Now, keep in mind that Darwinian evolutionists adamantly believe that life arose by naturalistic means. It only took the natural laws of nature to form life. The science behind the formation of the first cells or pseudo-cells is weak, at best. There is much difficulty hypothesizing how some primitive, reproducing life would have formed from inorganic matter. Even the simplest cells are astoundingly complex. Therefore, the Darwinian evolutionist desperately wants to find evidence for a simpler form of life as a kind of missing link between non-life and modern cells. They will resist as perfectly unbelievable the idea that the original life on earth was as—or more—complex as modern cells. In their minds, starting with their presuppositions, life must have arisen from non-life and in relatively small steps of progress. To postulate that the first cells were complex is unscientific by their very core assumptions. However, their core assumptions may be wrong (and I firmly believe are wrong).
Here is some recent evidence that supports my hypothesis. Recent evidence shows that so-called simple bacteria are not always so simple. Some have cytoskeletons, similar to eukaryotes . Some have internal compartments, like eukaryotes with their mitochondria and other organelle. They can work cooperatively and display multi-cellular behavior, like eukaryotes . All of these structures and abilities take genetic information. So, genetic information shared between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is quite significant, it would appear. That shows possible common descent.
The ability for cells to swallow large particles (endocytosis) is something that some eukaryotes can do, but it recently has come to light that some prokaryotes can also do it. This is quite significant:
To have one trait possessed by complex cells - membrane-bound DNA - could be a coincidence. To have two seems unlikely. What's more, most members of the larger group that G. obscuriglobus belongs to, the Planctomycetes-Verrucomicrobia-Chlamydiae or PVC group, have proteins that are very similar to those that control endocytosis in eukaryotes. The big question is whether this is a case of parallel evolution, or whether complex cells and bacteria shared a common ancestor capable of endocytosis.
If there was a common ancestor, the implications are huge. It means the shared ancestor - known as the last universal common ancestor, or LUCA - and its contemporaries must have been much more complex than they have always been assumed to be. Since the ability of PVC bacteria to form membranes around their nucleus involves many of the same proteins as endocytosis, it is even possible that LUCA had a membrane-bound nucleus too. This would turn our picture of how life evolved on its head. Rather than being "primitive" cells, modern bacteria may be streamlined, simplified versions of a more complex ancestor - perhaps not so much prokaryotes as "post-karyotes".  (emphasis mine)
Even traditional evolutions are forced to confront the strange and dreaded idea that the ancient ancestor of all modern cells (LUCA) was more complex than bacteria—which are already complex. This is disturbing to naturalistic evolutionists, and so don't expect this idea to become popular. It'll be buried quickly as totally unscientific. But, I wanted to show that the evidence is mounting, even if it'll be mostly ignored and excused away. [Edit: Another piece of evidence is leading people to believe that the LUCA was more complex than bacteria .]
All in all, the model that I propose (and certainly others share in my basic belief) fits the evidence better at this point than the alternative model that genomic complexity increased with time and chance and mutations.
One idea has been that archaea formed before the other two cell types known today. However, even this idea is falling apart as genetic codes are being analyzed. There is at least one case of where archaea share genetic information with eukaryotes but not with prokaryotes . This appears problematic since archaea supposedly formed before prokaryotes which formed before eukaryotes, and we would therefore expect the genetic information of archaea to be most similar to prokaryotes and not eukaryotes. If archaea share genetic code with eukaryotes but not prokaryotes, that would suggest that archaea gave rise to eukaryotes and that prokaryotes were of a different evolutionary branch. Possible, but then we are left with an even greater evolutionary jump without intermediate forms between archaea and eukaryotes. That increases the dilemma for the standard evolutionary model.
So, how did different cell types arise? Archaea and prokaryotes were likely a simplification of eukaryotes—probably the result of mitochondria becoming independent entities. Absurd? Actually, that idea is held by some mainstream scientists, so I hardly think it is absurd. So, eukaryotes are much, much more ancient than most scientists are willing to admit at this point. The evidence will also begin to point that way, I believe. The date of origination for eukaryotes has been pushed back several times, but I wonder if evidence for 4 Ba eukaryotes—if such evidence were found—would even be recognized as such, especially given evolutionists' strong bias against such a timeline. Perhaps such evidence has already been found and overlooked.