Where did life evolve?
474004
One thing for sure, HUMANS DID NOT EVOLVE FROM PRIMATES.\n\nLife was formed out of Africa.  All humans were first Black Men and Women.  Other races are "Mutations" of the original Black Men and Women of Africa.
483713
I wouldn't say that I'm anymore intelligent than someone else, but I did want to answer your question, so....\n\nYou are confusing the theory of evolution (diversification of species) with the theory of abiogenesis (life from natural compounds).  That's okay, many people confuse the two.\n\n1.  How did life get from soup to single-celled organisms?  From wikipedia, "J.B.S Haldane suggested that the earth's pre-biotic oceans - very different from their modern counterparts - would have formed a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds, the building blocks of life, could have formed.\nIn 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemists Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks organic amino acids, the basic building blocks of life, had formed. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life; they demonstrated that a more complex molecule — the amino-acids — could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals, in the presence of an external energy source in an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen (the experiment involved shooting a spark, representing lightning, into their flask of supposedly primitive earth-gases)."\n\n2.  How did the original cell eat and develop asexual reproduction?   You are putting the cart before the horse.  In order to get to the cell stage, self-replicating molecules had to exist first... i.e. reproduction & "nourishment"  was occurring well before the cell stage.  Also, what are you referring to with "nourishment"?  For a self-replicating molecule, nourishment would consist of other molecules that it could combine with to form more of itself.\n\n3.  In the "soup", how did primordial cells develop resistences?  Resistence to what?  I don't understand this question.  To the environment?  To viruses or bacteria?  You need to elaborate here, I'm sorry.  I think it ties into your next answer, but not sure.  Please read my answer to #4.\n\n4.  How did it evolve everything it needed if it wasn't in it's DNA?  Can you give an example?  Hmm.  I'm trying to understand how you are approaching this question.  Let's say you have 100 little cells, each a little different.  5 cells can withstand a higher water temperature than the others because of a mutation they have.  One day the temperature goes up and kills off the other 95 cells.  That only leaves the 5 with the mutation.  They scamper off and reproduce like crazy... the cell strain has just evolved a little.  Now repeat this a gazillion times with a dynamic interacting environment and there you go.
280906
Supposedly the universe is estimated to be about 13.6 billion years old.  I think I read that on Wikipedia, though, so you never know...\n\nThat said, I really have so little idea what is out there or what conditions are necessary for life to arise that I don't know which theory is more plausible.  How flexible are the conditions that lead to the formation of primative cells on Earth?  Can there be life based on an entirely different set of molecules?  An entirely different set of elements (i.e. not carbon based)?  How many other planets have chemical compositions and climates like Earth?  Did life even originate on Earth? (I've heard the theory that primative cells could have originated on another planet and been brought here on an asteroid).  Could primative cells have left Earth on some sort of asteroid and taken up residence elsewhere?\n\nI'd like to think there's other life out there, just because it makes things more interesting.  Until I have reason to believe otherwise, I'll assume there is.
9
A tough question as it overlaps science and theology. Since you asked "how the human species evolved?" I'll assume you're interested in the scientific approach to the answer.\nThe current theory holds that Homo sapiens evolved from Hominid ancestors over the course of millions of years through a process called natural selection. Natural selection is the weeding and advancement of species variants over time based on the fit in that species' then current environments. The pressures for "fit" are competitive (with each other, with other tribes, and with other animals) and environmental (weather, terrain, availability of food, etc.). These factors all contributed to the development of our higher brain, which we now use to evolve as a global collective through communication & technology.
1114506
I would think that things gradually evolved over time.  There must have been enough "almost" butterflies to pro-create with the butterfly to have offspring.  So I feel it would be like being in the current of the stream and the stream would have kept pushing forward maybe a little different but in the same general direction.  Just a guess..  Good question.
529829
God and evolution are not an antithesis.  God spoke life into existence but he also placed within each creature the ability to adapt and evolve.  \n\nI do not believe there is life out there. However, even if there were it wouldn't change my belief in Christ.  I'd say what a wonderful Creator we have and move on.
