Why would [i]permanence[/i] be a pre-requisite of complexity? 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? Put very simply, it suggests that organisms are constantly changing based on efficient response to the environmental pressure. That is why "all plants and animals are packed with information". We developed eyes to do something useful with all this light that is around. Sub-species that run off and make a go of inhabiting subterranean environments very quickly go about not bothering with making eyes so complex - the theory suggest they would eventually be got rid of altogether. The 'list of good ideas of what to do with light' remains as genetic information, amassing to be more that '[i]all the volumes of an encyclopedia[/i]'. The theory suggest that should that species finds itself back in a bright environment, it will adapt faster because of that handy list. If I have a post-it note taped to my locker door saying 'If the door sticks, giggle the handle.' this is not because I foresaw the problem arising one future day, and pre-outfitted myself with that information. It's because one day it did stick, and to adapt to the situation I tried swearing [fail], pushing [fail], checked if it was someone elses locker [fail] and eventually giggling [win]. It doesn't always stick, but the post-it note remains. Imagine if I wrote a post-it note to myself every time [i]any[/i] activity worked, or didn't work and I warned myself not to do it again. It wouldn't take long to develop a very great deal of recorded information. 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. Complex structures are created by a series of simple responses. Cathedrals are made of stone blocks. The processor inside my computer is a very complex arrangement of very simple sand. The examples he gives of wings, eyes, and brains are ideal - because each is an example of a response to an environmental pressure that has existed for as long as there has been a universe. 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. The theory has no problem suggesting that should the universe suddenly run out of light, then surviving species would happily reverse all that work they did on developing eyes, just as happily as land animals once forsook all the graft it took to form a nice set of gills. Note - Yes, I just realized I wrote [i]giggling [/i]instead of [i]jiggling[/i]. I will let it stand as testament to the fact I am not a smart man.