I wonder if some that are wondering have really bothered to wonder. You see when I wonder about something I tend to actually use my imagination to investigate. I usually try some visualization, and come at a question from multiple angles. Have the wonderers ever actually came at their question from the position of the single celled organism that may have by chance evolved into a multcellular organism. Had they I would surmise that they would see the fatal flaw in their thinking.

The truth is that this evolution could have happened billions or trillions of times. The bacterial population of this planet is truly massive. This could literally be happening every second of every day, and none of us would have known about what happened, because we are not omnipotent. That said it still isn't the critical flaw. The simple truth is that in evolving they would go from being on a even playing field to being not only dead last on the new playing field, but also dead last on the last playing field. To be blunt that is a epic fail as far as natural selection is concerned. Ill prepared to deal with microbial attacks, and hopelessly over powered by organisms that are not only entrenched, but extremely refined. This is beyond the proverbial David versus Goliath. This is baby David versus Goliath.

This is why you will never see this evolution happen wholesale. Yes it happened in the past, but at that time in earths past getting big and complex was virgin territory. These lifeforms weren't encountering the resistance that todays bacteria would face, and more then that they probably didn't have to deal with aggressive ankle biting either. I know some think that evolution is a process that inexorably makes everything more complex, but in truth its a force like all others in nature. Sometimes it benefits, and sometimes it denies. Gravity can give you a planet, and build a star to shine upon it, but it can also smash a planet, and turn a star into a black pit in space. Electromagnetism, can give your planet a shield against radiation, but it can also kill with a bolt out of the blue. The Weak force can keep your world warm, but it can also give you cancer.

Natural Selection isn't elevating the bugs, because it is the force that keeps them down. Everything about natural selection denies the bugs the world of the large. The difference isn't a inch. The difference is hundreds of millions of years. Yes it might seem like a small jump to you, but in truth it would be like a rabbit jumping to the moon. To imply that a rabbit should be able to do that is sheer idiocy. Just as saying a bacteria should just be able to jump a biological gap this massive. I know I will just say I will become God tomorrow. I mean its obviously so easy right?

I know the wonderers probably won't ponder this even though I am sure they will say they did, but the above words describe the application of the thought process that is derived from Natural Selection. Understanding Natural Selection allows for a very powerful way of viewing the world. Which doesn't mean you have to use it for everything, but having another tool is never a burden. The more ways you have to view a given problem. The more likely you are to solve that problem.

The population of bacteria for 5 billion years is extremely small when it comes to finding the right combination for a 300 amino acid protein with the correct 3D fold.The speed of light also seems fast until you take in the account just how huge space really is. Speed of light is extremely slow when it comes to traveling in space. The more we learn about life the more complex it becomes and the more we realize just how  short 5 billion years is .

@smidlee

Quantifying the microbial biomass of the planet, and then multiplying it by a average generation for five billion years would be quite the achievement. I wouldn't even hazard estimations about all the permutations possible in that given period of time. I know you go right past hyperbole when you reach figures like that. Not only can't I do those numbers any real justice, but I can't even give an analogy that seems unreasonable. That said these numbers are about scale, and they might have nothing to do with the reality.

The more we learn about life the more we learn it isn't necessarily the complex riddle we continually make it out to be. To put it in simple terms you don't have to roll the dice a million times to get six fives in a row if nature has already fixed the dice to roll five more often then not. You could say where you see variables there aren't any. Just a natural process that has already predetermined the result. For instance can we say Helixes of DNA are unlikely when the atoms in crystals readily line up, or do we consider Benzyne impossible. Nature is full of novel complex structures outside of life. Just look at a common snowflake. Sure they are all unique, but underlying that there are basic common structures. Snowflakes come in classes, and each class is a product under which the snowflake formed. Water can form dozens of types of structures, but it is actually quite finite the difference is only in the nuance. 

