[quote]Why would [i]permanence[/i] be a pre-requisite of complexity?[/quote]Since the study of evolution dictates that every organism's biology is an ever-changing process, we must assume that it won't revert to its original or simpler form anyway, but because the factors that affect the reversing process outweighs the science behind an ever-changing biology, it is more than likely that the genetics of an organism will never differ from it's original species, but instead, it would develop variations of the same species with the same physical attributes under a different shade.[quote]My comprehension is poor at best, but surely any change at all being [i]permanent[/i] would be actively against the whole concept of evolution?[/quote]What I mean by "permanent" is that it doesn't revert; that is, evolutions calls for an organism to always change form slowly. a very great deal of recorded information.[quote]The issue Johnson takes is that what he terms micro-evolution "[i]has never been shown to be capable of creating...new complex body parts such as wings, eyes, or brains[/i]." - and that simply doesn't hold logically true.[/quote]Are you suggesting that through micro-evolution, the complex can become inevitable?[quote]They are adaptations to emitted radiation, to gravity, and the difficulty of formulating complex immediate strategies for dealing with a universe all cluttered up with radiation and gravity.[/quote]You do realize that the OP presented an insect scenario in which, yes, the environment was changed, but it evidently reverted because of the constant factors that it increased the insects resistence, proving that whatever had to encourage the evolution of any organism, the environmental hazards affecting the organism must remain constant.