The structural complexity of the simplest one-celled organism far exceeds the complexity of joining together individual cells in a cooperative way to make multi-celled organisms.
Even if you were correct -- and from what I know of biology, you aren't, that still would make your comment a complete non sequitur to the material you were allegedly "responding" to.
Hint for the science-impaired: The "simplest one-celled organism" as we know it today is a *result* of evolution, not the *starting point* of it.
You don't know much about biology then.
Hint for the science-impaired: The "simplest one-celled organism" as we know it today is a *result* of evolution, not the *starting point* of it.
Life started with an organism of less than one cell? One fifth? One twentieth maybe?
[Like Darwinian evolution, cosmic expansion provides the context within which simple structures form and develop over time into complex structures. Without evolution and expansion, modern biology and cosmology make little sense.]
So, I say multi-cellular organisms are more complex in their basic design than the evolved mechanisms of multi-cellular organisms in comparison, yet that is non-sequitur to the statement "...the context within which simple structures form and develop over time into complex structures?" That's not logical.
The "simplest one-celled organism" as we know it today is a *result* of evolution, not the *starting point* of it.
What example, artifactual, experimental or theoretical, do you have of a one-celled organism that is more simple than the simplest known one-celled organism? Without one your refutation is empty.