eukaryotic

The human body as a whole (bodymind- I'm content to copy Nobel prize winning psychopharmacologist Candace Pert) is analogous to a large scale Eukaryote. Did I mention that new evidence suggests that eukaryotes, the most relevant milestone in evolution, are now thought to have originated 2.7 billion years ago (much older than previously suspected).

When I first took cell biology, only one theory was stressed in the evolution of eukaryotes- that "Eukaryotes resulted from the complete fusion of two or more cells, where the cytoplasm formed from a eubacterium, and the nucleus from an archaeon or from a virus." Copying and pasting, Wikipedia gives 2 additional theories to the origin of Eukaryotic Cells that I had suspected could be true, but never chosen to purely for the fact that they seem less plausible.

1. "Eukaryotes developed from Archaea, and acquired their eubacterial characteristics from the proto-mitochondrion"
This may be true and at first it seems plausible purely for the fact that the idea of 2 completely different forms of life fused together would cause so many genetic discrepancies that the future generations of life would quickly mutate themselves out of existence, but it's my current theory that at the time, genomes were MUCH more malleable, due to the fact that they were so "new" they hadn't had time to "solidify," kind of like the idea of sharks and their genomes' hardiness (due to the fact that time has played such a large role in the genomes hardiness solidification). Additionally, this seems less plausible due to current information regarding mitochondrial DNA (like in The Real Eve, or dnatribes.com)

2. "Eukaryotes and Archaea developed separately from a modified eubacterium"
Possible, at the time I don't think there's an experiment that could be run to prove it.

...so maybe that's why our body and brain aren't always operating on the same level/wavelength- they originated from 2 separate organisms. Prokaryotes are just so... inferior.

http://ec.asm.org