English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Do proponents of evolutionist believe that each kingdom was derived from separate instances of abiogenesis.

2007-12-28 09:49:29 · 19 answers · asked by Holy Holly 5 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

19 answers

Bacteria have RNA just like ours (no DNA though), so I think the idea is we're related even to them. But that's obviously a little sketchy. But the consensus is that every living thing except viruses on earth is related. Isn't this a bit too technical (and sensible) a biology question for R&S though?

2007-12-28 09:57:27 · answer #1 · answered by Ray Patterson - The dude abides 6 · 0 0

Wonderwall: The following is a straight answer. Eat it!

There was only one instance of abiogenesis. All life has evolved from these original archaic microbes.

Eukaryotes (which include all plants and animals) evolved when large prokariotes (which include modern bacteria) developed internal structures, chiefly the nuclear membrane. This change allowed specialized proteins to exist in the cytoplasm, without impeding the processes of cell division or RNA transcription.

Sometime early in eukaryotic history, the cell became infected with a parasitic prokaryote. However, the infection had an unexpected benefit: the parasite produced usable energy for the cell in the form of ATP. This parasite has coevolved with its host, and is now known as mitochondria. Mitochondria still has its own DNA, separate from the nuclear DNA.

Later, a second parasitic infection occured. This time, the parasite was a cell that used light to generate ATP. Again, the host got a benefit of increased energy, but was dependent on light. These coevolved into chloroplasts, and like mitochondria, have their own DNA.

Some of the descendents of the first cell, with mitochodria but no chloroplasts, eventually evolved into animals. The descendents of the second, with both mitochondria and chloroplasts, eventually led to plants.

This theory is greatly supported by genetic evidence. Some basic research into evolution could have answered your question for you. (Or at least asking it in the appropriate category, such as Science -> Biology, rather than Society -> Religion...)

2007-12-28 10:15:27 · answer #2 · answered by phoenixshade 5 · 1 0

I don't understand your question...

The fact that all DNA shares the same structure, would seem to point at a single abiogenesis event. One common ancestor. If you look at the different kingdoms, you'll notice that while the structures vary, the basic functionality is pretty much the same.

Think mithocondria...pretty much unversal in all eukaroytes, that kinda looks to me like they must have been around before the separation to kingdoms took place.

Think of Kingdomization ;) It's like speciation, only earlier... Humans and apes took different paths what... 5 million years ago? Plants and animals did that 5 billion years ago... what's so weird about that?

2007-12-28 10:10:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

> Do proponents of evolutionist have faith that each and each kingdom became derived from separate circumstances of abiogenesis. Nope. All existence on the instant looks to have originated with a single occasion of abiogenesis, hence the familiar genetic code -- an analogous codons code for an analogous 20 amino acids in merely approximately each organism residing on the instant. we don't understand what became happening past to the Oxygen disaster -- even nonetheless it appears that evidently throughout the time of easy terms one style of existence survived that, and we are all descendants of those survivors.

2016-10-02 12:11:57 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

In the very early stages of evolution, rudimentary
plants and animals developed from the
same simple organisms. Since then they
have taken different evolutionary pathways.
On a genetic level, animals and plants are
surprisingly similar.

2007-12-28 10:03:09 · answer #5 · answered by I ain't nothing but a hound dog. 5 · 2 0

Kingdoms, phyla etc are like stamp collecting. They are human categories applied to explain and categorise a continuos variation. They do not imply division - they imply convenience.

2007-12-28 09:53:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I like the answer of Betty D.
E V O L U T I O N= evolving into different organisms

Therefore, cabbages evolved into monkeys! Yehey! But, that gives me guilt feelings. Why should I eat my ancestor?

2007-12-28 10:16:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

in any genetic pool there is a large amount of minor genetic variation. The organic kingdoms evolved over millions and millions of years where these genetic variations adjusted to the environment.

2007-12-28 09:53:40 · answer #8 · answered by Chit P 4 · 2 2

You'll never get a straight answer from them,it'll be nothing but put-downs,insults and references to other areas they know nothing about but will claim the answers are there-just watch.

2007-12-28 09:57:50 · answer #9 · answered by Wonderwall 4 · 0 1

Is your sloppy understanding of evolution the same quality as your understanding of religion?

2007-12-28 10:12:47 · answer #10 · answered by Fred 7 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers