I'll try. Your subject "evolution" is an abstraction in a strict sense, from the verb that I distinguished informally. You lost me as your subject changed into some exploration of "complexity" which might have implied the problem of how "advanced" species might have evolved from simpler forms (like microbes, say)---but what was you standard for "simplicity"? Then your subject changes into a discussion of language that focuses on English specifically without any reference to the "problem of universals" which was once essential to the logic of "scientific method" before it degenerated into rationales for experimentation. What happened to evolution? Are you talking about an evolution of life generally out of matter abstractly or the evolution of shapes and forms from common origins
or at any certain point in time, including the present?
When you don't define your topic in any clear or distinctive sense, you end up tracing accepted doctrine toward no conclusions. There is always something more general in nature than anything you might mean subjectively. What is NOT evolution in your universe, implicitly, that must be "complex" in such an indefinite sense. Are you sure the evolution of modern diction out of British English is the proper way to relate language to complexity? How you propose to return from such abstractions to the problems that Darwin introduced to understanding the emergence of life on our planet? Maybe I didn't get it because you lost my attention in a hash of ideas with no theme. On the other hand, there is such a thing as "involution" in projective geometry which bears an interesting relation to the "vortices" of Cartesian principles, notwithstanding how the "Cartesian Plane" has been distorted into something it's not for anyone who ever studied Analytic Geometry. Without any formal basis in common understandings, the religious versus scientific debate about semantic differences doesn't prove very meaningful in lectures.https://plus.google.com/108657187448883149300/posts/gNiVzN9Ahb6