I agree it's useful to assume it's true - also, comfortingly reassuring, that, well, one has to go step by step. One way to disprove the "law" is to look for i

I agree it's useful to assume it's true - also, comfortingly reassuring, that, well, one has to go step by step. One way to disprove the "law" is to look for instances of "leaps in complexity" beyond mere evolution. The only example I can think of is the leap of intuition that geniuses sometimes have, that give an entirely different view of a problem: e.g. speed of light would appear constant if observers had different time frames; the molecules could be linked in a ring; water is displaced by volume. But the new perspective is itself very simple in each case (assuming the background) - the leap is in having the insight at all, not in its complexity. These are not leaps in complexity; and therefore not counter-examples to "Gall's Law".