It just makes me smile to see evolutionists divorce themselves from any discussion about how life originated as if the more important question is how it changed once it got here....
How life got here changes the whole ball game.
Did you read what you quoted....?
"The momentous transition to multicellular life
may not have been so hard after all"
"Evolution of Multicellular Life
Might Have Been Easier Than We Thought"
LOL "might not have been"?....."might have been"? Scientific terms are they?
From your first cited link....."Single celled organisms appeared at least 3.5 billion years ago, and maybe as early as 4.28 billion years ago. But somewhere along the way there was a shift and multicellular organisms began to appear. Exactly when this happened is a topic of much debate. . . . .Multicellularity involves quite a shift: instead of each single cell out for itself, cells living together in one organism must divide tasks and share energy and resources. Exactly how organisms achieved this transition has been elusive, though it was generally assumed to involve some kind of rare and complex genetic event. But increasing evidence suggests that it might have been easier than we thought."
From your second link....
"Billions of years ago, life crossed a threshold. Single cells started to band together, and a world of formless, unicellular life was on course to evolve into the riot of shapes and functions of multicellular life today, from ants to pear trees to people."
This is said with such conviction....yet it goes on to say....
"The gulf between unicellular and multicellular life seems almost unbridgeable. A single cell's existence is simple and limited. Like hermits, microbes need only be concerned with feeding themselves; neither coordination nor cooperation with others is necessary. . . . .Evolutionary biologists still debate what drove simple aggregates of cells to become more and more complex, leading to the wondrous diversity of life today. But embarking on that road no longer seems so daunting. "We are beginning to get a sense of how it might have occurred," says Ben Kerr, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Washington in Seattle. "You take what seems to be a major step in evolution and make it a series of minor steps."
How do you do that? With the power of suggestion.....making what seems to be impossible......probable.
The difference in the mechanism is the fact that no new "kinds" of creatures are ever produced by adaptation.
The Peppered Moth is often used to demonstrate how evolution works.....the moth transformed itself into a color more closely resembling the darkened bark of the trees that it called home, blackened by coal fires....but as soon as the pollution problem was rectified, the moths returned to their natural color. At no stage did the moth become a new creature. Adaptation is NOT macro-evolution. Darwin did not see new creatures, but simply different varieties of the same creatures that existed on the Mainland. No matter how much time elapsed, they would not morph into something else.
In speciation experiments, regardless of whether the newly adapted species could interbreed with the original or not, at no time did the subjects of the experiment become a new creature....just a new variety of the old one.
The "mechanism" does not, and never would, transform a four legged land dweller the size of a dog, into a whale about a third the size of a football field....let alone a microscopic single cell into a dinosaur the size of a three story building.....there is no proof that such a transition is even possible, let alone likely. I really don't think that people truly understand the power of suggestion......propagandists do and so does the advertising industry. Why do you think they get celebrities to promote products?
You can take any scientist's evaluation of the fossil record and see how many assumptions are made about relationships between creatures based on nothing but speculation about minor similarities.
LOL...spoken like a true evolutionist.....
.....how does that go again....?
