Earlier a poster tried to explain Evolution.
Here is his first ranting:
OK. I'll put it as simply as I can. A long time ago there where these creatures. Through the eons and generations, certain traits became more desirable for survival. Each generation of offspring had new developments (adaptations to their environment). As the family tree from these original creatures grew longer and more separated, new branches evolved. Jeez I can't even explain it simple enough for you. Basically, humans and monkeys/apes are cousins in a family tree that goes back to the original creatures. Monkeys/apes did not become humans.....the original creature did.
***
When I asked him what the 'original creature' was, he replied saying he didn't have the time to research it.
So....does anyone know this 'original creature'?
** if you wanna look at the earlier post: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoFJegs6fCsN7JeN0lhBvursy6IX?qid=20070718140438AAVWF69
`
2007-07-18 15:06:39 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
***
`
Paul S....speaking of ranting....you didn't answer my question. I, atleast answered his!
`
2007-07-18 15:21:09 · update #1
** No... I did answer him. He wanted to know who was spreading the lies on Evolution and I told him that the evolutions were. How is that not an answer?
`
2007-07-18 15:52:46 · update #2
AND you still didn't answer my question!
`
2007-07-18 15:53:42 · update #3
** Did you just say . Pfft???? And you call me the kid? You NEVER once answered my question...because YOU can't. You tried to defend evolution...and FAILED. Atleast there were people here trying to answer the question, instead on being down right 'chidlish' in their answer...oh wait...you didn't answer!!!!
`
Your post qualifies as a violation....but I'm not in the mood today.
`
2007-07-19 03:35:06 · update #4
In my humble (yet correct) opinion, Adam was the original creature.
2007-07-18 16:38:48 · answer #1 · answered by Patti C 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow...theory-frightening question. How will we no longer be prompted, to a undeniable volume, via our atmosphere? i think of that what we see, pay attention and adventure continuously permeates our unconscious and manifests itself in our recommendations, behaviors, movements, expressions, etc. no rely if we comprehend it or no longer. To me, the approach is seamless and out of our administration, and because it somewhat is the case, then possibly no longer something is unique. that's whilst Jarmusch expenditures Godard that the line is drawn, so a procedures as i'm worried. there's a extensive distinction between being heavily prompted via what's on the instant around you and incorporating it in what you produce vs. making a carbon reproduction of it, calling it your guy or woman and leaving it there. whether no longer something is unique via those standards, i think of that plagiarism can nevertheless exist. To take something of somebody else's, and not attempt to take the assumption any extra, is theft and is incorrect.
2016-12-10 16:18:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There wasn't anything which could be called the original creature. The first life on this planet wasn't anything like what we would call a creature. Slime? Oh, no! The first life, from which we all evolved was not *nearly* so evolved as even the humblest of slimes.
2007-07-18 15:12:11 · answer #3 · answered by Brant 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No one has a specimen. It would be something similar to a virus that gained the ability to reproduce. Virus are not alive because they can't self replicate. But if they acquired the ability then they would be alive.
2007-07-18 15:14:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Carpolestes simpsoni, an extinct member of Plesiadapiformes. This is the ancestor of the primates.
2007-07-18 15:43:32 · answer #5 · answered by novangelis 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"Ranting"?
Hon, his answer is a calm and correct one. You're the one ranting.
You owe him an apology, not that I would expect a creationist to have the moral character to come through with one.
================
"Paul S....speaking of ranting....you didn't answer my question. I, atleast answered his!"
No, you didn't. You ranted there, insulting him, then you reposted it here with an unwarranted insult.
Your behavior is childish, and he was right and you were (and continue to be) wrong. I don't think much of your ethics or your intelligence. Ranting like this doesn't make your case.
====================
Pfft. Your "answer" was simply a lie.
You're clearly a compulsive liar, kid. That's going to make your life miserable.
2007-07-18 15:10:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
abiogenesis. it's the theory that the first 'living' thing was developed naturally over millions of years from amino acids (the thing DNA is made out of) that was created when lightning hit the primitive atmosphere.
2007-07-18 15:14:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No one will ever know for sure but it was probably a prion that turned into a virus,then bacteria, and you know the rest
2007-07-18 15:12:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
http://www.johnhaney.com/creature/
2007-07-18 15:13:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
single-cell algae and amoebas
look up evolution in wikipedia.org
2007-07-18 15:09:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