840716
Pre-Cambrian life was mostly soft-bodied -- there were very few if any creatures with bones, skeletons, or hard shells, so there were very few fossils left.\n\nBesides, it was a long, long time ago -- and geological activity on the earth (volcanic action, subduction of continental plates, erosion, etc.) have wiped out a lof of what was the surface of the earth then. :)
993128
The origin of the first life form is actually indeed unclear.  What makes this so difficult is not that one cannot envision molecules that replicate themselves by having certain enzymatic activities.  Rather, if all recent life forms go back to one ancestral species, how did all those parts shared by recent species come together?   (For example, cell membranes, organalles, the nucleic acids etc.)\n\nNow, you are absolutely right that there is an assumed parent species, an ancestor to all other species on the planet.  But science does not show at all that life cannot derive from non-life.  Quite on the contrary, science would suggest, since all the individual parts of which living cells are composed are by themselves not alive, life must emerge from the higher-level organization.  The idea is the following: the properties of the parts of a system do not predict the properties of the whole.  Take water, which is composed of two gases.  Nothing in the properties of either gas suggests or makes predictable that H20 is a translucent liquid with a density anomaly.  The same holds true for biological systems.  Life seems to emerge at one point of complexity as a property of the union of non-living parts in complex systems such as cells.  How that happens is unclear.\n\nNow, I am not familiar with the theory you mention.  As a biologist who has focused much of his work time on evolution, I cannot say that this is a commonly held opinion.  But your question is a very good one:  If that indeed were the case, don't we just push the point of origin one level backwards?  Some scientists opt for the pansperm theory, according to which life came from out of space.  Not to wory, I am not talking UFO's etc.  Rather, amino acids and nucleic acids have been found in space.  The idea comes in two major flavors, namely one, that life originated on earth from these parts that were brought to the surface of the planet by means of meteors and then came together to form life.  The other flavor is that this happened on another planet and that the living cells were transported by meteroites to earth, which likewise would push the problem of the origin of life backwards, just as the "other dimension idea" (which to me seem rather strange and unscientific).
1142498
No. Most life forms did not evolve from plants. Simple single-celled life was first, microscopic organisms at one point called protists and at another point moved into its own kingdom, bacteria. The first primitive multicellular animals preceeded plants by a few million years.
1169172
Babies are proof evolution is a fact.\n\nBabies evolve from minerals, liquids, vegetation and oxygen (gases) through natural processes.\n\nBabies are not created, they evolve.
111774
we evolved from one specific species of apes. evolution is a constant, dynamic process, that cen be seen even now as you look around. you have to be intelligent and have common sense and pay attention, and not beleive everything that is written. for proof, just look at the weather forecasters - almost everything they say is wrong, or they just flat out lie. I think they lie - nobody could screw up that much and keep a job.
1138218
I will have to support Evolution! Let me give you a definition of Evolution!\nBiological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).\nDocumentation of ancestor-descendant relationships among organisms also comes from the fields of biogeography, taxonomy, anatomy, embryology and, most recently, genetics — particularly DNA analysis.\nThe fossil record remains first and foremost among the databases that document changes in past life on Earth. Fossils provide the dimension of time to the study of life. Some of the most basic observations about fossils and the rock record were made long before Darwin formulated his theory of “descent with modification.” The fossil record clearly shows changes in life through almost any sequence of sedimentary rock layers. Successive rock layers contain different groups or assemblages of fossil species.\n{We have now more than enough fossils to determine for sure that humans didn’t appear on this planet in the genetic form they are today!\nWE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST ANOTHER SPECIES WHICH LIVED WITH US!! And I am talking about Neanderthal man who was not our ancestor but a different Human than us!!! (Did God experiment with human species?) We even have proof that at a certain point in time 3 human species shared the planet! (Homo sapiens, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthals)}\nOf course I want comment the stupid argument why all the apes didn’t evolve to humans. Ok I will comment!!\n(We share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas; we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes--orangutans and gibbons--and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past. \n! By the way why God decided to create 5 different species of primates and 280 different species of monkeys?)\nAs a conclusion Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact (In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.) Creation is a Hebrew Myth and unfortunately is not a fact but a myth!!!!
189844
Science estimates that the first DNA forms of life were present on Earth around 3.5 billion years ago.
31639
There is no meaning to life. You evolved from single cell organism by accident.
661513
The earth came into existence by some as yet undetermined process, the most likely of which was a "big bang" whereby all existing planets and solar systems began to form into their current transitory states. During that process, animal life began to form on the earth, by yet another unknown process. The earth is currently in a state of transition that will eventually result in its return to the previous unknown condition that resulted in the "big bang."\n\n\n\nNow send me $5 or I'll put a curse on you.
206888
But the most obvious answer to your question is that we obviously do evolve... we'd all be dead if we didn't\n\nsurvival of the fittest
715442
Origin of the first life.