Let's take a step back here. What is your definition of "complex", specifically in terms of how we can tell which of two organisms is more complex than the other?
A step back?
You brought in this experiment to challenge the statement... There is no evidence of simple organism to complex.
Experimental evolution of multicellularity
However, multicellular organisms are organisms that consist of more than one cell, in contrast to unicellular organisms.
Does multicellularity mean complexity?
Why else would you be asking me about complexity?
What if I described complexity that is outside your expectations?
According to science papers,
the actual level of complexity is very hard to define or measure accurately in biology, with properties such as gene content, the number of cell types or morphology all proposed as possible metrics.
What is complexity?
Abstract
Arguments for or against a trend in the evolution of complexity are weakened by the lack of an unambiguous definition of complexity. Such definitions abound for both dynamical systems and biological organisms, but have drawbacks of either a conceptual or a practical nature.
I actually like this one.
Language: Disputed definitions
Something I have been saying all along.
How important would your question be, or the statement you seem so determined to challenge be, if this statement is true?
There's No Such Thing as a 'Simple' Organism
Would you disagree? Then you would now have to explain what simple is.
Is it the case, you are of the view that simple means unicellular, and complex means multicellular?
One thing I can say about you though. You are quite a determined fellow.
That can be good, and it can be bad. For a scientist, it can be advantageous for your work, because it means you won't give up easily, and your determination might well pay off.
The down side of determination, is that, you may not know when enough is enough, and it can drive a person up a wall.
In order for you to say, this is evidence of how that occurred, you must replicate the complete process, not speculate on how it might have happened, by creating an experiment based on how you assumed it happened.
If there is anything you would like to say, on the above, besides repeating your question, as you so famously do
- I just keep remembering you on the Watchmaker thread - then I say, enough is enough. Let's move on to something else.
We can always agree that 'There's No Such Thing as a 'Simple' Organism' and go our merry way. That way, neither of us has to make a point about simple to complex. Instead there are merely different levels of complexity.
Can we move on now?
I was going to return to the questions you posed earlier, but I decided on something else.
Your determination has actually taught me something, which I think I will put into practice at this time.
I keep asking a question, actually a number of them, which no one seems eager or willing to address, including you. Everyone seem s to be avoiding it, and playing ignorance to the point I am making.
So here is what I'll do, taking a page from your book...
I'll ask again.
Let me put it this way...
A stick insect fossil in a layer with dinosaur fossils dating before 66 million years will automatically indicate the fossil must be older than 66 million years - which was done.
If other studies say that is wrong, and the stick insect fossil is younger - many millions of years after 66 million years ago, then how did it get buried in a layer with dinosaur fossils?
If the insect fossil is much younger, then why are the other fossils in that strata older, and not considered younger?
Does it have anything to do with the phylogenetic tree?
Que? Seriously?