has two meanings. The first meaning is the meaning in the mind of the common people: it represents the descent of all living organisms from a simple form of life. Would you not agree that this is what the word means for the man in the street? I am aware that the textbook definition of “evolution” is that it is any change in an interbreeding population over time. But, honestly, majority of the common folks do not know that definition. Their idea of evolution is descent of all living organisms from a simple form of life, which is their common ancestor.
In fact, this idea persists even in the mind of many scientists who say that it is not the textbook definition of evolution. Their own work betrays it. Here, for example, is a typical phylogenetic tree of life that you might find in books or in the internet:
Image credit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phylogenic_Tree.jpg
Does this picture not give you the impression of descent of all forms of life from a common ancestor? Does it not tell you, in graphical form, what scientists actually believe regarding the origin of various phyla of organisms? Whether they admit it or not, the word “evolution” denotes the rise of complexity and diversity from a primitive life form.
Now, I happen to call the rise of diverse and complex forms of life from a primitive life form “macro-evolution.” Actually, I can call it with a different name. I can call it “super-evolution” instead of “macro-evolution,” if that will make you feel better. It doesn’t matter to me because I am not playing word games here, and a rose by any other name is still a rose. My critique is not against the term, but against the idea of descent of complex forms from a simple form.
So, do not tell me anymore that complexity is not required. Not only is it required, but it IS the issue in any controversy regarding evolution. My contention is that there is NO evidence that all those phyla of organisms that you see in the phylogenetic tree above originated from a common ancestor. And, if you believe that there is evidence for that, then that evidence must show the rise of complexity, or else it is not a valid evidence. Merely to show that B descended from A is not enough. To be acceptable as evidence for super-evolution, your evidence must show that the descent of B from A is accompanied by an increase in genetic information.
Don’t get me wrong, though. I am not saying that the evolution of complex forms did not happen, or that it was impossible. Actually, I think that it is a brilliant idea. My only point is that it is still an unproved brilliant idea.