Why would a organism with 1 set of cells be better or worse then a organism with 2 sets?
451783
2 is always better than 1.  The higher number of sets an organism has, the higher up on the food chain they would be.  An organism with 2 sets of cells would probably eat a 1 cell organism.
176550
one, they are what is known as unicellular (having 1 cell).
1036246
right on, I'm glad someone else sees some of the problems with evolutions.  Everyone else, keep in mind that this protein is just one of millions that is vital to life as we know it.  And another thing how do we know that the world is 4 billion years old?  Carbon dating?  The half life of carbon 14 is 5,730 years.  So how many half lives is that. Simply put by 4 billion years there no carbon 14 left to measure, it would have all deteriorated.  There is no way that all the life on earth could have resulted by evolution\n\nOkay to everyone above, to the person who said that scientists have created living cells from nonliving molecules, slap yourself because that is an absolute falsehood.  Next when you say that scientist created amino acids that is true but lets look closer.  There were only about 5 different amino acids that were created not all the ones that are necessary for life.  Next how were all the other cell parts (lipids, nucleic acids, carbs) formed.  Did they just appear? Scientists cannot make lipids from just the molecules needed to synthesize them.  I have a very hard time believing that all these parts were formed, in the same place (it is very hard to keep things together underwater let alone in an ocean) and somehow all came together and then replicated.  No that does not happen.  \n\nNext how did new material get added in to the gene pool? Mutation?  Well everything that we know from science (Medicine, genetics) tells us that mutation is bad.  Name one good mutation.  Not sickle cell anemia.  First of all sickle cell is only beneficial when it is in the heterozygote and so it helps protect against malaria, it also cause way more harmful symptoms than beneficial ones.  Look at what happens with people that have cystic fibrosis.  There are a few (less than 10) nucleic acid changes and it is usually fatal.  Mutation does not, repeat, DOES NOT, provide helpful change.  Another thing is how did this first cell survive?  Even the simplest cell carry out complex reactions, and processes that "Scientists" cannot explain after years of study.  In order for this "first cell" to be viable all these pathways would have to present before the cell could live.  And what about all the proteins need for DNA/RNA replication?  There are about 150 different proteins that carry out karyokinesis alone and then comes the problem of separating the DNA.  Come on do you still think that all this could have happened by chance?  \n\nNext time, do not come after creationist because you do not want to believe that there is a God.  With creation everything fits.  The more you know about biology the more you see the holes in evolution.
607530
Uhhh.... isn't bacteria a single-cell organism?\nPlease be more specific.
124743
They grow, one cell at a time.
868195
one celled organism are organism which consists of only one cell.examples are Amoeba,euglena and paramecium while  many-celled organism or muticellular organisms consists of two or more cells.Examples are man,bird,hydra,flowering plants,volvox ,hydra and fish
580758
The different lifespans of different plants and animals, including humans raises the question of why these lifespans are found.\n\nThe evolutionary theory is that organisms that are able by virtue of their defenses or lifestyle to live for long periods whilst avoiding accidents, disease, predation etc. are likely to have genes that code for slow aging- good repair.\n\nThis is so because if a change to the organism (for example a bird might evolve stronger wings) may mean that it is exceptionally capable of escaping from predation, then it will live longer, and die of old age. So a member of the population with the better wings who by chance has genes that code for better repair will outlast its contemporaries and have more successors. Its genes will tend to dominate more and more of the gene pool and genes for slower aging and slower reproduction rate will dominate.\n\nConversely a change to the environment that means that organisms die younger from a common disease will mean that organisms that have genes that code for putting more energy into reproduction than repair will do better.\n\nThe support for this theory includes the fact that better defended animals, for example cats, live longer and functionally age slower than less well defended animals such as dogs; and even small birds that can fly away from danger live for a decade or more whereas mice which cannot, die of old age in a year or two. Turtles are very well defended indeed and live for over a hundred years.
492085
Even single celled organisms engage in an exchange of genetic material, aka s e x.  One organism extends a pili and genetic material is exchanged between it and another microbe that lacks a pili.
184652
All organisms are complex, but some are more complex than others.
459932
Granted "survival of the fittest" is a poor way to characterize natural selection. For one reason it's a bit circular in logic. It is also important to point out that what natural selection maximizes (optimizes really) is numbers of babies, not survival of the individual. Genes that lead to traits in individuals that cause them to have more offspring than individuals without those genes are more common in the next generation (=evolution). The logic of this, as you can see, is unassailable. So while being able to survive means you can live to have more children, it's really about having the children, not survival per se.\n\nAs to your other point (about individuals dying), as I said the individual doesn't matter for evolution, only how many offspring are produced (including their quality and when they are produced). So there is no inherent benefit to living longer unless it allows you to produce more offspring. In fact evolutionary theory has explained why we age and it is something of an inevitable fact of life unfortunately. Different organisms have different average longevities that have evolved based on that particular species' schedule of reproduction and mortality, but all organisms (sexual organisms) will inevitably age and die. The explanation for the evolution of ageing is a very elegant one and not hard to understand, but I won't go into it here. If you search the web using the terms "evolution senescence" you should find it if you are interested.
1066627
I am a Christian and I have found remarkable facts that have bolstered my faith in Intelligent Design. To name one, Irreducable Complexity. It is the fact, (Not Theory) that the simplest cell in our body was created completely in a moment's time, instead of a gradual evolution. It is like a mouse trap. There's a board, spring, lever, and latch. The cell, like the trap, has components that compliment each other in the same way the trap does. If you took one component away the trap would be defective, likewise if the cell is left without all the necessary systems it will perish leaving no time for evolution.
707688
Multicellular organisms
42443
I think for at least some unicellular organism it has been found that the original set of DNA acquires faults and that the bit of organism around it will eventually die. \nAt least for yeast (which is a unicellular fungus) it has been demonstrated that individuals eventually die.
553375
False. All creatures, from worms to humans, have specialized cells.
758568
In general, organisms with less complexity, are less likely to have homeoboxes\n\nHomeoboxes seem to be reserved for higher eukaryotic cells (like human cells) that require specialized cells which will coordinate complex tasks in conjunction with other specialized cells (at least that's my simplistic viewpoint).\n\nE.coli, for example, does not contain homeoboxes because it is not dependent so much on its sister cells. \n\nI had fun thinking about the answer to your question.  Don't forget to pass on the good karma.
383694
In mulitcellular organisms, it is more difficult for cells to take in nutrients and excrete waste.  Single celled organisms can easily do this in their environment.  But in multi-celled organisms, cells are found layer upon layer.  They can't easily get nutrients, and any waste that they excreted would just stay there, building up in toxic quantities that would kill the entire organism.  Thus, we have circulation, a network of vessels that reaches out throughout the organism, easily reaching all the cells and allowing them to do their thing.
739654
The first and most important thing is for the surface area to volume ratio. The smaller the ratio, the more efficient the cell.\n\nAlso, cells are building blocks of something bigger. If we had huge cells, imagine how big we'd have to be in order to hold trillions of them. ;)\n\nThat's about it in the nutshell.