I've been thinking about another argument against neo-Darwinism. I can't remember if I read it somewhere or if thought of it myself, and I'm not sure it's entirely correct, but hopefully those of you who know better will tell me.
If evolution is about the survival of the fittest, and in general the simplest life forms are the fittest, then why are there complex organisms like mammals at all?? Remember we are always told that cockroaches will survive a nuclear holocaust, but not us. And bacteria, as species, are much more capable of surviving than cockroaches. Some of them live in volcanoes! So how can we explain that higher organisms ever evolved past the point of the simplest forms of life?
I'm glad you asked! This really comes down to how you construe fitness. To ask about an organism's fitness is to ask about its ability to survive and reproduce
with respect to a certain environment, which includes the other organisms in the community, physical features, as well as changes to the same over a certain scale of time, and black swan events. A good example to look at are plants. In a temperate forested or meadow ecosystem you find several types of plant types: ephemerals, annuals, and perennials. Ephemerals have the simplest genomes, followed by the annuals and then perennials.
The ephemerals sprout from the seeds, grow rapidly, reproduce in large amounts and then promptly die off as soon as the ideal springtime conditions leave. So if you took a small slice of the ecosystem in the height of spring you would say the ephemerals are the fittest and will out-compete the annuals and perennials. Over larger time scales however, you see annual plants surviving longer as individuals, taking advantage of some of the conditions that ephemerals can't deal with and so on. The same case is with perennials, which survive multiple growing seasons, weather disasters, and so on while the seeds of the ephemerals need to hunker down in the mulch and dirt until their "golden age" returns, and even then they are seeds and so technically are not the same individuals, and so (excluding clones for the time being) cannot strictly be said to be fairly incorporated into the same fitness metric as can be done with the individual perennial that sticks around for a number of years.
Another good example is that of tardigrades, or water bears. They get a lot of fame in the pop science world for being able to survive extreme heat, cold, deep space, radiation, probably electrocution, you name it. What don't they do well against? Virtually everything else. Larger animals (i.e. most of them) swallow them all the time, they get stepped on, etc. They may still stick around if the earth goes the way of kantek, but that doesn't count for much at the current scale of looking at it.
As for the other question of why do complex organisms arise, it's because it changes the dynamics of the playing field and reduces competition for resources. When you look at the formation of Eukaryotes via the endosymbiosis of bacteria into archaea species, you end up with an adaptive and cooperative relationship that can survive a lot more succesfully and adaptively than either just the bacteria or archaea on its own. The same goes with the leap to multi-cellular organization, where cells gang up together to take on other cells. Bacteria and yeasts can do this as well, true, but the key ways they specialize is a lot more rudimentary compared to even the most primitive animals (eg, sea sponges).
Typically its to the entire ecosystem's advantage that organisms diversify and find new niches, since, while Darwinism is often characterized as survival of the fittest, it paints a misleading picture that competition is the key to evolution. That may work on an intra-species level, where animals do often compete for resources and mates (and even then there are gregarious or (eu)social animals which benefit from cooperation). But inter-species competition is a very bad idea for both species, since it weakens both. So one usually drives the other out of the niche, after which it can either find another niche or expect its numbers to dwindle.
If you look at a population of birds in the area, while their food may often be similar, their feeding habits may not necessarily be. Some birds may only eat insects in the under-story of trees in the morning, while others may only eat in the canopy in the afternoon. And those bird calls? Other birds warning eachother to stay in their respective foraging territories (in addition to bragging about their territory's size to entice females). If you make some n-dimensional measurements of the types of food, foraging times, locations, etc. you would likely not see overlap in the n-dimensional objects of each species in its niche, since competition is a heavy waste of resources for everyone involved.
I live in in an urban environment where there are both a lot crows and seagulls around. Both of them are scavenger omnivores, but with the seagulls being bigger they often can bully the crows away from larger scores of plunder (say, some abandoned mcdonalds lunches). In spite of this, the seagulls tend not to rut round in parks and gardens looking for insects the way the crows do, since they are larger and I think are just more inclined for urban environments near the ocean as well as beaches.
So in conclusion evolution of more complex life is related to greater ability of individuals to adapt and continue reproducing over a longer time, as well as the bonus of creating/finding new niches and reducing intra-species competition, thereby increasing the overall biomass and biodiversity. (I am a heavy proponent of the Optimizing Gaia Hypothesis, which is a branch of the Gaia Hypothesis which says that living organisms alter the environment in such a way as to allow more life to arise in greater diversity and ability to regulate the planet's non-living ecology.) Biology is fun.