Could it be as simple as why bees and not just flowers?
What I mean is could it be due to the existence of multi-cell organisms that single cell organisms still thrive. The same thing with societies and individuals. An individual mind came up with the theory of relativity but it needed something to nurture it to that point.

its certainly possible i guess.

I'm not sure its rational for a single cell organism to partner with other single cell organisms. I think undirected evolution is an irrational concept. — christian2017

What is irrational is this argument from ignorance. No rational conclusion can follow from "I haven't a fucking clue."

lol. You'll find out you are wrong someday. Next time leave the emotion out of your argument you fool.
If you didn't think my argument had some validity you wouldn't have gotten so upset. Don't worry about me, i'll be just fine. :)

Well, if multicellular life didn't have advantages then it wouldn't have evolved. If unicellular life didn't have advantages it wouldn't continue to exist would it? That's according to the theory of evolution.

As per the theory of evolution (toe) creature adapting to the environment depends on how fast they reproduce because adaptations occur in the offspring and not the parent.

So, an organism that reproduces faster clearly has an advantage over its slower cousins. They adapt faster to the environment. Given this is so unicellular creatures will fare better than multicellular organisms because the former have a higher reproductive rate.

That said consciousness, logical ability is a feature possessed by multicellular life (humans) and this ability confers a survival advantage by allowing us to manipulate the environment rather than us adapting to it.

Which of the two is superior will depend on circumstances. If an asteroid hits the Earth then unicellular organisms will survive but not plants and animals. If environmental change is gradual then our brains may be up to the challenges thus imposed.

I think the problem with evolutionary theory is that it assumes chance and survival are the only determining factors in evolution. But it then struggles to explain a number of evolutionary anomalies like altruism, suicide, love, art, etc.

There’s little doubt that natural selection has a significant impact on what kind of traits survive in life-threatening environments. But evolution and diversification occurs in abundantly resourced and non-threatening environments as well, and some traits or behaviours developed in these environments have little to no survival value, but instead suggest an underlying motivation to evolution that can be masked by extinction rates.

If chance and survival were the only determining factors of evolution, then humanity certainly would not have evolved into an organism equipped to maximise awareness, interconnectedness and overall achievement over individual or even genetic survival. We can think of ourselves as a ‘fluke’ of evolution, the pinnacle of its achievement OR as its greatest potential still to be realised.

Multicellular life persisted where it didn’t harm survivability, but I don’t think we should therefore assume ‘survival value’ as the motivating factor simply because it seems most obvious. It’s also too much of a leap to then claim ‘logical ability’ as a survival advantage of multicellular forms over unicellular. I find it interesting, too, that animals seem to discard under-utilised survival traits in abundant environments, but often retain traits with no survival value despite the threat of resource scarcity. Personally, I think we need to dispense with Darwinian apologetics and consider the possibility that there’s more to evolution than chance and survival value.

But before anyone jumps immediately to divine intervention (because I’m pretty sure that’s where the OP may be headed), I would argue that all matter started out with the potential to maximise awareness, interconnectedness and overall achievement. I think most of it is dependent on humanity now, though. An intervening God can be a way to ‘pass the buck’, in my opinion.

I think the problem with evolutionary theory is that it assumes chance and survival are the only determining factors in evolution. But it then struggles to explain a number of evolutionary anomalies like altruism, suicide, love, art, etc. — Possibility

The theory of evolution does not assume that. That would be a subset called natural selection. Other selection mechanisms, like sexual selection, are actively discussed within the theory of evolution.

According to the theory of evolution, all that is required to pass on a trait is for the individual having the trait to reproduce. No "survival advantage" is strictly speaking necessary.

I think the problem with evolutionary theory is that it assumes chance and survival are the only determining factors in evolution. But it then struggles to explain a number of evolutionary anomalies like altruism, suicide, love, art, etc. — Possibility

Yes, evolution may not be simply a matter of chance & survival but these are the major players. Yes, there are claims that some traits have no survival value but one may ask ''how do you know?'' Given that no better explanation is available it's only reasonable that we assume such ''useless'' traits are yet to be fully understood, a better position than misunderstanding them as contradicting evolutionary principles.

thats fair. But i should add, there are 100s of possibilities of how life could end in 10 years or 1 million years. Life on this planet could be argued to be by sheer chance. What is the probability of all this happening. According to the book "a brief history of time", if you roll a trillion sided die trying to roll the number 15, if you roll it 1 trillion times you will probably roll a 15.

