What animal or insect started the evolutionary chain?
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.
488753
Snakes evolved in the water first...at the time life began in the water...land on earth couldn't sustain life because of toxic gases and the heat...the first phylums to set foot on land were reptiles and arthropods (joint footed animals) example-horseshoe crab
433812
You're assuming that there is only one way of surviving. Our ancestral ape, from whom both humans and modern apes have descended (contrary to popular belif, we did not descend from the modern apes - we just have the same great-great-grandparents :-)) Now, due to variation, this ancestral species developed into a number of different beasts - some succesful, some not. What we see now as chimps and humans are merely the current state of evolution of two of these branches, both succesful, and both with a long history of extinct intermediate forms connecting them to their ancestor.\n\nOh, and by the way -- the term "the missing link" is a misnomer. It implies that we have not found any solid evidence that humans are evolutionarily tied to the apes. We have dozens of intermediate forms showing this pathway, so there are no links missing. (Of course, what you sometimes hear is that there is no intermediate form between, say, Australopithecus Robustus and Austrolopithecus Boisei and claim that there is a missing link there. But then say that somebody found the fossil connecting the two species. Would that mean that the missing link proponents would stop asking for one? No! Now, we have TWO new missing links - one to link Robustus to the new species, AND one to link the new species to Boisei! Evolution is a continuum, and fossilization is a sporadic and rather 'selective' process, so there will always be something missing from the fossil record. To be intellectually honest, however, you need to not only focus on the gaps, but on the picture the actual fossils paint.)
165331
"The Tertiary covers roughly the time span between the demise of the dinosaurs and beginning of the most recent ice age. At the beginning of the period mammal replaced reptiles as the dominant animals. Each epoch of the Tertiary was marked by striking developments in mammalian life. The earliest recognizable hominoid relatives of humans, Proconsul and Australopithecus, appeared. Modern types of birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates either were already numerous at the beginning of the period or appeared early in its history. Modern families of flowering plants evolved. Marine invertebrates and non-mammal marine vertebrates experienced only modest evolution."
86425
The first chicken was hatched from an egg of something that was not quite a chicken. That's evolution :-)
143122
OK, first things first. \nThe anaconda (Eunectes notaeus) is a South American aquatic constrictor boa. \nPythons are Asiatic/African constrictors (mostly arboreal); they belong to a different subfamily (some authors even assign them to a different family) from South American boas. \nThe evolutionary history of the family Boidae (in a broad sense, i.e. including both these groups) is a very interesting paleontological issue; their phylogenetic (ancestral-descendant) relationships are still being discussed. \n\nAs the original question is not clear, I'd like to know if you're interested in the evolution of a particular species or the Boidae in general. \nHere's two links to papers on snake phylogeny, including the Boidae \nhttp://www.kingsnake.com/aho/pdf/menu2/slowinski2002.pdf\nhttp://evo.bio.psu.edu/hedgeslab/Publications/PDF-files/67.pdf\nI'll check back :-)
1139897
There were insects and other animals that were around about 100 to 900 million years ago that grew fairly large (a whole lot larger than now, one dragon fly fossil had a wing span of several meters if I remember right) because of an abundance of oxygen, a lot more than there is now.  No species will ever reach those sizes again.  Also, humans didn't evolve until around 300,000 years ago, even though homo erectus has been around since 1.8 million years ago.   The giant insects had gon extinct long before humans ever evolved, and there were giant insects.  \nThis past school semester, I took a geology class at the community college I go to and one of the things that we talked about was the formation of life on earth and we actually talked about giant insects and animals and I remembered I had notes from that day so I used those notes to answer this question.
371165
we talked about this in my biology class and we came up with birds. We found out that they are related to prehistoric times to the Teridactyl. They have similar body stuctures except much larger. Stubby legs and wings with bones is another similarity. They also build nests and lay eggs. \n\nBacteria is an excellent organism to support the theory of evolution. Bacteria are "cells" that have their chromosomes scattered all throughout it making it very unorganized. However over time a nucleus was formed and all of the chromosomes were kept here and other cell structures were formed along with cilia on the cell membrane for propulsion. This evolving into the first single celled organism.
160444
The Egg.\n\nDinosaurs came before the chicken, methinks.
