English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-05-08 19:42:25 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics Biology

joan,
how could that possibly have been applied from the above words?

2007-05-09 04:11:34 · update #1

possibly have been *implied?

2007-05-09 04:12:17 · update #2

thanks joan, that's why i asked, not implied

2007-05-09 05:40:59 · update #3

10 answers

That's something no one knows for sure yet. However, a couple years ago a scientist did create a virus from non-living materials. Now, a virus is something not quite living because it can't reproduce itself. But anyone who has ever had a cold knows it's not quite dead stuff either.

To answer the implied but not stated part of this question, not knowing doesn't mean god did it. It just means we don't know yet.

2007-05-09 02:15:28 · answer #1 · answered by Joan H 6 · 0 0

biologically speaking, not religiously, it was probably what we'd call a plant. It was probably a single cell, and only called a plant because it did photosynthesis for energy.
How did it come about? The purist biologists think it was the result of random chemical connections, until one worked. I find that hard to believe because if it were true, then statistically speaking, we'd still be waiting for that to happen. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it would take something like 20 billion years, older than the universe. I think that some omnipotent being caused it to happen.

2007-05-09 02:51:08 · answer #2 · answered by Max 5 · 0 0

Neither, The chemical evolution from self-catalytic chemical reactions to life is not a part of biological evolution, but it is unclear at which point such increasingly complex sets of reactions became what we would consider, today, to be living organisms.
Consensus on the relationship of the three domains of life (Archaea, Bacteria, Eukaryota) or the origin of life.

2007-05-09 02:56:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Well that's what all this debate has been about for centuries. No one can prove it at them moment, however their are some theories. I suggest you look into the "big bang" theory. However, if you want to read something really interesting, research the "Kaolin-Clay" Theory. Was it animal or plant? Maybe it was fungi, right?

2007-05-09 06:17:36 · answer #4 · answered by Falcon Man 3 · 0 0

Neither. It was a bacterium more primitive than modern bacteria. The exact mechanism by which is arose is unknown.

2007-05-09 07:05:43 · answer #5 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0 0

anaerobic bacteria.. single celled life forms that came about due to the combinations of different chemicals that make up the waters of the young earth

2007-05-09 02:47:56 · answer #6 · answered by a_n_o_n_y_m_o_u_s 3 · 0 0

I dont remember and anyone who tell you they do there lying because it was probably when they were a couple of months old.

2007-05-09 02:47:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

plant because if it would have been an animal what would it eat..

2007-05-09 03:02:13 · answer #8 · answered by karan8113 1 · 0 0

isnt it amiba? or sumthing like tht I learned it in science class

2007-05-09 02:50:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

don't believe anything anyone tells you because there is no way to ever know!

2007-05-09 02:46:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers