The begging question is how nature was able to simultaneously, or nearly simulatnaeously, evolve a male with fully operational sex organs, evolve a female counterpart with fully operation sex organs that just so happen to be perfectly compatible, and be placed within the same locality that they could find one another, and for nature to give them the understanding that they must mate in order to create progeny, all in one felled swoop? No, just, no.
No, of course not. Did you follow that link? It answers your question. Sex didn't evolve from asex in one fell swoop; it evolved on a gradual continuum between asexual organisms and sexual ones. Those intermediate steps are still present today.
If something is non-random then it's directed and in order to direct something, it must be indicative of purpose.
This is just nonsense. No, really. Nonsense. Of course something can be non-random and yet be undirected.
No I didn't.
Yes, you did. Look, NJ, I can even go back and find it:
quote:
Aside from which, there are 46 chromosomes per cell, so I'm not sure why you think shuffling cannot occur in haploids.
Not, "up to 46 chromosomes." You asserted that every cell - human or not - has 46 chromosomes. That claim is ludicrously incorrect, as I showed. Specific to bacteria, it's 46 chromosomes too many - bacterial DNA isn't wound up into chromosomes at all.
Binary fission passes all of its genetic material to its self-replicated progeny
Right. Bacteria reproduce clonally. No shuffling.
bacteria can accumulate new DNA from whatever host it so happens to be hitching a ride on.
Irrelevant to the example, because the bacteria were grown in monoculture from a single individual. There were no "hosts". There weren't "other strains." There were only cloned individuals, and whatever differences existed between them genetically could only be the result of mutation. That's how the experiment was set up, to rule out all other sources of genetic variation. No horizontal transfer, no nothing.
Obviously, in the beginning stages of life this would have been impossible because there was no new DNA to steal it from which makes it that much more implausible that it could have evolved by binary fission plus mutations.
You're all over the map on this one. First you're telling me that mutation isn't the only source of genetic variation, some kind of "shuffling" is going on; and now you're telling me that shuffling wouldn't have been able to occur?
Which is it, NJ? You don't seem too sure.
What you are describing is baseless.
No. One of the bases is the fact that our own mitochondria have their own entirely seperate DNA. Why would they have rendundant DNA if it wasn't a vestage of their ancestry as independant organisms?
Its what they surmise because that's all they've got, but none of this evolving seems to happens to prokaryotes today, oddly enough.
Nonsense. Even to this day we can observe more primitive forms of endosymbiosis.
™ Version 4.2