Genetic fallacy, my personal motivations are irrelevant
To the argument, sure.
I didn't present it as a counter-argument though.
Well then deal with the reasons that I provided and explain why aren’t this good reasons to accept the premises.
I already did.
There's no scientific reason at all for your premise. No scientist working in relevant fields has this expectation. No data suggests that species whose simplicity is on-par with first life would thrive for 4 billion years.
If anything, data suggests otherwise - like what it would take to survive The Great Oxidation and beyond.
And even if I would bend over backwards and assume such life could still exist - the fact that we haven't found it could just as well mean that
- we simply haven't found it yet
or
- eventhough it could have survived, it didn't.
So in either case, you can't possibly begin to support your premise.
Ohh wait you are an atheist , you don’t support your claims
I know of none.
It's curious that you don't know though, since it's your argument. I'ld assume that you didn't pull your premise out of thin air, but apparantly..............................
Hence why I said that your premise/argument isn't motivated by data or evidence. If it were, then you
would know.
I haven find any papers that suggest that they should have gone extinct ether , this is one of the reasons I presented this argument in this forum just hoping to find peer reviewed information that would ether support or refute the argument.
It is generally accepted that early life rose to relative complexity rather quickly. (relative to the simplicity of first life). In just about every genetic algorithm I have ever seen running that started with extreme simplicity, the level of complexity rose very fast at first and then stabilized. At that point, it is true that at times simplicity is favored over unnecessary complexity. But this is not at all true at the start of the process. The extremely simple get outcompeted rather quickly.
And as has already been told you, surviving the great oxidation would have involved evolving systems that protect the life form from the toxic effects of oxygen, which necessarily requires a certain level of complexity.
And unlike other mass extinction events, the earth didn't return to its prior state afterwards. The oxygen was here to stay, meaning all life had to deal with it.
There's also, quite ironically, the idea of evolved "irreducibly complex" systems.
Once a life form gets to that stage, it's very hard to have evolutionary paths to revert it.