Is it known why there are no evolutionary intermediates between archea and eubacteria?
Nick Lane's book The Vital Questions has been highly recommended by the HN commentariat, and I think it more or less deserves its esteem. Lane gives an extensive theoretical analysis of the sequence of events wherein a eubacterium was engulfed by an archea, and the resulting endosymbiosis that was the beginning of complex (eukaryotic) life.
Apparently, the genomic evidence is strong that the original host was an archaeon an the original invader (later to become mitochondria) was a eubacterium. However, I don't think he discusses the origin of this divergence of eubacteria and archea, and why it persists so cleanly.
Nick Lane's book The Vital Questions has been highly recommended by the HN commentariat, and I think it more or less deserves its esteem. Lane gives an extensive theoretical analysis of the sequence of events wherein a eubacterium was engulfed by an archea, and the resulting endosymbiosis that was the beginning of complex (eukaryotic) life.
Apparently, the genomic evidence is strong that the original host was an archaeon an the original invader (later to become mitochondria) was a eubacterium. However, I don't think he discusses the origin of this divergence of eubacteria and archea, and why it persists so cleanly.