So when you look at life being too complex to be. The question is where does the inexorable conclusion end, and the nuance begin. From what we have seen of evolution it seems that Nature really cuts the cards in favor of life. Simple processes that can generate seemingly complex results. For example in your notion of evolution life may have simply stumbled upon the answer to get big by randomly one day hitting a huge perfect sequence. Well one prevailing theory is that it was more a product of environmental change specifically Oxygen in the environment reaching a level great enough for cells to produce Collagen. Which in turn allowed cells to bind together. Basically all life needed was a single simple gene to start making the compound. Once that happened life went to the races. Basically all life probably needed was for a prerequisite situation to arise, and once that happened life immediately responded.

Anyway life isn't probably the mathematical absurdity you imagine. Life is probably not only the logical answer, but it is probably the only logical outcome. Looking at Cell biology we see the aftermath of a war. Your cells aren't singular entities they are packed with organelles, and it is probably quite likely they were taken hostage in that war. So if life right out of the blocks can cook up so many versions its hard to see how the seeming complexity was so hard to come by.

@ Slimebeast:
"Your examples of social communities (like apes) that work well together for the best of their survival though social interactions, have their behaviour and rules based purely on instincts.

"But the rules and behaviour in human societies are not only based on instincts. They are also based on morals, which requires intellectual thinking and decisions and is something entirely different than genetically programmed instincts."

I would argue that you are massively underestimating the intelligence of apes to say that they are governed completely by instincts utterly beyond their control, rather than behaving according to social norms which are malleable by individual learning. 

@ Smidlee: 
"As one scientist warn before be careful impling morals to animals especially those that have been influenced by man. There is no doubt we, humans, can change animal behaviour including leaning toward our morals (good or bad)."

I'm assuming this was in reference to ManusJustus' post which inclueded the truly excellent video of monkey business:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAFQ5kUHPkY

Apparently, then, you are ready to concede (unlike Slimebeast) that animals are capable of learning morals?  Obviously you say they can pick them up from humans one way or another.  Well, in that case, why is it so impossible that humans came up with morals themselves?  Or hell, inherited them or picked them up from earlier Homo species? 

I am about to make a statement in aboslute sincerity. 

If you know how to read, this is worth reading:  http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

If you haven't read it yet, and reading it right now will not get you fired or have other severe consequences, please read it right now. 
And for the record HS101, I should not have been the one to post that link:  you should.  But thanks for the recommendation. 

That remains to be proven whether apes have morals or not. They're possibly a very unique exception.  But that's beside the point. The point was to address his huge misunderstanding of morals by ignoring the requirement of intellect.

But wait, individual learning of proper behaviour (social norms) is still not enough to fullfill the definition of morals. It could be just mental programming without any reason involved which is actually pretty basic and mechanical for animals. Obviously higher order species like rats and wolves individually learn a certain set of behavioural rules on top of their pure instincts, but that doesn't mean they have morals.

Our control over animals has to do with food since that all they understand. Yet a poor person who just found a wallet of a wealthly person with $5000 in it will either keep the money or return it.

As in this video if someone was to give you something for free wouldn't the moral thing to do is to be thankful (say "Thank you") even though may have gave another person something better?

It's been known for over 50 years it's no where as simple as this. Years ago scientist rearrange  some of single-celled creature's body parts and found their offspring had the same rearranged parts even though there was no changes in the creatures DNA or genes.

The evolution/creationism controversy does not actually exist in science. There is no real controversy amongst the scientific community over the issue. The controversy has been manufactured outside of the scientific community by peoples whos beliefs are threatened by evolution.

It is actually by far one of the most researched and documented scientific theories in the world, partly because of the 'controversy' but largely because it is such a fundamental part of biology.

I'm just going to throw this in there, but wouldn't higher morals simply be a byproduct of the evolution of larger brains in Homo sapiens and higher ape species. Another animal to look at in the case of morals are dolphins who are the only other species I know of that will hold-off on mating with biological family members. This would go completely against  instinct, but the size of there brains would suggest the possibility of intellectual morality denying said base instinct. We've also seen dolphins behave differently and protectively when pregnant women (human) are in the water with them. That hardly seems instinctual when there is such a large species gap.

Another thing to remember is that not all humans share the same morals. Mental diseases in particular can change not just behaviour but a person's morals. Take anti-social personality disorder, where the person is incapable of feeling empathy for anyone but themselves. They have a very different moral compass to the rest of humans, or even apes and other mammals.