One of the giant problems for those who believe in evolution is the missing evidence for the transition of single-celled organisms into multicellularity. According to the story of evolution there was a single-celled Last Universal Common Ancestor LUCA from whom all biological life descended. No evidence for this supposed LUCA exists, but it is a philosophical place-holder for the theory of evolution to persist. If the theory of evolution is true, at the VERY LEAST, the evolutionists must have some kind of explanation for transition from single-celled creatures into the multi-cellular creatures that we see today

In an online interaction, an evolutionist made the claim that the problem was solved in 2019. Some researchers had their paper pass peer-review, and in they claim that multicellularity evolved in response to predation. At the time of this writing, their paper has been cited 181 times. Commonly, a case gets accepted simply by passing peer review. I’ve not found evidence that the experiments described in their paper have been duplicated anywhere, but it’s reasonable to cross-examine their claims to see how they stack up. This is a very biblical response to their claim:

So, let’s cross-examine, to see if there are any weaknesses in their claims and if their claims hold up to even the mildest of scrutiny:

1. According to the story of evolution, the algae in question has persisted unchanged for ~310 million years. That’s some pretty amazing longevity (if true). But the researchers from this paper claimed to have observed the evolution of this novel trait in the comparably instantaneous time of 50 weeks…less than 1 year. Despite it being one of the biggest problems for evolutionists, the emergence of multicellularity from single-celled organism, these scientists claim to have taken one of the most stable genotypes (having existed fixed for over 300 million years) and watched it evolve new traits in less time than it takes to complete a cricket tournament (I think…as I’ve never really understood those rules). It’s mind-numbingly absurd to believe that evolution can happen that fast considering the claims of evolutionists themselves and the well-known waiting-time problem. The biggest single leap in evolution from single to multiple cells happened right before the eyes of these researchers in under a year. I’m unpersuaded
2. They didn’t show that natural selection acting on random mutations (evolution) was able to produce this change, yet they use some form of “evolve” NINETY-SEVEN times in their article. I’ve been told that science is supposed to try to disprove a theory, but it’s clear that these biased researchers were good company-men…sticking with the party-line: evolution only all the time!
   • This is they key: The evolutionists said that predation was the selection pressure that forced single-cell algae populations into multicellularity, but they did not show that the algae developed new biological code via random mutation that produced this ‘novel’ ability. New code is needed, but evolution does not have that power
   • The experiments show instead that the ability to aggregate into multi-cellular clumps is a pre-existing trait. The algae were designed to cluster, and the expression of genes for multicellularity is turned off most of the time when not exposed to predation
3. There is no fossil evidence of unicellular-to-multicellular transition. It is an imagined transition, which evolutionists need for their theory. But it is not supported by any existing evidence.

As already noted, the evolutionists NEED this to imagined transition to be true for their theory to work. So, even though there is no fossil evidence that evolution produced this change, and there is no experimental evidence that natural selection acting on random mutations can build the cohesive interrelated interdependent functional code for transitioning single-celled organisms into multicellular organisms, they will continue to believe it

If you are interested, you can see a more robust examination of the claims of Herron’s paper here.

This is not the only time that I have scrutinized the supposed airtight arguments for evolution:

• Can Evolution Explain Altruism?
• Can Evolution Explain Reason?
• Can Evolution Explain Software?
• Can Evolution Explain Software 2.0?
• Can Evolution Explain The Indonesian Mimicry Octopus?
• Can Evolution Explain the Eye?
• Can Evolution Explain Empathy?
• Can Evolution Explain Morality?
• Can Evolution Explain the Human Brain?
• Can Evolution Explain the Origin of Information?
• Can Evolution Explain the Origin of Minds?
• Can Evolution Explain the Origin of Lungs?
• Can Evolution Explain the Origin of Eyes 2.0?
• Can Evolution Explain the Origin of Sex?
• Can Evolution Explain the Origin of Snake Venom?

Objections

After posting these “Can Evolution Explain…articles, I inevitably hear evolutionists respond with some form of: “get your paper peer-reviewed and only then can you get your Nobel Prize for disproving evolution. Until then STFU!”

To be clear, these “Can Evolution Explain…” articles are NOT intended to disprove evolution. They are simply meant to analyze the assertions of evolutionists to see whether the subject matter is actually evidence for evolution by their own standards or not. It’s an internal critique. What I find in all of these articles is that what’s been proclaimed as “mOuntAinS oF eVidenCe” for evolution is really just story-telling and assumptions. We’ve seen that this article is more of the same bluster devoid of actual evidence.

There will be no shortage of “papers” that the devout evolutionists will propose that I must analyze. I don’t have the time or the desire to expose EVERY single article, but I do analyze the top authors and the articles that evolutionists THINK are actually evidence as shown above. Hopefully, given the example of my analysis, other Christians will be motivated to expose how the “mOuntAinS oF eVidenCe” for evolution are really massive canyons. These articles are not intended to prove creationism or anything else. They are simply meant to push back against the dominant paradigm rather than just blindly accepting what is being taught. If these works of evolution can survive scrutiny, then so be it, but so far, I’m finding that their claims are impotent.