I have no problem with God’s action. I do see a problem with bad arguments for his action. The fact that these arguments fail does not somehow challenge the fact that he very well could have acted in our origins.
It is. That is why think this is at least part of the story of how it happened.
The question is the other way around. You raised an argument against “evolution”, arguing that it cannot give rise to mutualism. We have seen that it can, quite easily. So the real question is to ask (1) if the argument applies in one area you were convinced evolution could not solve the problem, (2) evolution apparently can solve this problem (with or without God, we do not know), then (3) why do we think this is a problem in any of the examples you raise?
I think it is should be fairly clear that there is no fundamental difference between any of these examples, and we have demonstrated direct observation that this is possible in evolution. The argument is toast.
That should be our response. God just used evolution to accomplish is purposes.
This is not an argument against God’s action. So @J.E.S, even if evoltuion can’t do it “on its own”, as a Christian you can always presume that evolution did not do it “on its own.” As @gbrooks9 is wont to emphasize, maybe God guided it.