Why Darwinism makes no sense in the light of the history of life.

If Darwin was right wouldn't the history of life look very different?for instance would any multicellular organism's(including humans) have evolved?If,as its apologists claim,natural selection conserves only the fittest replicator of a selfish gene.Then it does seem that the process should have stopped at the unicellular asexual autotrophs at the dawn of life,at the very least natural selection should prohibit the emergence of any multicellular organisms. 

The emergence of multicellular life meant that  the proto-replicators had to trade their independence and virtual immortality to become  mere components of a far less efficient and less survivable compound replicator,this makes very little sense from the Darwinian perspective of a selfish gene seeking out the most efficient means of replication.

   The Larger and more intricate the multicellular organism in question the less sensible it would be for our selfish gene to select it as a vehicle.Needless to say the emergence of sexual reproduction adds a further layer of mysticism to the matter.In light of the above we can only conclude that if Darwin were right,there would be no Darwinism(i.e the theory).