And no reply from you either to post 127 or post 294 in this thread, wherein your misleading use of the Crick quote is discussed.
My assumption is you have innocently replicated the truncated version of Crick's words from one of a number of 'Creationist' websites without being aware of those sites dishonest use of the quote, but having now been directed to the full context will be happy to cease perpetuatating this misleading usage in future.
Let's be truthful; you don't like evolutionists because we challenge your dogmatic religious beliefs. The endosymbiotic hypothesis says that prokaryotes lived symbiotically within the ancestor of single-celled eukaryotes. We know of numerous examples of prokaryotes living today within the bodies of single-celled eukaryotes. The review, if you'd read it, lists one example where an amoeba, in the laboratory, was infected by bacteria, formed an endosymbiotic association with them, and the association evolved to become obligate on the part of the amoeba. Likewise, some Paramecia have endosymbiotic green algae, and Mixotrichia paradoxa has even lost its mitochondria and replaced them with endosymbiotic bacteria. And you claim this isn't strong evidence that the endosymbiotic evolution of eukaryotes is perfectly plausible?
Endoparasitism, by the way, is often a prelude to endosymbiosis