How is that not synonymous?
Because, as any engineer knows, more complex isn't necessarily better. More complex means more places to break.
It's no accident that the vast, vast majority of living things on Earth are now, and have always been, single-celled organisms. The macrobiotic life that you immediately think of when somebody says "life", the zebras and the monkeys and the whales and such, those are just blips. Statistical outliers. Exceptions to the rule.
Most evolutionists of the past recognized a general direction-- from less to greater, less intelligent to more intelligent, less autonomy to more autonomy, from simple to complex. Over the past century, some very unpopular beliefs about eugenics arose as a direct result of Darwin's theory. Its now considered taboo to refer to a species as more or less evolved, as in, less complex or intelligent, to more complex or more intelligent.
Source for this? History of evolution is one of my hobbies and there's no indication in the historical record that your account here bears any relation to reality.
When looking at the famous evolutionary tree, anyone can see a general direction no matter how taboo that's become in recent decades.
Sure. There's a general direction. A whole lot of people here are telling you what it is, but you don't seem to be interested in paying any attention. Why is that? When so many people are
desperate to teach you, why is it like pulling teeth to get you to learn?
There's an overall direction in the history of life on Earth. Nobody's said different. That direction is that
diversity expands and increases over time. At the beginning, living things were not very diverse. They were mostly all the same. Even during the "Cambrian explosion", described in creationist circles as the immediate and sudden appearance of most of today's major phyla, less than about 10,000 different species evolved. Most of the phyla represented in the Cambrian period are known from only a few hundred species each.
Today those phyla encompass millions of species.
Diversity increases over time; that's real trend. And as part of increasing diversity, we would expect a few complex organisms over time, like we have now. We certainly wouldn't expect
every organism to get more complex - that would be
less diversity over time, not more. We see a
greater diversity of complexity, which is why there are more complex organisms at this time than in the past, and also why simple organisms are still the rule and always will be.
I was speaking more about how RNA could have come about all on its own in the frist place when it needs enzymes and genes at the same time.
It doesn't. RNA can catalyze it's own formation. Small segments of RNA can assemble randomly.
It's not hard to see where this is going, I hope.
The synthesizing of nucleotides and achieving replication of RNA under plausible prebiotic conditions have proved just as challenging as all the other Origin of life considerations.
Well, biology isn't for sissies. If you're afraid of a little hard work I'd suggest a different hobby.
™ Version 4.2