667063
The phylogeny of snakes is poorly known due to the fact that snake skeletons are typically small and fragile, making fossilization unlikely. It has however been generally agreed, on the basis of morphology, that snakes descended from lizard-like ancestors. Recent research based on genetics and biochemistry confirms this; snakes form a venom clade with several extant lizard families.\n\nRecent fossil evidence suggests that snakes directly evolved from burrowing lizards, either varanids or some other group. An early fossil snake, Najash rionegrina, was a two-legged burrowing animal with a sacrum, fully terrestrial. One extant analog of these putative ancestors is the earless monitor Lanthanotus of Borneo, although it also is semi-aquatic. As these ancestors became more subterranean, they lost their limbs and became more streamlined for burrowing. Features such as the transparent, fused eyelids and loss of external ears, according to this hypothesis, evolved to combat subterranean conditions (scratched corneas, dirt in the ears). According to this hypothesis, snakes re-emerged onto the surface of the land much as they are today. Other primitive snakes are known to have possessed hindlimbs but lacked a direct connection of the pelvic bones to the vertebrae, including Haasiophis, Pachyrhachis and Eupodophis) which are slightly older than Najash.\n\nThe alternative hypothesis, based on morphology, suggests that ancestors were related to mosasaurs — extinct aquatic reptiles from the Cretaceous — which in turn are thought to have derived from varanid lizards. Under this hypothesis, the fused, transparent eyelids of snakes are thought to have evolved to combat marine conditions (corneal water loss through osmosis), while the external ears were lost through disuse in an aquatic environment, ultimately leading to an animal similar in appearance to sea snakes of today. In the Late Cretaceous, snakes re-colonized the land much like they are today. Fossil snake remains are known from early Late Cretateous marine sediments, which is consistent with this hypothesis, particularly as they are older than the terrestrial Najash rionegrina. Similar skull structure; reduced/absent limbs; and other anatomical features found in both mosasaurs and snakes lead to a positive cladistical correlation, though some features are also shared with varanids. Supposedly similar locomotion for both groups is also used as support for this hypothesis. Genetic studies have indicated that snakes are not especially related to monitor lizards, and (it has been claimed) therefore not to mosasaurs, the proposed ancestor in the aquatic scenario of their evolution. However, there is more evidence linking mosasaurs to snakes than to varanids. Fragmentary remains that have been found from the Jurassic and Early Cretaceous indicate deeper fossil records for these groups, which may eventually refute either hypothesis.\n\nThe great diversity of modern snakes appeared in the Paleocene, probably correlated with the adaptive radiation of mammals following the extinction of the dinosaurs.
686779
The food chain or web is a map of the different species and how they depend on each other. In our case for example the bottom of the web would be plants then these link to insects as food source, another links takes us to many species of birds who prey on insects for food and then a link goes to raptor birds at the top of our food chain as they prey on small birds for food.\n\nNow in the family of pesticides is insecticide which could easily end up being an indiscriminate insect management tool.\n\nWhat I mean by indiscriminate is the insecticide can create three problems besides it's intended use.\n\nThe first problem is that while the insecticide will kill it's intended insect it can also kill benign insects as well. This then could impact by eliminating a food source for a species of bird further up the food chain that only eats that insect. Without that food source the bird then might compete with other species of birds to further reduce a food source and both populations of birds have problems.\n\nThe second problem is an insect that is sprayed in insecticide is then eaten by a bird. Now comes the question of what effects the toxic insecticide could have on the bird. It could be toxic as well and so kill the bird, it could be carcinogenic and affect the birds or when they reproduce. Finally it could be a carcinogen but simply stored in the fatty tissue or some place in the bird. Finally at the top of the food chain is the raptor birds. One example to explain the problem here is the Bald Eagle and that by preying on birds with a buildup of insecticide in their bodies absorbed it and then the effect was the insecticide acted on the female eagle and the population started to produce thin shelled eggs that made it impossible to produce offspring.\n\nThe final problem of insecticide is that other habitate food chains exist. One example is lake shore to fish and to lake bottom species. In this case you can have rain wash the insecticide from it's intended location to the lake shore and just as in the birds, a food chain/web is jeopardized.
69379
the chicken came first as each animal came first and then their children if not than who came first  an adult human being or a child , an adult reptile or a child reptile , a bird or an egg?
403905
There is an obvious answer: the egg. All birds evolved from avian (flying) dinosaurs. They laid eggs. The egg came first (although not necessarily the chicken egg).
495781
Bird was created during the Dinosaur period.  After the end of that period, humans followed.  Humans evolved from the great ape stock of species.  Genetic engineering over the centuries has helped us along to where we are today.  The genetic engineering of our DNA was performed by life forms superior to us.
260469
The egg. In general - eggs of various species- insects, dinosaurs, etc.  had been around LONG before chickens evolved.
224362
the egg. it was formed by organisms and eventually hatched.\n\ni first thought, well, if the chicken came first, it had to come from and egg, but then that egg would have to come from the chicken, then that chicken had to had come from and egg, and so on and forth
970035
Well I think you should start by using the reasons for human evolution. One of the most acclaimed reasons was the transition to bipedalism (walking on 2 legs) which is thougth to be first started around 3.5 million years ago with "lucy" or australopithecus afarensis. Such a change was obviously gradual and you should try to explain the numerous theories as to why we started to be bipedal. Most known theories are the change of landscape from rainforest to more savanna thus species had to rely on plains for food and could not totally arboreal. Also the search for food and mates over the vast savanna caused a gradual change to the more effiecient bipedal walking. Then you can start to talk about the tool making. You can start by using the chimp's use of a tool then transition through from australopithecus to homo where you can spend more time on species like homo erectus and homo sapiens neanderthalensis and his tool making skills. This may have been one of the sole reasons for our evolution as it classifies the need for food. Thus more effiecient species evolved and were selected for based on his cleverness to survive and eventually led to brain enlargening and the advent us, homo sapiens sapiens. So use the tool eras....olodowan, mousterian etc and classify periods and species and you're on track!!!!