What came before micro-organisms ?Im talking about evolution stuff.?
109372
Good question. \nAny candidate for a pre-biotic existence should have possessed the characteristics that make evolution possible, that is: \n- genetic information (heritable instructions)\n- ability to replicate and carry out those instructions\n- replication with some random variation (so that new traits could appear)\n\nThe "prebiotic RNA world" is one possible theory.\nThis hypothesis was independently proposed by Carl Woese,  Francis Crick, and Leslie Orgel. If you're interested go to the link, it's clear and well explained.
1050527
recent studies have shown that chicken came first as life started with single cell organisms, & by adaptation they grew to multi cellular which were mammals . so the chicken was formed before egg.
1003505
the earliest known form of life is cyanobacteria which grew in bluish green pod like colonies approximately 3.4 billion years ago.
83045
"Evolutionary chains" go a long way towards explaining the development of life, including human life, from simpler organisms, but we haven't gotten very far yet in explaining how the mutation and reproduction systems that natural selection requires  got started in the first place.  Some researchers, and by that I mean mainstream ones who fully accept evolution as the fundamental organizing theory of biology, have tried to work around this problem by postulating that the original lifeforms didn't evolve on Earth at all.  However, while this changes the debate somewhat, by allowing far greater timelines for life to evolve, it still begs the question:  OK, if life evolved somewhere else first, how did it get started *there*?  I think we are much better served by looking at whether life could have evolved here, under the conditions of the primitive earth as we know them.
160247
There is a huge amount about the history of evolution on the web. Look it up. \n\nThere were many similar theories before Darwin and roughly at the same time as Darwin, like Wallace's theory, or Darwin's grandfather Erasmus. \n\nDarwin took a long voyage on the Beagle and gained information that confirmed his theory. \n\nThe theory is that natural selection is a process acting in nature, where individuals of a species best suited to their environments will pass on their characteristics to their offspring ("survival of the fittest"). Eventually this will lead to new species. \n\nSome comments and some misconceptions about Darwin's theory:\n\n1. evolution has very little to do with radioactive dating\n2. evolution in biology has very little to do with the Big Bang\n3. evolution in biology has very little to do with stellar evolution\n4. evolution in biology has very little to do with children growing up and getting taller\n5. evolution in biology is not the same as abiogenesis (self-organizing molecules etc to form life from nonlife)\n6. evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics\n7. Darwin did not renounce evolution on his deathbed in favor of creationism\n8. evolution and creationism are not the only two alternatives to the species we observe\n9. we have observed evolution in action\n10. we make use of evolutionary principles in our work on vaccines etc.\n11. evolution is not a random process\n12. if you look in genesis, there are two separate incompatible contradictory creation accounts\n13. evolution is a scientific theory, just as gravity is a scientific theory. Both are expected to be superceded by something that fits the data better eventually. \n14. evolution makes predictions we can verify\n15. the definition that the intelligent design community wants to use for science is so vague it would include astrology as science, according to admission by intelligent design supporters.
1047258
You seem to have answered your own question there. Nobody knows exactly how the first living cell formed, of course, but it is generaly thorized to have begun with self-replicating molecules (RNA&DNA, like you said, though, belive RNA is belived to be the more ancient). These molecules reacting in a dense enough solution with the nesesary ingridients and enough energy thrown itno the mix, and hey persto -Life!
894605
Fine. I'll level with you.\n\nI believe evolution is possible. I think that certain organisms have developed over time to better their "fitness" (if you will). However, I am a Creationist and believe that God created the Earth and the creatures on it. Sorry if I find it hard to believe that a blob evolved into the life on the planet today.
604819
1) No animals started the evolutionary chain. Animals didn't appear for over a billion years after the first life appeared.\n\n2) The first lifeforms most definitely were not amoebae. Amoebae are very complex EUKARYOTE. The lifeforms were of prokaryotes. \n\n3) The first lifeforms that we would definitely recognise as living were Archae, primitive relatives of the bacteria.
297539
First, you need to define evolution.  You're talking about micro evolution which has no problems with Christianity.  When you start getting into macro, stellar, cosmic and chemical evolution, we've got problems.\n\nIf the ebola virus evolved, it evolved from another virus.  That is micro evolution.  Macro evolution says that that process is evidence that a virus can turn into a dog over time.  This is where you're getting into religious faith and not science.  \n\nThere are hundereds of different breeds of dogs to include wolves and foxes, etc.  Micro evolution says that all those breeds of dogs came from a common ancestor...a dog.  Again, no problem with Christianity.\nMacro evolution will say that the dogs, cats, birds, snakes, plants, blah, blah, all came from a common ancestor.  That's ludicrous and severely contradicts the bible.\n\nNow, as far as your question about before the fall of man...\nGod told Adam that if they ate of the fruit, they would die.  We know that they didn't drop dead on the spot, so what did He mean?  He meant that they would change world events to bring death into the world.\n\nThe world event that possibly changed all of this was the flood.  When man knowingly was sinful (because of Adam), God had to destroy the world (death from the sin of Adam).  Before the flood, the earth had much different living conditions than we do today.  There was the protective canopy of water around the earth that made it paradise.  It increased the oxygen and air pressure to double, it blocked UV rays and had many other benefits.  This is how people were able to live to be 900 years old.\nIt's possible that viruses and other diseases started forming after that protective canopy was gone.  Add in man's industrial chemicals and we've got a recipe for disaster.\nThere was research done with poisonous snakes.  They put the snakes in a hyperbaric chamber and pumped the air pressure to double.  The snakes came out non-poisonous.  How was the world before the flood?  We can't know for sure, but some amazing scientific research has been done on this topic.\n\nAnother possibility is that many viruses were always there, but was just recently released because we went into the rain forest and started cutting down trees.  If it was locked in its environment before and we released it, then it didn't evolve, it was discovered.\n\nYou should check out www.drdino.com and download the seminar titled "The garden of Eden".  It will explain these things in much greater detail.
