Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court

[Aractus]

But it's not equal. It's not a 50/50 chance that a species would evolve to be either more complex or simpler, it depends on the pressures that the environment puts on the species and thus, only the ones that are able to adapt best will be able reproduce.

Kind of like how the snakes lost their legs when they didn't need them anymore, or other examples of unneeded appendages withering away.

No. What your say makes about as much sense as theorizing that entropy has a 50% chance of creating randomness when crystallization occurs. Crystallization ignores entropy, it is ordered - order is created from chaos. The rules that might normally apply outside of it don't apply to it. The same is true for evolution. Evolution is about "building". You can't build something big if you're always expending all your resources rebuilding your structure. Thus while it may play a *role* in evolution it isn't the process and it is only minor compared to the overall process.

---

Define complicated.

Animals that take to living in caves tend to lose there eyes. Is that more or less complicated? Please refer to the definition you have provided in answering.

If you're referring to bats you're wrong. Bats can see during the day, and could see quite well if not for the fact that they're nocturnal. Thus their poor eyesight is an environmental result - not an evolutionary one. Their eyes don't fully develop because they live in the dark. It has nothing to do with the fact that evolution took their eyesight away.