Which evolved first ?

Question

Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? ) The immune system or the need for it?

-Till He Returns

God Bless

Answer 1

I'll take them in a different order, from simpler life forms to more complex.

d) RNA evolved first (google "RNA world").

f) Plants.  The fossil record shows this clearly.  BTW, some plants can spread by both asexual and sexual reproduction. Some plants can self-pollinate inefficiently with wind causing rubbing etc.  Google for  apomixis and vegetative propagation.  Other plants did not evolve until after insects arrived.  What, you thought plants all through time were exactly like modern plants?

e) The flagella - flagella exist in much simpler things than termites.  The termites adapted flagella as they (termites) evolved.

g) Bones came later (invertebrates predate vertebrates).  The other structures evolved together.  It's rather complicated.  Check out this for evolution of blood: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10085... and you'll learn how blood evolved along with muscles in invertebrates.

h,i) They evolved together!

a, b, c) They evolved together!

These are good questions, but you have to think about whole systems evolving and changing from simple to complex.  The digestive tract, for example, has a multi-billion year history, starting with food vacuoles in protozoa, and gastrovascular cavities in hydra.  See http://www.cnsweb.org/digestvertebrates/...

and http://www.bookrags.com/research/digesti...

Answer 2

a)the appetite

single celled creatures such as amoebas, simply absorbed food particles without any formal digestive system

b)ability

innert schism of pre DNA proteins

c)the gasses

again single (even multiple celled) life absorbed it directly w/o lungs

d)rna

just by logical deduction, you need a matchstick before you can make a match

e)the termite (although the flagelate could have lived in another host before being inherited by the termit)

they would have simply eaten things other than wood

f) plants (this isn't even tough)

not all need pollenation, not al even make pollen, a basic understanding of biology would yeild this answer

algea

bryophytes

gymnosperms

angiosperms

g)muscles

micro tubules and fibrinogen strands were hte first "muscles"

h)hormone

much simpler than either other answers, repair system innate through mitosis

i)need

this is just logic

normal blood cells would adapt to take up the role needed by T, B, and white blood cells..

which is readily apparent as this is what they do today

honestly.. who ever first asked this did NOT graduate high school

each of these answers is found in high school text books

i learned this through 9th grade bio, human physiology, and AP bio

no outside sources needed

Answer 3

the chicken

Answer 4

Where did you post this question that it received no "logical" answers?   Evolution has no problem answering questions like these ... except that you ask *so many* at once, that it would take *pages* to answer them all thoroughly!

Please understand that it takes you a few seconds to copy-paste a long batch of questions from a web site ... but takes us a lot of effort to type up answers.   So I hope you are genuinely interested in the answer, and not just another Creationist we get here all the time who feels that if you ignore the answers, then you can pretend you didn't *receive* any answers ... and then conclude that you have "stumped" the evolutionists.

The answer to all your questions can be summed up in a single word:

Co-evolution.

In other words, these questions all labor under the false assumption that things evolve *separately* ... that one thing must evolve to completeness before another can even begin evolving. This is just not true.

For example, your question (f) plants and polinating insects.

1. There are plants that exist without insects to polinate them, and there are insects that exist without the need for nectar.

2a. The members of one plant species that had flowers that attracted insects produced more offspring than those members of the same species that did not.

2b. The members of one insect species that looked in flowers for food, found more food there than those members of the same species that did not look in flowers. Thus, those members lived longer, and made more offspring.

3a. Thus those plants begin evolving flowers and nectar that attract insects.

3b. Those insects start evolving the instinct and physical appendages to look for nectar in certain flowers.

3. This continues for millions of years ... the plants getting better and better at attracting insects that polinated them, and the insects getting better at polinating activities.

4. After millions of years the two cannot do well without each other.

Summary: Neither one evolved *before* the other. Both evolved together.

Co-evolution is most commonly between two species, but it can also be between two organs, or two types of behavior.

E.g. bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply and muscles all evolve *together*. It is a fallacy to assume that one cannot begin "evolving" before the others are complete.

