An open access article at BioEssays asks: “Where, When, and How? Integrating Spatiotemporal Cues in Cell Division.”
The word “evolution” or one of its cognates (e.g., “evolutionary”) occur just three times in the article. In one setting, the data presented actually pose a puzzle for evolution, in the sense of common ancestry, but never mind that.
Here is the only context that matters (emphasis added), from the very last paragraph:
In conclusion, chromosomes are not just passive spectator, but the very fulcrum of the spatiotemporal regulation of cell division. Why evolution selected chromosomes as a platform to integrate different signals is easily explained by the need to concentrate mitotic regulators (and their control) which would otherwise dilute in a vast cytoplasmic ocean.
Many years ago, William Dembski said that one of the most objectionable aspects of modern evolutionary theory was the undeserved, unearned credit it steals from the exquisite, transcendentally elegant work of the Designer. Put more bluntly, evolution is a credit thief, a lowdown sleazy embezzler. If we could personify evolution, we’d have ChatGPT make a drawing of the word as a convict with a prison serial number across its chest.
But if you just put your thumb over the word “evolution” in the phrase we highlighted, all the evidence for design is still there, and it’s just too cool for words.