| miz1q2w3e said: this would probably be happening before developing a conventional reproductive system so 'natural selection' would have occured after all those things and offspring would not have any place in this equation. does anyone else think this makes sense? |
Not sure what you mean, but let me just say that their are gaps in our knowledge of exactly how organisms evolved, just as their are gaps in the fossil records, but that doesn't disprove our current theory of evolution. I work very much on the molecular scale so we (the scientific community) may know a lot more about the particular area relating to how multi-celled, sexually reproducing organisms developed.
The steps that I do know is that smaller bacteria became 'engulfed' into other bacteria to eventually form organelles (they have their own seperate DNA) giving rise to eukaryotic cells. If you look at funghi, they form multi-cellular structures, and contrary to popular opinion, genetically have more in relation to animals than plants.
Anyway, natural selection would actually still be putting pressures on all these single celled and multi-celled organisms prior to the advent of sexual reproduction. Just because they're reproducing asexually, doesn't mean they're not subject to the environmental selection pressures that sexually reproducing organisms are.
