ChatterBank4 mins ago
The evolution of the evolutionary ancestor?
The theory of human evolution as far as I'm aware is that at some point in the past a certain ape like creature started to develop in different directions and many sub-species evolved from it, humans being one of them.
My question is, from were did this ape like creature evolve? Was it from another common ancestor of for example the feline or canine family?
If that is the case then does it follow that at one stage there was only one single organism at the beginning of life going on to develop into every living thing on the planet?
My question is, from were did this ape like creature evolve? Was it from another common ancestor of for example the feline or canine family?
If that is the case then does it follow that at one stage there was only one single organism at the beginning of life going on to develop into every living thing on the planet?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flobadob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes, the first life was produced from a protein 'soup' so rather than one single organism, it was more like a coalition of chemical elements which created life as a combined effort. This stayed that way for millions of years until a mistake (mutation) was made with this life's re-creation and evolution was born.
You need to understand that evolution is not a straightforward event. Many creatures can not cope with the forever changing climate on Earth, most changes are not beneficial to an animal so are lost as that animals will not be as successful as others od it's own species.
So yes, we were all once primitive microscopic pond life. The first mammals evolved over 250 million years ago and stayed pretty small as the planet was ruled by gigantic reptiles. The mammals survived the extinction of most of the dinosaurs and rapidly evolved into a large range of animals.
We started separating from our apelike ancestors about 5-6 millions years ago. Men is the latest species that evolved among the mammals. Our closest ancestor was Neanderthal Man which is said to be extinct, but similar DNA has been found in some regions of Europe, so promiscuity is not new.
You need to understand that evolution is not a straightforward event. Many creatures can not cope with the forever changing climate on Earth, most changes are not beneficial to an animal so are lost as that animals will not be as successful as others od it's own species.
So yes, we were all once primitive microscopic pond life. The first mammals evolved over 250 million years ago and stayed pretty small as the planet was ruled by gigantic reptiles. The mammals survived the extinction of most of the dinosaurs and rapidly evolved into a large range of animals.
We started separating from our apelike ancestors about 5-6 millions years ago. Men is the latest species that evolved among the mammals. Our closest ancestor was Neanderthal Man which is said to be extinct, but similar DNA has been found in some regions of Europe, so promiscuity is not new.
We didn't really descend from a single ancestor along a single line. Things diverged and recombined. It isn't all about males and females of the same species reproducing together. There have always been asexual ways combine genetic material and this process isn't limited to single cellular organisms. It is just that the single cells do it routinely.
The first multicellular creatures evolved only 550 million years ago. This would not have been possible but for an endosymbiotic relationship between two single cellular organisms. The mitochondria found in every cell of multicellular organisms is descended from another organism that made a home inside a cell. The history of the chloroplast that made plants possible is similar.
Many of the genes in multicellular organisms actually came from viruses acquired by our ancestors. Indeed the mammalian placenta is based on the genes of a virus. Until very recently the part viruses played in evolution was not realised.
Infection has always been an integral part of evolution. Disease and resistance are intimately linked. One copy of the gene for cystic fibrosis protects against tuberculosis but two copies leads to an early death. The relationship between sickle cell anemia and malaria is a similar double edged sword.
It also happened at a larger scale. The genetic evidence is that the human and chimpanzee lines parted about seven million years ago and then later interbred for a while until completely separating about five million years ago. Hybridisation often leads to advantages over the pure lines though it can also lead to infertility.
The first multicellular creatures evolved only 550 million years ago. This would not have been possible but for an endosymbiotic relationship between two single cellular organisms. The mitochondria found in every cell of multicellular organisms is descended from another organism that made a home inside a cell. The history of the chloroplast that made plants possible is similar.
Many of the genes in multicellular organisms actually came from viruses acquired by our ancestors. Indeed the mammalian placenta is based on the genes of a virus. Until very recently the part viruses played in evolution was not realised.
Infection has always been an integral part of evolution. Disease and resistance are intimately linked. One copy of the gene for cystic fibrosis protects against tuberculosis but two copies leads to an early death. The relationship between sickle cell anemia and malaria is a similar double edged sword.
It also happened at a larger scale. The genetic evidence is that the human and chimpanzee lines parted about seven million years ago and then later interbred for a while until completely separating about five million years ago. Hybridisation often leads to advantages over the pure lines though it can also lead to infertility.
Actually the best hypothesis does not have life starting in a protein soup but as a mineral structure in an ocean floor hydrothermal vent. It is quite clear that self-replication and metabolic processes do not require proteins and this was all possible long before complex molecules like RNA or DNA.
The most likely candidates are alkaline vents formed in Olivine.
Life is nothing but a complex form of crystallisation.
The most likely candidates are alkaline vents formed in Olivine.
Life is nothing but a complex form of crystallisation.