Given these facts, the fact that life exists is matter of sheer chance with many chances. Are you with me so far?

Belief in God or gods is absolutely necessary to human survival whether or not you believe that or not.
More lives are created due to faith in a God or gods than that are destroyed by faith. You can accuse me of evangelizing all you want. I'll be just fine.

Don't be so simple.

I believe Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life and no one comes to God except through him.
This is just my philosophical belief. :)

Sophisticat is right that this thread is nothing but an appeal to incredulity.

According to the theory of evolution, all that is required to pass on a trait is for the individual having the trait to reproduce. No "survival advantage" is strictly speaking necessary — Echarmion

But a trait that helps an organism survive also provides opportunity for mating and thereof to pass on the concerned traits.

Grass is green and turns brown in winter. Imagine two species of grasshopper; one bright red and the other green. One color camouflages well and the other doesn't. More green grasshoppers survive and so more green grasshoppers mate resulting in an increase in the green grasshopper population. The red ones die out. So reproduction is correlated with traits that have a benefit to survival.

But a trait that helps an organism survive also provides opportunity for mating and thereof to pass on the concerned traits.

Grass is green and turns brown in winter. Imagine two species of grasshopper; one bright red and the other green. One color camouflages well and the other doesn't. More green grasshoppers survive and so more green grasshoppers mate resulting in an increase in the green grasshopper population. The red ones die out. So reproduction is correlated with traits that have a benefit to survival. — TheMadFool

This is possible, but it's not a necessary process. If, for example, red grasshoppers had a significantly higher chance of mating (perhaps grasshoppers find red attractive) it might also lead to red grasshoppers surviving despite the selection disadvantage.

A survival advantage can lead to a better chance of reproduction, but the reverse is not true.

A survival advantage can lead to a better chance of reproduction, but the reverse is not true. — Echarmion

Correct in my opinion. It's all about numbers isn't it? More the merrier?

EDIT: Sorry didn't read your post carefully. I think reproductive capacity does lead to a survival advantage because variety in the gene pool is greater and thus adaptation can occur with greater ease.

Imagine this: There's a global event occuring over a period of 10 years. Consider two organisms, A reproduces every 2 years and B reproduces every 10 years. A clearly has an advantage because adapatation can occur over 5 generations with the proviso that within 10 years some offspring will have traits that allow A to face the global event. B, on the other hand, has no such opportunity and will be the last generation of its kind.

Maybe because they're so small they need very little resources, and are built to be incredibly adaptive to many different environments (organic or otherwise). Just look at bacteria. Basically half your body is bacteria.

Single-celled organism? Less cells to worry about.

yeah, i agree with that. Certain aspects of humans and some other animals seem to be aspects that are devolution not evolution. Snakes are better off with legs and have been shown to actually have evolved into not having legs after lizards came about. Humans are worse as giving birth than Apes. The vagina is not condusive to giving birth and women have it built into their dna to have all sorts of problems after giving birth (post partum depression)

some pythons actually have stubs where their ancestors actually once had legs.

I'm not sure its rational for a single cell organism to partner with other single cell organisms. — christian2017

It has nothing to do with what you think is rational for single cell organisms to do. It has to do with what has successfully survived and reproduced in a given environment. It may not seem rational if one holds to a top down model of organized systems, but bottom up or self-organizing systems do not operate according to a predetermined rational plan.

i disagree. Unless you want to elaborate on that, i don't believe you thought this through.

There is an extensive literature on self-organizing systems. The fact that you disagree does not mean that researchers who have spent their lives on this have not thought it through. And for what it is worth, despite what you believe, I have thought it through.

thats fair. Since were on a forum where we all pretend to try to educate each other: do you have an article or am i going to have search for it my self. My current take on predestination is that its valid, so self organizing systems isn't a stretch.

Since were on a forum where we all pretend to try to educate each other: do you have an article or am i going to have search for it my self. My current take on predestination is that its valid, so self organizing systems isn't a stretch. — christian2017

That may be what you pretend to do on this forum. You are going to have to search for yourself. Self-organizing systems would not be self-organizing if there was anything like predestination at work. You are going to have to stretch.

i guess i'll cry myself to sleep tonight. Don't go getting your feelings hurt. I will look up some articles on that subject. Actually predestination unfortunately allows for just about anything. Read the book "a brief history of time by stephen hawkings or look up scientific determinism.

