True. If evolution is survival of the fitest (which requires you to reproduce more than others) then we should expect all life forms to evolve to smaller life forms that reproduce quicker. The evolution tree would be upside down. We should all end up bacteria (which currently makes up 80% of all living things).
Quite wrong. Humans have a long life expectancy as a result of being very good at investing resources in their offspring. Multiple cooperating generations are very good at looking after babies.
What you are saying (whether or not you understand it or not is difficult to discern) is that the fitness of a specie is purely a function of an r strategy (as opposed to a K strategy).
This is not true.
Now, I learnt that interesting fact doing my A levels so I can only conclude that your knowledge of biology stops at GCSE level.
I look forwards to you further contribution in this science thread, with baited breath.
we should have expected that simple organisms alive today should have experienced some mutations to change and not remained the same for so long. 80% of all living things are still single cell organisms.
Can you explain (with supporting evidence) why you think this is so? As it stands you are making an unsupported assertion.
You say 'we should expect x,y and z' without giving us any reason to believe you.
If you can put into words why all the bacteria should have evolved to different things I would be very grateful.