Here is a map of how we come about. It shows the lineage how humans evolved.
http://www.usefulchar...olution-timeline.html
http://www.usefulchar...olution-timeline.html
flobadob according to this video no proof of evolution from one species to another has ever been recorded. So who is right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDRz5cSziQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDRz5cSziQ
rov1200 /// no proof of evolution from one species to another has ever been recorded ///
Depends on what you accept as proof. If you demand to see something change overnight than of course you will not have proof.
However the fossil record has many sequences demonstrating the gradual changes in organisms through to where they ultimately become something else entirely.
Genetic evidence shows the domestic dog evolved from ancestors of the grey wolf.
Evolution has been directly observed in bacteria where the ability to metabolise a particular sugar appeared in a line of descendants of a bacteria that was previously unable to do so.
The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that even the Pope accepts it now.
Depends on what you accept as proof. If you demand to see something change overnight than of course you will not have proof.
However the fossil record has many sequences demonstrating the gradual changes in organisms through to where they ultimately become something else entirely.
Genetic evidence shows the domestic dog evolved from ancestors of the grey wolf.
Evolution has been directly observed in bacteria where the ability to metabolise a particular sugar appeared in a line of descendants of a bacteria that was previously unable to do so.
The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that even the Pope accepts it now.
As the video said most mutations turn out to be harmful. This is evident by studying DNA where mutations either turn out to be cancer or a non treatable illness. To presume that the good mutations would outnumber the bad ones is strictly bonkers. There is a greater force at work to protect our existance and is written in the language of our DNA.
There is a difference between the mutations that happen during the life of an idividual and those that happen when a male and female produce offspring. The former are almost always bad news, and lead to the effects of ageing at the very least. The latter are almost always bad news also but if they are, the offspring afflicted with them probably won't live to pass them on to another generation. Thus, the mutations that prove advantageous will proliferate. That's pretty much natural selection in a nutshell.
rov1200, commonsense should tell you that random mutations in the passing on of a genetic code are bound to be of three sorts:
Harmful.. the most numerous because random alterations to a working mechanism are more likely to damage it than have any other effect. These strains naturally do not survive.
Neutral... where the change has no effect on the viability of the parent species and merely gets carried along as an extra characteristic.
Beneficial... the rarest, but which give that particular strain an advantage over the parent strain so moving on the evolutionary process by one click.
As I have said before, it is best to learn at least the basics of evolution before offering your opinions. There are plenty of books to help you. Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale is fascinating and very informative.
Harmful.. the most numerous because random alterations to a working mechanism are more likely to damage it than have any other effect. These strains naturally do not survive.
Neutral... where the change has no effect on the viability of the parent species and merely gets carried along as an extra characteristic.
Beneficial... the rarest, but which give that particular strain an advantage over the parent strain so moving on the evolutionary process by one click.
As I have said before, it is best to learn at least the basics of evolution before offering your opinions. There are plenty of books to help you. Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale is fascinating and very informative.
@Rov - modern day scientists do indeed have the advantage over Darwin in being fortunate enough to study the DNA - and do you know whats amazing Rov? All that work broadly supports Darwins original observations. Just goes to show how good a scientist Darwin was.
You continue to demonstrate a comprehensive lack of understanding about basic biology with statements like this ;
"You would need an infinite number of years to get us to the present day using evolution. There has been some additional help to hurry the process along from someone more sophisticated than ourselves. It could be called evolution+ "
and this;
"As the video said most mutations turn out to be harmful. This is evident by studying DNA where mutations either turn out to be cancer or a non treatable illness. To presume that the good mutations would outnumber the bad ones is strictly bonkers. There is a greater force at work to protect our existance and is written in the language of our DNA."
Your understanding of basic scientific principles is filtered through a prism of religious denial of observational, empirical evidence of molecular biology, paleontology geology and pretty much every other scientific speciality.
Try and learn your basic biology from text books rather than 1970s creationist video drivel - you may embarass yourself less.
You continue to demonstrate a comprehensive lack of understanding about basic biology with statements like this ;
"You would need an infinite number of years to get us to the present day using evolution. There has been some additional help to hurry the process along from someone more sophisticated than ourselves. It could be called evolution+ "
and this;
"As the video said most mutations turn out to be harmful. This is evident by studying DNA where mutations either turn out to be cancer or a non treatable illness. To presume that the good mutations would outnumber the bad ones is strictly bonkers. There is a greater force at work to protect our existance and is written in the language of our DNA."
Your understanding of basic scientific principles is filtered through a prism of religious denial of observational, empirical evidence of molecular biology, paleontology geology and pretty much every other scientific speciality.
Try and learn your basic biology from text books rather than 1970s creationist video drivel - you may embarass yourself less.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles45 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles66 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles115 mins ago
Christmas In The Good Old Days
ChatterBank121 mins ago
Elementary Particle In First Half Of...
Crosswords178 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.