2007-06-11 22:26:53 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
It was microscopic. Single celled organizms swimming in the oceans.
2007-06-11 22:30:24 · answer #1 · answered by porian kid 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The first life forms had these characteristics...
- single celled
- heterotrophic (as in, they had to feed on other things, they couldn't make their own food like a plant/cyanobacteria)
- anaerobic (didn't use oxygen)
- microscopic
- prokaryotic (no cell nucleus)
- lived in water (there was no o-zone layer at this point so anything on land would be killed by radiation).
Early life most likely had a lot in common with the creatures that today make up Domain: Archea. Archea are like bacteria, but they have several key differences which allow them to survive in extreme environments. These are the things you'll find living in the boiling hot and toxic waters in Yellowstone or in the boiling water next to a thermal vent...
Not much is known about the first life forms... there is no concrete proof of life before about 2.7 BYA, but there is good evidence that the first life forms appeared around 3.8 BYA.
2007-06-12 07:18:42 · answer #2 · answered by brooks b 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This all depends on what you call early life - at 8am im not too bad i can function reasonably well, but at 4am when i have to go to work i have lost the power of speech and result to hand gestures and grunting noises, im bad tempered, and ill mannered, this in my mind gives some indication as the lifestyles of early man. ut to answer your question early life for me and those around me is pretty bad.
2007-06-13 05:25:50 · answer #3 · answered by Charli Girl x 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you mean early life, like really early before humans and animals, there were lots of arrogant jellyfish swimming around thinking they were the cleverest things since sliced bread.
If you mean early life, like after there were humans it must have been great - no school, no work, no vicars, no toothpaste, plenty of fishing, plenty of fresh air, plenty of food growing on trees, and lots of girls wearing skins and furs and beads and things.
Civilisation has a lot to answer for.
2007-06-12 05:47:56 · answer #4 · answered by Ynot 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends where one put the limit of life and non-life. Early life is more and more believed to be based on RNA instead of DNA.
DNA is too stable and cannot autoreplicate itself. DNA and proteins are a bit like chicken and the eggs if you do not consider RNA. DNA needs proteins to be and proteins needs DNA to be synthetized.
However, RNA can replicate by itself and do not need proteins. It can as well synthetize proteins. It has one big problem, it is not very stable.
Consequently, life based on RNA was probably not very funny, a lot of 'mutation' and non viable structures. It was probably kind of small organisms similar to bacterias. This life is not existing anymore. There are still traces of these early ancestors in our cells as our DNA is still using RNA to transcribe its code and synthetize proteins. Even the 'reading tape' called ribosomes are made of RNA.
How we passed from RNA life to DNA life is still not very clear.
The next stage of life was probably some kind of DNA bacterias this time, living on place extremely unpleasant for us : no oxygen (the oxygen came later), using sulfur for example for metabolism, actually oxygen was toxic for them. Then came some strange bacteria using CO2 and light to synthetize life components. One of the by-product was oxygen. Most bacteria had to hide from the dangerous toxic gas, some bacteria mutated and used oxygen to prosper. And then started life as we know...
2007-06-12 06:50:22 · answer #5 · answered by omalinur 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It may have been just land, microscopic creatures, bacteria, water creatures...think that's about it. There was no machinery, paper, pencils, pens, technology, music, or all these essentials that we have today. I wouldn't want to live back then. And, if there were human, guess what? If you had a toothache, you would have to pull it out with your bare hands I guess, without being put to sleep, or having your gums to sleep, since there wasn't any medicine! Ugh. What hard times those were.
2007-06-12 10:39:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Can't remember, I was only a baby in my early life.
2007-06-12 05:37:47 · answer #7 · answered by focus 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think, at quite a little scab like civilization, early life could have averted quite a slap from zoologists.
2007-06-12 06:00:14 · answer #8 · answered by Qyn 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Early life this morning was pretty horrible. I hate being woken at 4am.
2007-06-12 05:29:17 · answer #9 · answered by Mum-Ra 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Early life for man was hard.He had to survive fury of nature and animals.Even food was difficult.The law of the jungle followed-might is right.
2007-06-12 05:41:22 · answer #10 · answered by leowin1948 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well I can go back to 1951 for you! The year of my birth... A good year! 1851 even better The Arts Festival of Great Britain.
2007-06-12 06:00:53 · answer #11 · answered by caro 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