what came first in the evolution process?

Question

was it
A. the food
B. the mouth to eat the food
C. the digestive sysytem to digest the food
D. the ability to find the food to eat

Answer 1

Evolutionists haven't a clue as to how or why life started, much less how it evolved into a complex form.

Many confuse adaptation as being evolution. The surprising thing to me is how much evolutionists claim to be "enlightened scientists", yet are closed minded about anything that may contradict their theory.

For example: Where did the matter and energy come from that formed the big bang, and thus the universe? Answer: It does not matter as this has nothing to do with evolution.

Next question: In our solar system, why is Earth the winner of the "evolutionary" jackpot as there is not any complex life anywhere else. After all, Mars and Venus both have the same sun and time to have formed life on their planets, yet there is none. Why is earth so lucky?

Last question: How come the critters we came from are either still around, or still in their pre-evolutionary state?

Answer 2

E. None

Single reproducing molecules were probable first. Then came simple things like RNA and eventually DNA. Single celled organisms were probably the first to consume a "food", so i guess you could say A. Food was the first to come.

Oh, and the answer above me is pure ignorance. If he sat in class for just 1 hour he would realize why his questions show ignorance, not genuine questions. I like his question about why the animals we evolved from are still around. This is the equivalent to asking "If moses built the ark, why is there still fish?"

Answer 3

Notice Michael M,and his answer.That's a foolproof example of indoctrination.The humanists believe that if they can get to the kids at the youngest possible age,there will be the least amount of opposition.Students can't even question evolution because of fear of persecution or alienation,and even expulsion.The reason I say this is simple.No one was there to witness the beginning of the universe,therefore one either takes God at his word or you have human reason.It's a battle of worldviews.Not science vs. religion.Evolution is very faith based and religious.You got to have rock hard faith to believe in something your teacher tells you when they weren't even there to witness it.People grow up believing in evolution because some teacher told them so.Molecules to man evolution is blatantly false.It has never been observed.Abiogenesis is a myth.Miller did not create life all those years ago.

Answer 4

Thunked? i'm thinking you weren't compelled with an abundance of education. (Quote from Firefly) Evolution isn't a rapid technique. this is the slow version of characteristics in step with environmental situations. How come there are no Sasquatch-like creatures? The jury remains out on that one. There could and there won't be in accordance with no count if or no longer you're conversing to a Cryptozoologist or a man or woman who has claimed to have considered one. individually i've got faith that completely everyone seems to be seeing some thing, yet as to what they are seeing has yet to be surely pointed out. How come no fish have given start to human beings? considering which you could carry on with the evolutionary tree back to the roots. Fish and early amphibians chop up off. The amphibians went directly to dry land and chop up off a branch that improve into the 1st reptiles. Then we had yet another chop up that created the dinosaurs and the mammal-like reptiles. then the mammal-like reptiles chop up off and you had early mammals, then you had a chop up into primates, that chop up persistently until eventually you had the music of branches that further approximately early hominids, then chop up off into Homo Sapiens. No fish ever gave start to a human. under no circumstances will the two. What they did supply start to enhance into the subsequent branch of the tree. We do look diverse from the folk from the sixteenth century. we've developed. we are taller on regularly occurring, our pinky finger (that's the weakest finger) is shorter than it improve into interior the sixteenth century...we glance comparable adequate to be pointed out via fact the comparable species of Homo Sapiens, yet to the experienced eye of an anthropologist there are adequate variations which could enable one to look at a skeleton of the two Medieval and present day guy and have the potential to tell which improve into which.

Answer 5

E. ever more progressive chemical reactions resulting in cells that could reproduce themselves...food, mouths, digestive systems and hunting all came about much, much later in the process...you should try reading something besides a bible son...

Answer 6

Absolutely nothing was the first thing. Then it started spinning and than it exploded and formed the universe and the beginning of all life. Don't take my word for it. Get any first grade science book and see for yourself!

Answer 7

None of the above. The first thing was a complex molecule able to replicate itself.

Answer 8

What does evolution have to do with religion? There is a science section for a reason.