by Helen Fryman
Question: If complex life forms evolved from simple life forms, why are there still simple life forms?
Response: A couple of points here:
1. Complex life forms have been with us from the beginning as evidenced by the geologic strata. They did not evolve from anything. They were created complex.
2. Even the "simplest" life forms--the prokaryotic bacteria--are extraordinarily complex. They are certainly far more complex than any chance could produce, no matter how much time or how many elements were available.
Your point is mistaken in one area, however. Even according to evolutionary ideas, there is no reason the "simplest" life forms could not exist on a continuing basis although a portion of them might have mutated into other forms. I'm not sure their argument is entirely logical, however . . . They say that mutations and environmental pressures worked together to produce changes from one sort of organism to another. But, you are right--we still have those bacteria and such around. So we must presume that through the billions of years, evolution postulates that these bacteria did NOT have the combination of mutations and environmental pressures to become something else--while their 'sister' populations did. So for one group of organisms we seem to have an incredibly stable genome and environment for millions and billions of years while an identical population was subject to all kinds of mutations and pressures which ended up producing life as we see it today. So, although evolutionists will say that it is perfectly logical that original--or close to original--life forms should still exist today, I'm afraid the logic of it misses me, too.