If single celled organisms are all exactly the same, have no different qualities, do not need to compete for food, sex or otherwise, then why did they evolve? There was no competetion, and no need to evolve, there were no 'favourable qualities' in a single celled organism, so why did they evolve?

This is one of the biggest questions in biology. Essentially, how did life first begin. To answer this question is ten times harder tha explaining the whole of evolution! The simple answer is- we don't completely know. But I'll try to explain the ideas we do have... There are three key \"elements\" of life, DNA (or RNA as it was a first), lipids (essentially these are a form of fats) and amino acids (which join to form proteins). If we can explain how each of these can arise naturally, without any creative force then it becomes easier to explain the origin of life itself. 1) RNA. This has three components, ribose sugar (deoxyribose in DNA), phosphate groups and organic bases (ACUG in RNA, ACTG in DNA). The ribose sugar and phospahte groups alternate to form a long chain or \"back bone\", and a base is attached to the ribose sugar. The creation of phosphate is easy to explain. It is a very common natural compound. It consists of Phosphorus, Oxygen and Hydrogen. By simply placing these three together with a little heat phosphate is formed. Ribose is a five carbon sugar, with oxygen and hydrogen. To explain this is also relatively simple; we use the idea of probability. Ribose is not a very complex molecule, and consists of a basic hydrocarbon chain wih and ether group and two hydroxyl groups. Therefore, if some basic compounds of the three elements are mixed, given there are billions of atoms, it is reasonalbe to say that some ribose will be formed. Organic bases can now be synthesised. To create base A for example requires the freezing of dilute hydrogen cyanide for a week. This is almost certainly happening as we speak across the globe. We have now shown how RNA can occur naturally. The most important factor regarding RNA is that is a self replicating molecule. That is if you take an RNA helix and place it in a solution with other sugar, phosphate groups and bases the orginal chain will replicate to form many new chains. Of course, RNA is not alive, however, it is already replicating itself. Therefore, if a strand of RNA can somehow protect itself from other molecules that can attack it (like acids/alkalis etc) then that chain is more likely to replicate, and hence become more common. 2) Lipids. These molecules are what are what our cell membranes consist of, or more precisly phospholipids. A lipid is a glycerol molecule with three hydrocarbon chains attached to it. A phosphate can bind to the glycerol to from a phosphlipid. It's best to picture this as a circle (phosphate) with three lines coming out in the same direction (lipid). A phosphate group is hydrophilic (likes water) as it has a slight charge, lipids have no charge and so are hydrophobic dislike water). If phospholipids are placed in water, and the water disturbed, they form a sphere with the hydrophilic heads pointing outwards and the hydrophobic tail pointing inwards. Now, earlier I mentioned how if an RNA chain can protect itself from other molecules that can break it down, like acids and alkalis, it would replicate more than other chains. Acids and alkalis are charged ions, which cannot easily pass through the phospholipid layer. But RNA could pass through, thus placing itself in a protective \\\\\\\"bubble\\\\\\\". 3) Amino acids. These are molecules that form chains, which are proteins. In 1952 Urey and Miller managed to synthesise amino acids, incredably simply. Methane, hydrogen, ammonia and water (basic, natural compounds) were mixed together and electrical charge passed through the mixture (to simulate lightning). Within a week 13 of the 20 natural amino acids were present in the reaction. Infact 4% of the products were amino acids (which is a lot in science). Amino acids can be linked with the organic bases in RNA. Three bases can have an amino acid atached, for example ACU codes for Threonine. An RNA helix is two chains of RNA linked together by pairs of bases, A binds with U, C with G. So if an RNA chain had UGA on it (which is likely if the RNA hundreds of baes long) it would be opposite to ACU for Threonine. So the ACU would bind, bringing the amino acid with it. The next three bases could pair with another three bases with a differnet amino acid. The amino acids would be next to each other and may link together. Soon a protein could be formed, simply by chance. Proteins are the building blocks of life, different proteins have differnet uses. So an RNA chain that happened to code for a useful protein, that say made RNA replication faster, that RNA cahin would replicate more than others. My point is this, evolution was occurring long before life even existed. Chains of RNA were competing for resources, like bases and amino acids. If two successful RNA strands combined an even more successful chain would be present. Soon, by simple chance, RNA would get more complex and code for more useful proteins. Until, a single celled orgainism was formed, but this cell still had to compete with the other non-living RNA chains around it. Hence there was a selection pressure, hence there was evolution, and hence we are here today.

Godfather Part II covered a lot of the relevant points, but the short answer is that your premise is wrong. There is competition for chemical resources from the very start, not all single celled organisms are identical, and as they are competing for resources, some will do better than others at getting them. Therefore, there is differential reproduction according to "fitness". Even if all single-celled, prokaryotic organisms started out identical (which is unlikely), they tend to mutate rapidly -- charted mutation rates for modern prokaryotes are one significant mutation per organism per reproductive split. Differences would appear within a couple of rounds of reproduction.

You say that organic basis can be synthesized, but man has never created even a single living cell

These single celled organisms of which you speak may not have had much competition from other organisms, but there is also the inorganic environment that may cause other challenges. And as the organisms reproduce and mutate (which they often do) the number and diversity of other organisms increases

The evolution theory claims that the first simplest form of life evolved to greater and ever greater more complex forms of life. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. "What about mutations? Can't they create a new gene". The answer is "Absolutely not." Mutations can change only existing genes. But mutations have nothing whatever to do with creating an entirely new gene. In fact, the only way any species could have evolved to become a more complex organism is to increase its Gene Count. (The Gene Count is the number of genes in a genome.) In order for Darwinian Evolution to work, there has to be a genetic mechanism for an organism to add a gene. But there is no way to add a gene. There is no evidence that it ever happens. There is a ton of evidence that mutations occur - but a mutation is a change to an existing gene and mutations never result in actually adding a gene. I have explained that if Darwinian Evolution works, organisms have to have a way to add a gene, because an organism has to increase the number of genes in its genome in order to advance to a more complex organism. Mutating is not a way for any organism to add a gene. A single gene could mutate forever but it would never change the gene count. Supporters of the Theory of Evolution never talk about the Gene Count because there is no genetic mechanism for adding a gene. Darwinian Evolution is fatally flawed.