people who believe in science say that life on the earth came by an amoeba and who created this amoeba?

Answer 1

hello
i have a few things to say
first off, science is not a religion that people can choose to believe in. it's just a study of natural phenomena.
second, the most common theory of how life was created is this:
- the earth's atmosphere was composed of methane, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and a little but of oxygen.
- somehow, through w/e reactions or by "god's grace", macromolecules were formed, and these soon became little machine-type things that were able to perform functions. these "machines" were the first most basic forms of lives and were anaerobic (they didnt need oxygen to live)
- and then eventually (i think the organisms released oxygen a lot or something...sorry, i'm not too sure about this part), and the majority of the atmosphere was oxygen.
- aerobic (those that need oxygen to survive) organisms were soon evolved.
- big organisms then "ate" or engulfed the smaller ones...and it is a theory that these smaller organisms inside the big cells were not digested, but just remained in there, and they because known as "organelles" of the cell.
- an amoeba is a eukaryotic organism, which means that it has organelles...so they said that the first type of complex living creature was probably like an amoeba...the theory does not say an amoeba was the first living thing

so yea, i hope this helped.

Answer 2

Believe in science?...Umm, science is not a question of belief...I hate when people think science is some form of religion.

The current theory is that a membrane developed and created a sense of 'self' or something separate from the environment. This membrane contained basic molecules for life and developed over millions of years. Actually, bacteria(cyanobacteria, specifically) were the first organisms to appear on earth, amoebas came awhile later. A process called endosymbiosis is the mechanism in which eukaryotic cells developed and from there multicellular organisms and from there plants, fungi, and animals.

Answer 3

It is wrong to say that life on earth evolved from Amoeba.

During the cooling of Earth there was lot of Methane in liquid form and when the thunder struck it it created a complex structure of Amino Acid the basic building material for DNA.

Much later this DNA got encapsulated in a membrane and then the cell development started. The first true life was a single celled living being. Later on due to changes in the environment the evolution also changed the single celled livoing being to various forms of life through a definite pattern.

Answer 4

Miller and Urey did in experiment in 1953 to answer this question. They took a fancy glass apparatus and simulated the conditions of the early earth: methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water gases and electrical sparks in the place of the intense lightening storms that would have taken place. In the couse of their experiments, they discovered that several amino acid compounds (some of the basic building blocks of life) could be formed more or less by chance.

Also:
Several possible origins for life on earth:

*Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose.

*Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.

*Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.

*Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.

*The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003). A peptide cycle, from peptides to amino acids and back, is a prerequisite to metabolism, and such a cycle could have arisen in the iron-sulfur world (Huber et al. 2003).

*Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.

*Something that no one has thought of yet.

Answer 5

interesting, the creationist's favorite question "omg why are there still monkeys omg omg omg the bible" has evolved into amoebas.

i would like you to find me a single person who actually understands evolution who also thinks that the ancestral organism was an amoeba.

anyhow, i'll pretend you were actually asking a real question and not trying to be our sunday school teacher. therefor we'll substitute ancestral organism for amoeba.

the first life on earth is hypothesized to have originated from chance combintations of elements present in the primordial earth. yes, this is probably a low-probability thing, however, we're talking a few billion years, that's a lot of time on a molecular scale.

the watch and the watch maker question is great and all but it is 100% not an issue for evolution. the actual question that evolution answers is not one of religion or spirituality, but the observable results of change over time, nothing more nothing less.

Answer 6

an amoeba didn't just appear. over millions of years the chemicals on earth evolved and re-combined to eventually formed proteins which eventually led to larger interacting compounds and then even later bacteria appeared. it was a very long time before an amoeba or paramecium or any animal-like creature appeared. it was a series of chemical reactions that formed life on earth, not a person.

Answer 7

The older Eon of Precambrian time, spanning the period between 3600 and 2500 million years ago is called the Archaean, meaning ancient. Life arose on Earth during the early Archaean, as indicated by the appearance of fossil bacteria in rocks thought to be about 3500 million years old.

While evidence preserved in rock layers in present-day Greenland tell us that life existed on Earth during that time it doesn't explain how it came to exist. The classic experiment demonstrating the mechanisms by which inorganic elements could combine to form the precursors of organic chemicals was the 1950 experiment by Stanley Miller. He undertook experiments designed to find out how lightning--reproduced by repeated electric discharges--might have affected the primitive earth atmosphere. He discharged an electric spark into a mixture thought to resemble the primordial composition of the atmosphere. In a water receptacle, designed to model an ancient ocean, amino acids appeared. Amino acids are widely regarded as the building blocks of life.

Although the primitive atmosphere is no longer believed to be as rich in hydrogen as was once thought, the discovery that the Murchison meteorite contains the same amino acids obtained by Miller, and even in the same relative proportions, strongly suggests that his results are relevant.

It may seem surprising that bacteria can leave fossils at all. However, one particular group of bacteria, the cyanobacteria or "blue-green algae," have left a fossil record that extends far back into the Precambrian - the oldest cyanobacteria-like fossils known are nearly 3500 million years old and are among the oldest fossils currently known. Cyanobacteria are larger than most bacteria, and many secrete a thick cell wall. More importantly, cyanobacteria may form large layered structures, called stromatolites (more or less dome-shaped) or oncolites (round). These structures form as a mat of cyanobacteria growths in a marine environment, trapping sediment and sometimes secreting calcium carbonate. When sectioned very thinly, fossil stromatolites may be found to contain exquisitely preserved fossil cyanobacteria and algae.

These early cells belonged to the group of prokaryotic cells (in contrast to the more complex structures of eukaryotic cells). Prokaryotes are small cells which lack the complex internal structures, like mitochondria and chloroplasts, found in eukaryotic cells. Although prokaryotes possess DNA on a chromosome, it is not enclosed in a nucleus.

Answer 8

Aside from Molly B's fine answer and your question. We do not "believe " in science, but gather evidence, test hypothesis and erect theory. No one " created " that amoeba, but he was naturally selected, as he was far removed from any abiogenesis. Precursor chemicals to life have been produced in the lab, though life eludes us. It only had to happen once from those precursors and the odds of that happening in the billions of years in which it happened are not that long.

Answer 9

I'm glad you asked this question in the biology section instead of the religion and spirituality section.

However, you don't "believe in" science, you become convinced by evidence. If you don't have the expertise to understand the evidence, you can learn more by reading "peer-reviewed" papers, or trusting an expert with published peer-reviewed papers.

Amoebas appeared about a billion years after the first living cells, which were bacteria. Get your facts straight before you try to "blow our minds"

Answer 10

Only people who believe in evolution make such a preposterous claim. Many brilliant scientists are now dumping such a foolish and indefensible position and are now accepting and proving the truth of Creationism. Whereby a powerful Entity produced everything that has existed in it's perfect form in the first place of it's existence.

I highly recommend that you and others study the latest results on the Scientific reality of Creationism vs the preposterous and fake Evolution theory, that has blinded so many people for far too long.