
Comment: "Gave rise to" - the passive voice of Darwinian assumptions. No, even the first single-celled organism did not "spawn" the incredible complexity that came after. That required intelligence, just as did the genesis of the first cell.
For well over a century, it has been widely assumed that the ancestors from which the first animal evolved were simple blobs of identical cells. Only later, after the animals formed their own branch on the tree of life, did those cells start to differentiate into various cell types with specialized functions. But now, painstaking genomic analyses and comparisons between the most ancient animals alive today and their closest non-animal relatives are starting to overturn that theory.
The recent work paints a picture of ancestral single-celled organisms that were already amazingly complex. They possessed the plasticity and versatility to slip back and forth between several states โ to differentiate as today's stem cells do and then dedifferentiate back to a less specialized form. The research implies that mechanisms of cellular differentiation predated the gradual rise of multicellular animals.
Comment: And that simple fact seemingly doesn't disturb Darwinian biologists - that the FIRST life (not just animal life) was "amazingly complex". Complexity doesn't arise out of nothing. But that suggests Darwinism cannot explain the first life. So the only response can be "nothing to see here - moving on."












Comment: See also: EU's GPS satellites down four days in mysterious outage, nearing 100 hours downtime