Evolution - small to big?

Among others, Robert Wright pointed out that Gould's notion of nondirectionality is a confusion of a few different concepts. Many here have said, quite correctly, that evolution does not always favor the bigger or most complex organism, and there is support for lineages where the descendents lost size or complexity due to environmental pressures. However, the fact that there has been an increase in the average complexity of all life on Earth is pretty irrefutable.Another subject mixed into this matter is Gould's notion of 'contingency,' which I believe he overemphasized. He always said that humans were lucky winners in the evolutionary game, and that's certainly true. However, I'm one of the people of the opinion that intelligence of some kind was as inevitable an outcome of the evolutionary algorithm as, say, the existence of sight. Is 'directionality' in these terms just groundless speculation?------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

NosyNed responds to me: That's still saying that there has been an overall net increase in complexity. How typical of Gould to find fault with a concept because of its consistency with the facts. Given Gould's generally uncharitable view of natural selection, I'm not surprised that he only marvels at the apparently universal ecological niche it provides the smallest, simplest organisms. I prefer to consider its other achievements such as the human brain at least marginally more praiseworthy, considering both are the product of the same cumulative series of drunkard's walks. Call me biased.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall