Question 1. Which evolved first
a. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
2006-10-27 10:58:20 · 15 answers · asked by candi k 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The ability to reproduce was primitive in the beginning. We didn't need sex.
2006-10-27 11:05:34 · answer #1 · answered by Sweetchild Danielle 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The ability to reproduce.
There's no such thing as "Evolutionists". There are people
that accept the "The Theory of Evolution" because of observation
and experimentation suggests that this theory has the most
evidence to back it up.
Creation should be interpreted metaphorically. It's a representation of the power and grace of God.
If you interpret Creation in a literal sense, you will be ignorant
and very hostile to things that are new or not understood by you,
God and science should not be in conflict. They actually kind of compliment each other if you have the right point of view. Everytime there's a new discovery or breakthrough, it increases our sense of God's infinite power.
Don't use Creation as excuse for not educating yourself in matters of Science.
Using God as the answer for everything you were too lazy to learn about is lame.
If evolution is your enemy, please do some studying on DNA and Genetics. You should know your enemy before you try to attack.
When it comes to learning , don’t be a “Sloth”.
You might go to Hell for it.
2006-10-28 06:39:18 · answer #2 · answered by mixmaster 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Simple organisms reproduce asexually, and thus there is neither a drive nor an ability needed. What a moronic question. Question for you, why do we reproduce if the survival of the species is not necessary?
2006-10-27 11:04:37 · answer #3 · answered by reverenceofme 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ability. Many 'primitive' organisms reproduce in an automatic process, eg. some asexually reproducing single-celled organisms. Sexual reproduction evolved gradually later on - there are many intermediate strategies in existence today.
2006-10-27 11:02:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Probably the ability to reproduce. It would not make any sense to have a drive to reproduce if you did not posses a means to reproduce.
2006-10-27 11:04:41 · answer #5 · answered by Rance D 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In general more complex organisms arose from less. Single celled life forms reproduce by simple division. Over time multi-cellular life forms arose and then formed more complex life forms. Sexual reproduction and the drive to reproduce came later.
2006-10-27 11:02:30 · answer #6 · answered by Zen Pirate 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I keep seeing your questions pop up, but the *order* something evolved is mistaking a tremendous amount about biology.
These questions seem awfully similar to the mistaken Christian view of world history that denies evolutionary theory. I think using Yahoo answers to troll these questions is sad. You should simply read any of the great texts on biology and evolution, since many many things you use every day depend on it.
2006-10-27 11:07:38 · answer #7 · answered by WickedSmaht 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
a. The ability to reproduce.
Bacteria can reproduce, but there's no conscious "drive" to do it, because there's no consciousness. It's a chemical process. LOL.
2006-10-27 11:11:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The ability. Single celled organisms will divide as long as they have a source of nutrient.
2006-10-27 11:02:07 · answer #9 · answered by trouthunter 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ability.
I must commend you on asking easy evolution questions which are vaguely worded to beg a Creationist answer. You compound your deceit by asking two part II's, two part III's, and no part I. Remind me, please, is it God who relies upon deceit, or is it the other guy? By the way, which team are you playing for?
2006-10-27 12:16:43 · answer #10 · answered by novangelis 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