The following is the extract from the website, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/life-mars-p… , indicating the environmental condition on Mars is suitable for life to begin:
The rover’s lead scientist Prof Steve Squyres said: “Before detecting any clay minerals, ­Opportunity had mostly been discovering sulphuric acid or evidence of it.
“Clay minerals tend to form only at a more neutral pH. This is water you could drink.
“It was much more favourable for things like prebiotic chemistry – the kind that could lead to the origin of life.”

The same is supported in the website address, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12206179 , explaining the Mars is the place that is suitable for unicellular organism to be formed:

‘Temperature, humidity, pressure, composition of the atmosphere and radiation are the main factors conditioning life on the surface of Mars. When studying the Martian ecology, one must know the total effect of these factors. One may expect that, as a result of adaptation to low temperatures, there is a corresponding shift in the temperature optimum of enzymatic activity. Dryness is the main obstacle to active life. We suggest the presence of some soil moisture and water vapour. Moreover, there can be areas of permafrost. This minimum supply of water and periodic fluctuations of humidity may create conditions for the existence of drought-resistant organisms. Decreased atmospheric pressure alone does not affect micro-organisms, plants, protozoa and even insects. Ciliates reproduce in a flowing atmosphere of pure nitrogen containing 0.0002-0.0005% oxygen as an impurity. Protozoa may also develop in an atmosphere of 98-99% carbon dioxide mixed with 1% O2. Therefore, even traces of oxygen in the Martian atmosphere would be sufficient for aerobic unicellular organisms. Cells and organisms on earth have acquired various ways of protection from uv light, and therefore may increase their resistance further by adaptation or selection. The resistance of some organisms to ionizing radiation is high enough to enable them to endure hard ionizing radiation of the sun. Experiments with unicellular [correction of unicellar] organisms show that the effect of short wave uv radiation depends on the intensity of visible light, long-wave solar uv radiation, temperatures, cell repair processes, and the state of cell components, i.e. whether the cell was frozen, dried or hydrated.’

The same is supported in other websites below:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130312-mars-life-cu…
http://news.discovery.com/space/mars-was-suitable-for-life-scientis…

Despite the presence of environmental condition on Mars that would be suitable for the formation of unicellular and multicellular organisms and that the earth and Mars were formed about the same time, the non-existence of organisms on Mars would imply that evolutionary theory could only be permanently an assumption and could not be workable in reality. The reason is simply that nothing could be formed on Mars despite the presence of its environmental condition is suitable for organisms to be formed. If evolutionary theory is workable, why is it that none of the organisms could be evolved on Mars despite the environmental condition is the same as the earth that has the potentiality to develop organisms?

You could locate the following extracted sentences from the first paragraph under the sub-title, Abstract, from this website:

Individuality is a complex trait, …… Our HYPOTHESIS is that fitness tradeoffs drive the transition of a cell group into a multicellular individual through the evolution of cells specialized at reproductive and vegetative functions of the group. We have modeled this hypothesis and have tested our models in two ways…..

The following is the extracted eighth to tenth paragraphs under the subtitle, Abstract, from this website:
The volvocine algae readily form groups by keeping the products of mitosis together through the use of extracellular materials….The central idea motivating our HYPOTHESIS is that by coping with the fitness tradeoffs and the challenges of group living, the group evolves into a new evolutionary individual.
There are several HYPOTHESIS for the evolution of cell specialization. The first involves the evolution of cooperation (versus defection). To cooperate, cells presumably must specialize at particular behaviors and functions. The evolution of costly forms of cooperation, altruism, is fundamental to evolutionary transitions, because altruism exports fitness from a lower level (the costs of altruism) to a higher level (the benefits of altruism). The evolution of cooperation sets the stage for defection, and this leads to a second kind of HYPOTHESIS for the evolution of specialized cells involving conflict mediation. If the opportunities for defectors can be mediated, enhanced cooperativity of cells will result in more harmonious functioning of the group. A variety of features of multicellular organisms can be understood as “conflict mediators,” that is, adaptations to reduce conflict and increase cooperation among cells (6): high kinship as a result of development from a single cell, lowered mutation rate as a result of a nucleus, self-policing of selfish cells by the immune system, parental control of cell phenotype, programmed cell death of cells depending on signals received by neighboring cells, determinate body size, and early germ soma separation. These different kinds of conflict mediators require different specialized cell types. The third HYPOTHESIS for specialization involves the advantages of division of labor and the synergism that may result when cells specialize in complementary behaviors and functions. The most basic division of labor in organisms is between reproductive and vegetative or survival-enhancing functions.
This article is primarily concerned with the division of labor and cooperation hypotheses. As a model system, we are considering volvocine algae cell groups that are of high kinship because they are formed clonally from a single cell. Hence, the opportunity for conflict should be low in these groups. Nevertheless, the opportunity for conflict can increase with the number of cell divisions and can depend on the type of development (e.g., rapid cell divisions, as in some volvocine algae, might not allow enough time for DNA repair). For these reasons, the CONFLICT MEDIATION HYPOTHESIS may help explain the early sequestration of the germ line in some volvocine lineages (7).

