On this matter apparently not!
This creates the “illusion” of an ever-progressive complexity. But it isn’t something that can be quantified. If it could be quantified, we would be able to answer the question:
If it could ever happen that a fish population becomes a land-based tetrapod, is that a gain in complexity or a loss of complexity?
The tetrapod has lost its gills, but gained lungs. It has lost the ability to swim, but the tetrapod has the ability to run.
The whole system is designed to produce a variety of living things to fill every niche, and whatever input is necessary to jump start that system is also designed. I think @Argon correctly noted that the “bad design” argument does not apply to my model, since nature has plenty of autonomy. So it is not that I am dodging your question per se, it is just that it does not apply to what I believe happened. Under the thread “best arguments against design” I already laid out an experiment which, if it produced enough of the right kind of change, would be my example of a “best argument against design”.