>My point was this: the general observation has been that 'lower' life forces will have simpler DNA structures.

Define DNA structures. DNA is structured as a double helix. In order for a meaningful conversation, lets first understand what you mean by "simpler" and "more complex" "DNA structures".

>The fact that certain worms have more complex DNA structures blows that theory out of the proverbial water.

This is a fact? Cite. All I've been able to discover is that we have about 30,000 more genes than worms (http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu:8089/man/),

>If you logically follow this notion that wouild mean that worms, having a more complex DNA structure, are more advanced. Well, I haven't seen any worm charities or hospitals lately. <g>

You also haven't seen any worm prisons are wars. That simple thought provoker aside (of course, this only applies to the open minded), assuming you are correct that they have a "more complex DNA structure", you admitted earlier that one of your premise (which is questionable itself) was only a generalization. You can't draw a logical conclusion from a questionable generalization.

>Same for there not being any inter-species fossil records.

How do you define a species. I have blue eyes, if you have grey eyes, are we of the same species? Don't throw around species like it means something, its something a human classification system which in no way makes definitive claims about the genetic makup of the individual of that species. Evolution is not about species, its about genes.

>But, it's the basis for the entire theory of evolution.

No its not. Genetics, not species, are the basis. It is much more complex than the model that you have of evolution in your head. I can guarantee this.