My comment: As the word, hypothesis, is mentioned above, it implies that evolutionary theory is not fact but full of hypothesizes. This is by virtue of nobody did live more than beyond 6,000 years to witness all creatures would be formed through evolution. The theory is simply done through guessing game with full of assumptions.

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-8837-7_6#

The existence of unicellular organisms on Mars is confirmed in the website address below:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-08-07/news/1996220012_1_mars-…

Read carefully the heading in the above website:
SCIENTISTS DISCOVER EVIDENCE that life existed on Mars Single-cell organisms, not ‘little green men,’ says NASA director

As the phrase, scientists discover evidence, is mentioned in the website above, it implies that it is not hypothesis but fact about the discovery of the existence of single-cell organisms.
Some might argue the heading of the website address above might not support the existence of unicellular organisms due to the phrase, may have existed, is mentioned in the description after the heading. The following statement is extracted from the website above:

‘In a statement issued yesterday, as unofficial word of the discovery spread, NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin confirmed that scientists had “made a startling discovery that points to the possibility that a primitive form of microscopic life MAY HAVE EXISTED on Mars MORE THAN 3 BILLION YEARS AGO.” ’

The phrase, may have existed…more than 3 billion years ago, as mentioned above implies the uncertainty that scientists have whether the discovery of unicellular organisms could be more than 3 billion years ago or less. They realize their existence. However, they do not know the exact date of their derivation and that is why the phrase, may have existed…more than 3 billion years ago, is mentioned.

The presence of hydrothermal vents on Mars could be located in the website below:

http://www.space.com/5374-hydrothermal-vents-mars-supported-life.html

Read carefully the heading in the above website:
Hydrothermal Vents on Mars Could Have Supported Life

As the phrase, Hydrothermal Vents, is mentioned above, it implies that it is not hypothesis but fact about the discovery of hydrothermal vents.

Unicellular organisms could live in critical condition especially in the oil. The following is the website that supports it: http://www.mpg.de/791317/W005_Environment-Climate_078-083.pdf

From the above extracts, it could confirm the existence of unicellular organisms and hydrothermal vents on Mars.

Let’s assume that scientists would be true that the existence of hydrothermal vents would cause unicellular organisms to turn up to be multicellular organisms. Why is it that scientists still have not discovered any fossils of multicellular organisms on Mars despite the presence of hydrothermal vents currently? They did mention of their existence and yet their conclusion was based on assumption and belief without reliable evidence of fossils. It seems to be that the presence of hydrothermal vents does not provide a clear sign of the existence of fossils of multicellular organisms. Besides, if unicellular organisms would work as what evolutionary theory mentions that they would be united to form a multicellular organism, why is it that scientists still could not locate any bigger fossils of living creatures on Mars even though scientists have assumed that it was formed in 4.6 billion years ago about the same time as the earth as mentioned in the website below:

http://www.space.com/16912-how-was-mars-made.html

Given the information by scientists that both earth and Mars would be created almost at the same time, why is it that gigantic creatures could be evolved on earth from time to time and yet not on the Mars? Despite the time would be long enough since the creation of Mars for multicellular organisms to be evolved into gigantic animals as the earth, yet none of the bigger fossils could be located on Mars. The absence of fossils for bigger living creatures on Mars has placed the reliability of evolution into question. The reason is simply that if evolutionary theory could work on earth, why is it that it does not work on Mars to produce gigantic living creatures?

Even assuming evolution had been disproved (it hasn’t been), that would not mean creation was proven, nor would that mean a supernatural being was responsible, nor if a supernatural being were shown to be responsible, it would not show that the specific one you worship was responsible. Each one of these claims would need to be established, but nobody has been able to do so.

You see, there is much more evidence involved than merely disproving evolution, I am convinced that you haven’t the slightest clue regarding the magnitude of disproving evolution, because scientists have been trying to do this for over a century and a half.
You have wasted your time, no-one is interested in your drivel.

Since it is you who choose to promote this dross, as Carl Sagan once said: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

You have a lot of work ahead of you. Faulty logic, and ridiculous claims will have no part to play in this endeavour.

In this website, it mentions that single cells should have secreted enzymes initially so as to pull all the cells together to cause the ultimate formation of multicellular organism.

The explanation to link up single cells to the formation of multicellular organism seems to be logical at a glance. However, detailed examination would have caused many queries to be brought forth.

a)How could those unicellular organisms that lived in the sea in the beginning of its evolution be hardened so as to cause them to be bound up to the ultimate formation of multicellular organism, i.e. algae? By logic, it could only be possible for unicellar organisms to be bound up in the dry place when many of them would have come together at a fixed place. When they finished the food supplies, the place dried up and so they stuck together. It was not possible to the formation of multicellular orgainism in the sea especially scientists assumed many were formed in the sea. The reason is simply that sea water was wet and it was not possible for numerous unicellular organism to be bound up tightly as a result of the existence of surrounding sea water. As that could be so, how could multicellular organism, i.e. algae, be able to be formed in the sea? The existence of the surrounding sea water would not cause numerous unicellular organism to be bound up tightly especially the existence of sea wave.

