Yes, I realize that sexual from asexual does not woprk exactly as I referenced, it was an analogy.
An analogy to what? You're backpedalling, because you posed a question borne out of ignorance, but when it was explained to you, you pass it off as "analogy".
for example, which came first the immune system or the need for one?
To understand the complex, we must understand the simple first. You are marvelling at the complexity, and because you do not understand how it could come to be or the steps that could play a role, you dismiss "evolution".
which came first dna or rna which transports the dna to where the dna needs to go?
Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about here. I know the gist of it though - you are marvelling at the complexity here and wonder how it could come to be.
how long did it take arms to grow from fins and what were there use in the millions of years in between?
were there all of these half armed half finned things wasting time and energy supporting useless appendages?
OK, to answer this question (and the immunity question above), lets take a look at the possible steps involved. These are steps that are based on both the fossil record and our understanding of both evolutionary forces and mechanisms of change, which are possible to reproduce quite easily in the lab.
First, the basics:
1. Mechanisms of change: Certain types of mutation in the DNA can result in phenotypic changes. Most of these changes are meaningless, but those that affect the fitness of the organism (fitness=the ability to produce viable offspring) can be subject to selection pressures. Mutation is the only way DNA itself can be altered, although novel phenotypes can also arise through recombination - exchange of DNA (such as meiotic recombination in meiosis I). Note that for a mutant phenotype to manifest itself, it must originate in the parent's germ line and be passed on to the offspring. The offspring is subject to the selection pressure.
2. Selection pressure: Selection for or against individuals that have certain phenotypes that give them an advantage or disadvantage in terms of fitness compared to other individuals. This pressure could be environmental, sexual, etc.
OK, here's a way that it could work using one of your queries. Long ago, marine dwelling organisms, some which had structures analogous to "fins", developed mutations that allowed them to spend brief periods of time on land. To accomplish this, they would require fins for the mobility on land; some individuals developed mutations increasing fin strength for land locomotion. The marine population might have been subject to certain pressures: shortage of food, increased predation, etc. This selected for the individuals that were able to briefly evade predators on land or forage for food there, and thus the individuals with such a favorable characteristic would outcompete those individuals without sufficiently strong fins. Then, perhaps further pressures selected for individuals that could survive on land longer. It would be beneficial for such individuals to develop better means of locomotion. So, incementally, over a *very* long period of time (possibly millions of years), there was an accumulation of mutations, which was selected for, which slowly transformed the fin into something more useful for land locomotion. This was a gradual process, and involved "fine-tuning".
Once you understand how changes are possible, and the fact that they happen incrementally, you can account for increasing levels of complexity. This will even answer your question about how immunity developed. Do not look at the finished product and marvel at how impossible it is to evolve something like that. The evolution of everything can be broken down into tiny steps, and although we have huge gaps in the fossil record that prevent us from discovering *exactly* how things came about, we can nevertheless offer very simple explanations of how they *could* come about.
EDIT: Here's a fantastic link to some info that can help clarify many things:
http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/jes999/1.htmChapters 9-10 are particularly interesting with respect to the origins of life, and might answer some questions for you.
There is another story of a watchmaker that basically shows the detail that is put into making a watch that was found on the ground. the reciepient knew the watch must have had a master watchmaker. then there is the same story told from the evolutionists point of view that the watch must have at one point just been gold which landed in a circular crevice shaped like a watchback and colloed and then metal fell into the middle of it, and many years later gears were made, and then sand was heated and cooled to form a glass face plate and so on. this is absurd.
The only thing absurd here is that you would somehow connect this with the process of evolution. The analogy here is *terrible*.
