Are you sure? What do we need at 3.5 billion years ago for a genome? Source?
(i.e. the one that doesn't get corrected by correction enzymes....oh, by the way, where did THEY come from?)
Looks like an advantageous mutation to me. What were you going to suggest and what's the evidence for your idea?
DE-EVOLUTION
Change is change, although if you start as simple as you can get there's simply more room to experiment in the direction of increasing complexity.
P.S. what was the food source of the original bacteria...
If you've actually been following this stuff (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!)...
Well, if you don't know what science even says on the subject, how do you know it's wrong?
But I digress. You have something called RNA World, a bigger-than-cellular system-as-organism. The first cellular animals form as parasites off of RNA-World. As RNA-World gets eaten up, two things are happening. Photosynthetic plants are evolving from animals, and animals are learning to eat plants and animals. You can Google, right?
Anyway, my comment to eddie2 would seem to apply to you. You don't rebut science by being dumb as a stump about what science is even saying.
If you don't know what it says, how do you know it's wrong?
That's the eternal question for the anti-evolutionists. As you've noticed, they aren't at all familiar with what biology actually says about living things, but by gosh, the anti-evolutionists *know* it must be wrong anyway...