What were the first multicelular beings?
930729
the first multicellular being was Dictyostelium from symbiotic realtionship
831982
Well.. cells were first discovered by a man by the name Robert Hooke in 1663. He made the first microscope and saw MANY types of cells. Then two or three individuals formed the cell theory into three man parts.\n\nOne was Matthias Schleiden...another...Theodor Schwann .\n\nThe three basic parts to the cell theory are:\n1. Cells are the basic unit of all living things.\n2. Every living thing has one or morecells.\n3. All cells come from other cells.\n\nGlad to help\n\n~LG23~
914329
Using his handcrafted microscopes he was the first to observe and describe single celled organisms, which he originally referred to as animalcules, and which we now refer to as microorganisms. He was also the first to record microscopic observations of muscle fibers, bacteria, spermatozoa and blood flow in capillaries (small blood vessels).
542027
Reminder: 5n Theory, all continents used to be attached to one another- so in theory this is highly possible- if two of every species has moved from place to place. Also remember, animals have a good sense of unusual events happening, like earthquakes and things, so they might have had the sense to know where to go. Then you might ask about the unicorns, but it is said that they were too stubborn to get on the ship... dragons and pegasuses... I have no idea about.
919769
echinoderms, chordates, hemichordates, protostomes, Ecdysozoa \nLophotrochozoa \nPlatyzoa
36912
Cell theory history\nIn 1838, the botanist Matthias Jakob Schleiden and Theodor Schwann, a physiologist discovered that both plant and animal cells had nuclei. From this realization, they surmised that all living things were composed of cells. In 1839, Schwann published 'Microscopic Investigations on the Accordance in the Structure and Growth of Plants and Animals', which contained the first statement of the cell theory.\n\nSchwann and Schleiden's statement of the cell theory was:\n\nCells are the unit of structure, physiology, and organization in living things. \nCells are both a distinct entity and a building block in the construction of organisms. \nCells form by spontaneous generation.
266366
Niether one was born but made by the hand of the Living God.  The first of the Adamic line to be actually born of course was Cain. \n\nThere is reasonable evidence to believe that the Adamic Line was not the first human line to be made, however.
722900
Richard Dawkins has two wonderful chapters on cnidarians (jellyfish) and poriferans (sponges) in 'The Ancestor's Tale.'\n\nCnidarians have two body plans, the medusa (jellyfish) and the polyp (sea anemones and hydras).  Polyps often reproduce by budding and can make huge colonies of organisms.  The portuguese-man-of-war is actually a complex colony of medusa and polyp forms.  (BTW, he has a great discussion about how the stinger cell in jellyfish may be the most complex structure in any cell anywhere in the animal and plant kingdoms. Way cool!)\n\nPoriferans (sponges) are even simpler organisms.  Although they are ostensibly multicellular organisms, with several types of cells, these cells don't organize themselves into specialized tissues and organs. Sponges are able to reproduce both asexually and sexually.\n\nSo the evolutionary significance is that an individual is basically a colony.  As such they are right at the boundary between single-celled and multi-celled creatures.  They demonstrate how multi-celled organisms could arise as a colony of cooperating single-cells.
184754
multicellular organisms
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).
900831
There is some debate on this, but from my Archaeology class, I learned that the first real human (homo sapien) found is approximately 160,000-120,000 years old.  This skeleton was found at Klasies River Mouth, South Africa.  \n\nI hope this helps!
989899
Question 1:\n5 Kingdoms- Monera, Protista, Fungi, Plantae, Animalia\nMonera:  are single-celled organisms with no organelles or cell nucleus. Often have cell wall in addition to cell membrane.  (includes all forms of bacteria)\nProtista: single-celled, have organelles and nucleus.  Include yeast.\nFungi: Multicellular, have organelles and nucleus, some go through photosynthesis and produce their own food, while others don't.  (includes mushrooms, bread mold, moss)\nPlantae:  Multicellular, organelles present, nucleated, undergo photosynthesis/so they have chloroplasts (includes all plants)\nAnimalia: multicellular, organelles, nucleated, cannot produce their own food, do not undergo photosynthesis.(animals)\n\nQuestion 2.  SOme say there are 6 kingdoms because Kingdom Monera is divided into Eubacteria and Archaebacteria.  Archaebacteria were the first organisms on the planet, and live under harsh conditions (volcanic hot spots underwater, etc).  Eubacteria are different in structure and are present in friendlier conditions (your bathroom floor, toilet, your intestines, etc)\nScientists do this to separate the two different types of bacteria...although most modern books have them all under Monerans
122189
The first were some stem (basal) tetrapods, derived from crossopterygian fishes. Usually they're classified as amphibians, but they looked very different from modern amphibians. They were large (1 m or more), had fin rays on their tails and more than 5 fingers.\nDo a web search for Acanthostega and Ichthyostega.
553375
False. All creatures, from worms to humans, have specialized cells.
932882
Bees and ants originate from wasps(and they are some of natures' most useful creatures)  so yes, they were also the first paper makers, plus they were around before humns so we are an irritation to them!
700787
'Lucy' the first known hominid, came from Tanzania in Africa.
845358
What a cool project!  So to answer one of your questions, the crucial distinction among your phyla will be whether or not they're chordates -- which of course includes the vertebrates (but also some invertebrates such as sea squirts and certain worms).  \n\nSo your bipedal wolf (I'm assuming the missing d was a typo, but if "bipeal" is a word from your universe, please let me know) would be phylum chordata, class vertebrata, order mammalia, family canidae, genus canus, species lupus bipedalis (and I'm envisioning something like a cross between Lawrence Talbot and Speaker-to-Animals, without retractible claws).  But that's just off the top of my head.\n\nOne thing I've discussed with my ten-year-old son is the absence of hexapod vertebrates -- e.g. flying horses, winged dragons, etc.  If you were closer, I'd invite you over for coffee and an all-day discussion of where to classify them, and how they evolved.  Since all terrestrial vertebrates have essentially the same structure, it's clear they all shared a common ancestor which makes hexapodal vertebrates, sadly, impossible in our known universe -- so was there a hexapodal (imaginary) marine vertebrate who also scuttled across the floors of silent seas before crawling out of the surf and saying "Hey, the carcharodons can't get me here!  Kewl!"?  ...Which of course suggests all sorts of hexapodal marine vertebrates that shared the same skeletal architecture.  Ooooh, fun.\n\nAnd the final question... so zoology is the study of animals.  There's also cryptozoology, which I've described flippantly as "the study of imaginary animals."  But of course, it's more technically the study of animals that may or may not exist.  So what would we call your zoology, which is the study of animals you've intentionally invented?  Oh, of course, poeiazoology (-poeia, meaing to construct -- as in mythopoeia, the term Tolkien invented to describe the invention of mythologies.)\n\nAnd on that note, elen sila lumen omentielvo!