the very start of life on earth
2007-12-16 19:04:10 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
As an exogenecist, I believe in pansprmia which is microbes and basic forms of life arriving from space on comets, etc. They then evolve in our own unique (and primitive) environment. People with my belief are in a minority and if you try arguing it without some research, people will decimate you.
2007-12-16 20:02:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a hypothetical life form known as the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA), which is the ancestor of all life now on this planet. That doesn't mean there weren't other life forms which didn't survive, and it was probably a long time after the first life form on this planet. It lived some time between 4.1 and 3.6 billion years ago. It may be, though, that genes were carried between organisms by viruses and many cells, including our own, seem to have evolved from colonies of simplified cells living together, so there isn't a straight answer to this either.
2007-12-17 10:38:03 · answer #2 · answered by grayure 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm gonna have to go with "DrAnders_pHd" who has the same pHd as I have.
The acceptable name for the proto-bacterium is Archaea. It was so basic that it existed before the separation into either plants or animals. In other words, it could evolve to be either.
It lived possibly a billion years before the first great extinction that killed almost everything on the planet caused by the development of a new poisonous gas called, oxygen!
This is one of the established tests of evolution; as you can see, we humans do just fine in this poisonous atmosphere.
You could say that modern humanity is a long way from Archaea but I believe the exception intellectually might be Republicans. Could a close family resenblence to Archaea be the answer as to why are there Republicans?
2007-12-17 13:57:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The word used by evolutionists to describe the alleged formation of life from non life is abiogenesis.
There is no evidence of any sort that this has ever occured, and all experimental evidence demonstrates its impossibility.
There was a famous experiment carried out in 1953 by Urey and Millar, which was much trumpeted as proof that abiogenesis might have occured. However it really shows the opposite - showing just how impossible the spontaneous creation of life really is.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4111/
For those that are not evolutionists, the word you are looking for is Creation.
By contrast, the idea of creation does fit with the observed evidence and explains what we see around us.
2007-12-17 12:56:13 · answer #4 · answered by a Real Truthseeker 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
some will argue smart protiens as the start.
But are they alive?
others will argue Proteinoids.
again are they alive?
some will say simple bacterium.
yup they fit the description.
but what about nanobacteria?
still needs more research on this one. but looks alot more primitive than simple bacteria. but looks also can be a decieving little bugger
2007-12-17 03:10:38 · answer #5 · answered by noneya b 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I suspect what you are looking for is the term Primordial Soup. Go to Google and find out all you need to know
2007-12-17 05:33:45 · answer #6 · answered by peter b 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Archeobacter. It just means "very old bacteria". They exist today in no oxygen environments and we call them very primitive because they die in the presence of oxygen and their non oxygen lifestyle is very slow and energy inefficient.
2007-12-17 03:25:17 · answer #7 · answered by DrAnders_pHd 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
ancient greeks believed that all human life and all living things here in earth are begin in evolution theory by charles darwin.
2007-12-17 03:27:34 · answer #8 · answered by sygin a 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I believe the word you're after is abiogenesis.
2007-12-17 03:12:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It would have been microscopic bacteria first off
2007-12-17 03:18:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