Since the common idea is that all life evolved from one common ancestor, why are there still some life forms that "have not evolved very far?" You can read posts on this forum where people sound like they believe some life forms are "more evolved" than others, whereas every life form has actually been evolving for the same amount of time.
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).
"Humans have a long life expectancy as a result of being very good at investing resources in their offspring."
Actually, humans are not "very good" at evolution. There are currently 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria living on earth (perhaps 80% of all living things) and only about 7,000,000,000 humans living on earth. And I predict that the percentage of bacteria will increase whereas the percentage of humans will decrease. Do you predict the opposite?
Granted, I assumed that the phrase "evolution" on this forum would mean "the theory of evolution".
I will restate it...
If the theory of evolution is correct, 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.
some mutations actually remove a part of the genome.
IF the probability that a mutation adds to the genome is exactly the same as the probability that a mutation removes part of the genome, then there will be no directionality.
However, evolutionists believe that it is more likely that a mutation will add to the genome which gradually results in more information in the genome. Creationists believe that it is more likely that a mutation will remove part of the genome which gradually results in less information in the genome.