392101
History of the concept: Aristotle, Pasteur, Darwin, Oparin\n\nFrom its first formulation by Aristotle in the 4th century BC it was an article of both common and learned belief, at least in Europe, that complex living organisms arose spontaneously from non-living matter - fleas and adult mice from dirty laundry and from piles of wheat, maggots and flies from rotting meat, aphids from drops of dew. Life, in short, came about by spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis. Holes began to be knocked in Aristotle's dictum by early biologists in the 18th century, but not until the meticulous experiments of Louis Pasteur in 1862 was it finally established that a truly sterile medium would remain forever sterile, and that complex living organisms come only from other complex living organisms. The "Law of Biogenesis", (omne vivum ex ovo or "all life from an egg") based on his work is now a cornerstone of modern biology.\n\nThe modern science of abiogenesis addresses a fundamentally different question: the ultimate origin of life itself. Pasteur had proved that abiogenesis was impossible for complex organisms. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution put forward a mechanism whereby such organisms might evolve over millennia from simple forms, but it did not address the original spark, as it were, from which even simple organisms might have arisen. Darwin was aware of the problem. In a letter to J.D. Hooker of February 1, 1871, he made the suggestion that life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." In other words the presence of life itself prevents the spontaneous generation of simple organic compounds from occurring on Earth today - a circumstance which makes the search for the first life dependent on the laboratory.\n\nThe answer to Darwin's question was beyond the reach of the experimental science of his day, and no real progress was made during the 19th century. In 1936 Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, in his "The Origin of Life on Earth", demonstrated that, pace Pasteur, it was the presence of atmospheric oxygen, and other more sophisticated life-forms that prevented the chain of events that would lead to the evolution of life. Oparin argued that a "primeval soup" of organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere, through the action of sunlight. These, he suggested, combine in ever-more complex fashion until they are dissolved into a coacervate droplet. These droplets, he suggested, "grow" by fusion with other droplets, and "reproduce" through fission into daughter droplets, and so have a primitive metabolism in which those factors which promote "cell integrity" survive, those that don't become extinct. All modern theories of the origin of life take Oparin's ideas as a starting point.
354028
Charles Darwin proposed that the first proteins evolved from non-living matter. But how did this happen? Firstly, the earth was not the same today as it was 3 to 4 billion years ago when the first organic compounds where being formed. The early atmosphere was too hot for oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and other elements to exist alone, as they do today. These elements combined to form methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water vapor (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (formula), hydrogen molecules (H2), etc. These where all, and thus the early atmosphere was called a 'reducing atmosphere'. Further, as there was no free oxygen to form an ozone (O3) layer to protect the earth from the harsh ultra-violet radiation (UV Rays) from the sun. Also, there where incredibly violent electrical storms, which where more violent than any which occur today. \n\nIn 1924 Alexander Oparin hypothesized that organic compounds where formed in the early earth when the high energy provided by UV Rays, and storms, caused different molecules to react, and create new organic compounds, such as Amino Acids DNA, and RNA.
366427
The egg came first, because before there were any chickens at all, there was the species that mutated/evolved into the chicken (some sort of dinosaur, no doubt). That species was invariably an egg laying creature, and therefore, there were eggs long before there were chickens.
995340
The earliest living organisms were single-celled. They were prokaryotes, probably bacteria or archaea. They lived 3.8 billion years ago in the Eoarchean Era, a subdivision of the Archean Era.
351989
you basically want to say which species evolved first.\n\nTry this website...it might give you some ideas\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree
427214
If you are a creationist, like me, the chicken probably came first.\nIf you believe in evolution, then by that theory the egg would have come first.
189844
Science estimates that the first DNA forms of life were present on Earth around 3.5 billion years ago.
435774
Well, if we're going by the Theory of Evolution, the egg.  As the chicken's ancestors were slowly evolving to the current form of chicken, the last one who's DNA was  99.9999999999999999999% similar to the modern chicken layed an egg which contained 100% chicken.  So, the egg came first.