How did the eukaryotic cell evolve or was it designed by an alien?
922140
It’s hard for human beings to grasp every phase of evolution, but that really isn’t evolution’s problem, especially when we are talking about the small scale things.  It’s hard to actually picture the change, but just because someone (like me) doesn’t have the imagination to picture it, it doesn’t matter.  Evolution doesn’t need me to understand or even believe in it.  Aleins did not create eukaryotic cells, don’t be silly.  Then again, we can't disprove it so it must be true (that's the logic christian like to throw out there as far as god goes so it can work with alein's too, right?) lol :)
841584
Just to add to Acraz's answer, Plants and fungi are also made up of eukaryotic cells. \nOnly bacteria are prokaryotic.
807509
1. Eukaryotes can be multicellular or unicellular.  Prokaryotes (bacteria) are single celled organisms.\n2. Mitochondria and golgi apparatus can be found in skin cells.
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.
33397
Nature has determined this design to be the most efficient and useful for higher order organisms.  There are two types of cell "designs", prokaryotic (bacteria) and eukaryotic (plant and animal cells).  It is thought that at one point all living things were prokaryotic, then at some point in our evolution a nuclear envelope was developed and proved to be beneficial to the organism, thereby natural selection allowed for the continuation of a nuclear envelope.  As time went by plants and animals both evolved from some ancestor of this first eukaryotic cell and henceforth have similar cell designs.  As for the actual benefits of this design, the nuclear envelope of plant and animal cells serve to protect the DNA, and therefore genes, of the animal from damage, and also serves as a type of filter seperating cellular processess in the cytosol from gene regulation in the nucleus.
840540
First of all, your argument fails because viruses are not considered living organisms.  They reproduce solely by utilizing the genetic material of whatever cell's nuclear material they've hijacked.\n\nSecondly, evolution is NOT the same as adaptation.\n\nIf you want to believe in your heart that you're descended from an ape, go right ahead, young man.  I choose to believe I'm descended from two beings, created by God Himself, who made bad decisions.\n\nPeace.
371166
Evolution doesn't happen, one species doesn't evolve into another species.\nIn Darwin's time, scientists thought cells were just blobs of protoplasm. Since that time the advance of science has uncovered ever more powerful evidence that what Christians believe is true on all levels, including the natural world. And that is becoming even clearer today as scientists learn more about what is inside the cell-and especially the structure of DNA.\n\nAccording to cell biologist Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, "The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."\n\nEven the simplest cells are bristling with high-tech machinery. On the outside, their surfaces are studded with sensors, gates, pumps and identification markers.\n\nInside, cells are jam-packed with power plants, automated workshops and recycling units. Miniature monorails whisk materials from one location to another. No such system could arise in a blind, step-by-step Darwinian process.\n\nThe most advanced, automated modern factory, with its computers and robots all coordinated on a precisely timed schedule, is less complex than the inner workings of a single cell.\n\n"A bacterium is far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism. One cell is more complicated than the largest computer that man has ever made." - Sir James Gray, from Cambridge University\n\nDNA is like a language in the heart of the cell, a molecular message, a set of instructions telling the cell how to construct proteins-much like the software needed to run a computer. Moreover, the amount of information DNA includes is staggering: A single cell of the human body contains three or four times more information as all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. As a result, the question of the origin of life must now be redefined as the question of the origin of biological information. Can information arise by natural forces alone? Or does it require an intelligent agent?\n\nDNA is composed of ordinary chemicals (bases, sugars, phosphates that react according to ordinary laws. What makes DNA function as a message is not the chemicals themselves but rather their sequence, their pattern. The chemicals in DNA are grouped into molecules (called nucleotides) that act like letters in a message, and they must be in a particular order if the message is going to be intelligible. If the letters are scrambled, the result is nonsense. So the crucial question is whether the sequence of chemical "letters" arose by natural causes or whether it required an intelligent source. Is it the product of law or design?\n\nSince DNA contains information, the case can be stated even more strongly in terms of information theory, a field of research that investigates the ways information is transmitted. The naturalistic scientist has only two possible ways to explain the origin of life-either chance or natural law. But information theory provides a powerful tool for discounting both of these explanations. Both chance and law lead to structures with low information content, whereas DNA has a very high information content."\n\nThe sequence of basis in DNA can not be explained by natural law because there are no chemical laws that make any sequence more likely than another. At the same time these sequences are so complicated that they can not be explained by chance.\n\n"Based on probability factors any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10. Such a number, if written out, would read: \n\n480,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000. \n\n"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number
14900
Check them out here:\nhttp://www.cellsalive.com/cells/3dcell.htm \n\ncorrectly spelled: Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic
1091440
I really wish people who don't have a clue what they're talking about would stop taking guesses at the answer.\n\nAmoebae are EUKARYOTIC. \n\nThe cell contains a nucleus doesn't it? That is the definting characteristic of a eukaryote cell.\n\nDemeter actually posted a link to a website which states that amoeba is a eukaryote...... and then said that it was a prokaryote.\n\nDum dum dum dum dum.
392452
eukaryotic, among others.
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.
460581
it started with chemicals ,followed by ,very simple unicellular things,they worked there way up to amoebas,and it was only a couple of million years to get to bacteria and stuf like coral after that ,then it becomes complicated,\n\nhumans came from out of space i think,they were put here and primitive beings that were already here were maybe genetically improved by those who came from the stars.\n\nas to how humans come ,that is another question
930729
the first multicellular being was Dictyostelium from symbiotic realtionship
27826
Prokaryotic cells and eukaryotic cells have a lot in common. They perform most of the same kinds of functions, and in the same ways. Both are enclosed by plasma membranes, filled with cytoplasm, and loaded with small structures called ribosomes. Both have DNA which carries the archived instructions for operating the cell. And the similarities go far beyond the visible--physiologically they are very similar in many ways. For example, the DNA in the two cell types is precisely the same kind of DNA, and the genetic code for a prokaryotic cell is exactly the same genetic code used in eukaryotic cells.
3712
In 1824, Rene Dutrochet discovered that "the cell is the fundamental element in the structure of living bodies, forming both animals and plants through juxtaposition." However, the first sightings of the internal action of the cell were made by Robert Brown. In Berlin, Johannes Muller created connections between biology and medicine, prompting the connective thinking of his students, such as those of Theodore Schwann. Schwann created the term "cell theory" and declared that plants consisted of cells. This declaration was made after that of Matthias Schlieden's (1804 - 1881) that animals are composed of cells.\n\nLeeuwenhoek was first to describe cells and coined the word more than 100 years before, but he didn't really make the leap to how fundamental the unit was.
821161
Nuclear?  Nuclear envelope?  Nuclear membrane? \n\nThe word 'eukaryote' means 'true nuclei'.  They are talking about the membrane which surrounds the nucleus of the cell.  This is not present in Prokaryotes.
811815
The DNA would be unreadable and the organism would not even have a chance to develop to a 2-cell stage. Unless of course it had evolved that way, along with evolving different enzymes to deal with it and a different way of reading the DNA to make different proteins.