b)How could those unicellular organisms that lived in the land be able to be pooled up together if they would be located in different area in the land? It was also impossible for multicellular organisms to be pooled up in the land especially the existence of friction of rocks and sands.

c)In the wide sea, it is impossible for numerous unicellular organisms to come together despite of their secreting. Let’s give an example. An unicellular organism in the North Pole would not be able to be pooled up to another unicellular organism that would be located in the South Pole. How could numerous unicellular organisms be able to come together so as to form multicellular organism when they were located different regions in the wide sea? The existence of sea wave would hinder them to come together as a pool. Besides, the existence of sea wave would also cause the secreted enzymes to spread all around the sea. As the discharge of enzymes could be spread all around the sea easily as a result of sea wave, it would not be possible for them to come together so as to form multicellular organism.

d)By logic, when unicellular organism combined to turn up to multicellular organism, the function of each unicellular organism within the multicellular organism would remain the same. This is by virtue of every unicellular organism would react the same way in habit or in routine movement after the formation of multicellular organism. There should not be any reason why there should be any discrepancy of their behaviour between unicellular organism and multicellular organism especially multicellular organism, i.e. algae, has been treated by scientists to have its origin from unicellular organism. For example, how could it be possible that the capacity of regeneration for unicellular organism was present and yet there was a reduction in the capability for regeneration for multicellular organism? The presence of discrepancy between nunicellular and unicellar has caused us to ponder whether multicellular organism in the beginning of the creation should have its derivation from unicellular organism.

Refer to the website address below pertaining to all the discrepancies between unicellular organisms and multicellular organisms:

http://bankofbiology.blogspot.sg/2012/03/comparison-between-unicell…

As mentioned in the above website, Darwin presumed that life had its commencement from non-life. Life as mentioned by him should refer to a living creature. As it is a lively creature, it has the natural tendency to make or to hunt or to search for food for survival. A non-life as mentioned by him should undoubtedly refer to an object that does not have the tendency or capability to make or to search or to hunt for food for itself for the survival. Could there be any possible reason why a non-life object could turn up to be a lively creature with the capability to make or to hunt or to search for food? By logic, a non-substance would turn up to be another non-life substance. It is impossible for a non-life object to turn up to be a lively creature that could have the capability to make or to hunt or to search for food. There should be a justifiable reason why a non-life object would turn up to be a lively creature that would hunt or to search for food. What factor has contributed to a non-life substance to cause it to turn up to be a lively creature? How could a non-life substance turn up to be a lively creature that could have the capability to know what to react so as to respond to its surrounding environment for its survival? As, by logic, a non-life object could only be able to turn up to be another non-life object instead of a life creature that immediately could have the capability to adapt its environment and to acquire survival technique, this has placed the reliability of evolution into question.

Some scientists might use a certain experiment to support that a non-life object could be transformed into a life creature. However, the life of the new creation could not be prolonged for a day or even longer. It perished immediately after its formation. It seemed to be that the new creation could not have the capability to adapt its environment since it did not have any survival technique or else its life should by all means prolong.

The above has placed the reliability of evolutionary theory into question

http://www.google.com.sg/images?hl=en-SG&q=mountain+top+seashel…

The discovery of seashells on mountains top provides the evidence of the existence of a Great Flood in the past. The absence of sea surrounding each mountain provides the truth that it is irrational to have seashells on mountains top especially they could only be available around the sea. It is also irrational to comment that seashells could climb up the mountains to reach its top. Apparently there should be a Great Flood occurred in the past with great sea waves that had caused that mountains top to bring forth plenty of seashells.

If there were no great flood occurred in the past, why should there be plenty of seashells located on mountains top then?

a) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, why should Genesis 1 number the days of His creation of stars, light, animals, plants and etc.? God would not number the days of His creation by day 1, day 2 and etc. if He did not want to draw us the attention of the dates of His creation.

b) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, why should Genesis define a day to be governed by a morning and an evening as mentioned in Genesis 1:5? If a day should not be governed by a morning and an evening, why should the Book of Genesis repeat the same pattern in Genesis 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23 and 1:31?

c) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, why should Genesis 1:5 mention that light day is meant for morning and darkness is meant for night?

d) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, He would not inform us that the heaven and the earth would be created in six days. Why should God mention in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 that the universe and the earth were created in six days?

Exodus 20:11 For six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

e) If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, why should God mention in Exodus 20:11 that He created them in six days and then stressed it in also Exodus 31:17? Common sense! If God did not intend us to know the age of the universe and the earth, He should only mention in Exodus 20:11 instead of stressing it again in the following verse?

However, they do not realize that they have sinned against God when they mention that the scripture supports evolutionary theory and yet, in reality, He did not and does not mean it.

The scripture was God’s inspiration. God was the One that directed different writers to write the whole scripture at different times. As the scripture is God’s inspiration, It is irrational for us to treat God’s name to be in vain and to comment that the scripture mentions it when He did not and does not mean it in reality.

Could we use God’s name to be in vain to comment that He did mention the entire universe and all the things in this earth were the work of evolution when He did not mention it nor mean it?

Exodus 20:7, “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Deuteronmy 5:11, “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain for the LORD will not hold [him] guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”