I just read that in a pop science book and I wondered if any of our Biology friends could corroberate it for me?
2007-07-22 02:49:53 · 6 answers · asked by tuthutop 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
Your pop science book is right about what happened, but if it really says 10 million years, it is way off on the time line.
3 billion years is closer to right and that is truly an unimaginable amount of time for most of us.
2007-07-22 03:01:40 · answer #1 · answered by Joan H 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The first fossil of a bacterium was found about 3.5 billion years ago in Australia. It's supposed to be the earliest fossil ever found, which makes us believe that life began about 3.8 or 3.7 billion years ago, because not everything fossilises. Because all the earliest fossils are bacteria it has been considered fact that everything evolved from them. Really, as in all cases of science, this will remain fact until proven otherwise.
And all phyla did not evolve within a ten million year range. Mammals arrived billions of years after the first bacteria.
Plus everything is still evolving, so before long another phyla could pop up.
2007-07-23 08:23:30 · answer #2 · answered by Katri-Mills 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's also important to remember that extant bacteria are not necessarily good models for the life forms which were our ancestors. Modern bacteria have been following their own evolutionary trajectory for a long time.
2007-07-22 10:17:28 · answer #3 · answered by Handsome Chuck 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. This doesn't even make sense, let alone match the fossil record.
2007-07-22 10:14:09 · answer #4 · answered by 1,1,2,3,3,4, 5,5,6,6,6, 8,8,8,10 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
more like 3 billion years.
2007-07-22 09:58:46 · answer #5 · answered by stevenchapin2002 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
ya , both the guys above are right !
2007-07-22 10:14:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