Self-organization occurs in many physical, chemical, biological, robotic, and cognitive systems. Examples of self-organization include crystallization, thermal convection of fluids, chemical oscillation, animal swarming, neural circuits, and artificial neural networks.

taken from wikipedia

Why would it be a surprise for self organizing systems to appear in artificial neural networks? I don't believe you've read more than 10 pages on this subject from anyone source and the reason thats important is that to find self organizing systems in biology you would have to move towards the threshold of becoming a doctor or some form of a biologist. If your trying to tell me i can study this subject for 30 days 8 hours a day and some how gain the right to tell people i'm right or that your wrong about this given subject, i believe you are severely mistaken. There are plenty of doctors that believe in gods or a God.

I don't believe you've read more than 10 pages on this subject from anyone source and the reason thats important is that to find self organizing systems in biology you would have to move towards the threshold of becoming a doctor or some form of a biologist. — christian2017

You make a lot of assumptions about what I have and have not read. There is plenty of information available on self-organizing biological systems, and much of it is written for people who do not have advanced training in the biological sciences. It is a standard part of the philosophy of biology.

If your trying to tell me i can study this subject for 30 days 8 hours a day and some how gain the right to tell people i'm right or that your wrong about this given subject, i believe you are severely mistaken. There are plenty of doctors that believe in gods or a God. — christian2017

The right to tell people you are right? If you are interested do a bit of research, if not then don't. You certainly do not need to study this subject for 30 days 8 hours a day to discover that there is solid evidence of self-organizing biological systems. There are plenty of doctors who believe in gods or a God who do not believe that their god plays a role in evolution. The Catholic Church accepts evolution with the exception of the origin of the human soul.

i accept evolution too. These doctors who believe in gods or a God also believe these gods directed evolution. As too you assuming this is a simple subject that can be studied by reading a single 10 page article is dumb on this particular matter. Good luck understanding evolution completely without studying the subject for years on end. I'm not saying you have to go to a university but you will have to go the library and do alot of reading.

These doctors who believe in gods or a God also believe these gods directed evolution. — christian2017

They may accept some features of evolution such as common morphology or common ancestors but guided evolution is not Darwinian evolution.

As too you assuming this is a simple subject that can be studied by reading a single 10 page article is dumb on this particular matter. — christian2017

I assume no such thing. You seem to be making excuses for not looking into a matter that may undermine some of your beliefs.

Good luck understanding evolution completely without studying the subject for years on end. — christian2017

No one understands evolution completely, and anyone who has studied it for years on end knows this.

I'm not saying you have to go to a university but you will have to go the library and do alot of reading. — christian2017

More assumptions. I have in fact done quite a bit of reading on the subject over a period of many years. I have read Darwin and more contemporary works based on biological advances that was not available when he wrote.

If you have something substantive to say I will respond otherwise I am done.

If you have something substantive to say I will respond otherwise I am done. — Fooloso4

i say the same to you. Some of the things you said in your previous post i would agree with its just i didn't say them just like you. However i can promise you that Darwin didn't understand evolution the way the modern evolutionist understands it. Darwin essentially made conjecture and he just happened to be correct for the most part. I won't be going to you for medical advice and i won't be going to you for information on evolution. Like i said before, i do believe in evolution or at the very least am fairly certain it is a reality.

Single cell organisms far outweigh multi cell organisms on the earth. I'm not sure its rational for a single cell organism to partner with other single cell organisms. I think undirected evolution is an irrational concept. — christian2017

Rationality has nothing to do with it.

Single cell organisms have been, and remain, tremendously successful. No doubt about that. Multi-celled organisms formed--not by design, not for rational reasons. They just did -- just as single-celled organisms developed all the various features that various species display.

As for advantages and disadvantages, you have to ask, "In what circumstance?"

the core of depression and suffering is really the ability to feel the need to think deeply. The worm doesn't question "God" as to why it has no legs. It just eats and poops and treats food like a drug. I'm not saying we should think deeply or not think deeply but a single celled organism is fully capable of reproducing quickly without growing into a deep thinking depressed human. Humans are said to have developed religion as a way to produce large populations but i feel from a emotional and practical stand point the smaller and less complicated we are the better we are. (single celled organism). i believe Humans are a reflection of a deep thinking and depressed extra-natural (my term) creator.