For each of your examples, the same analysis applies ... but I don't have the time to do them all ... and I'm not sure you would read them anyway.

The DNA/RNA example is a *little* different. Scientists generally believe that RNA evolved before DNA, because RNA is both a good replicator and a good catalyst. However, RNA is not a *great* replicator ... it gets unstable and error-prone if it gets too long. DNA on the other hand is a *fantastic* replicator (very self-correcting) ... but it is an inferior catalyst ... so for storing information for an entire complex organism, DNA rocks ... but for protein synthesis, RNA is still better. So the answer there is that RNA evolved first, and DNA and proteins were both improvements on the limitations of RNA ... and the triad of DNA-RNA-proteins exists today as the backbone of all living organisms.

Answer 5

The answer is D, the RNA and DNA.  The other correct answer is B.

The ability of RNA and DNA to reproduce is well-understood by molecular biologists.  It is the reproduction mechanisms that make DNA the storage medium for transferring genetic information forward to new generations with the least error.  These are components of all living cells, bacterial as well as the differentiated cells of multicellular organisms.  

The rest of the items in the list are components of multicellular animals.  The physical evidence shows that multicellular organisms  appeared over two billion years after the first bacteria.  Thus, these other anatomical characteristics are much newer than the basic RNA and DNA found in the much older bacteria.

Answer 6

> "Which evolved first?

a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?"

The original "prototype" organisms were a single-celled, and they would "prey" on each other. So the food and the ability to digest it arose at the same time. And - being single-celled, they would have no intestinal tract: they would phagocytose small fragments.

> "b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?"

There is, in this context, no such thing as a "drive" to reproduce. Self-replicating molecules or cells just do it. Without self-relication, there is no life.

> "c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?"

The original atmosphere of the earth was mostly nitrogen and co2 - no oxygen present, so no aerobic respiration.

Once photosynthesis arose, more oxygen would become present in the atmosphere - but the life-forms present would still all be single-celled (so no lungs).

Multicellularity arose in the oceans - and structures like gills were used to extract dissolved gasses from the water; still no lungs.

Lungs evolved from modified swim-bladders when vertebrates left the oceans as lungfish-like organisms, eventually evolving into amphibians. Of course, invertebrates had colonised the land millions of years previously: but none of them have lungs.

> "d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?"

The current best-accepted hypothesis is the the "RNA world", where RNA is used as the genome. DNA as the genome arose later.

> "e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?"

Not all animals which live on plant matter can make cellulase (either through symbiosis or themselves): we cannot make cellulase, for example. And not all organisms which make cellulase live inside the intestines of other organisms.

These would evolve seperately, and establish a symbiosis later.

> "f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?"

Plants arose long before insects did.

Plants also colonised the land before any animals did. Remember that plants have other pollinating mechanisms besides insects: wind-pollination, for example, is just as widespread as animal-pollination.

So pollination was a viable mechanism before it evolved to utilise insects.

> g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?"

Only vertebrates really have bones: octopi, for example, have fine manipulation, locomation, and other features without them. So a blood supply and muscles evolved long before bones did.

And bones and their support structures (ligaments, tendons, etc.) evolved simultaneously.

> "h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?"

There is no such thing as a "repair system".

Nerves are utilised by even very simple animals - like the C. elegans worms, so they probably evolved before hormonal communications. That said - hormone-like systems are used for communication between single-celled organisms (like inducing the aggregation of slime moulds), so hormone-like methods for inter-cellular communication are also quite ancient.

Remember that you can consider the extracellular portion of hormonal communication and of neuronal communication to be pretty much the same thing: they are both "release a chemical to the extracellular environment for other cells to detect and respond to"

> "i) The immune system or the need for it?"

The need for it. Predation and parasitism are both excellent methods for survival - so the evolution of a method of evading and preventing them are also excellent survival methods, and would have great selective value.

Answer 7

a - the food. Or, more correctly, nutrients. Then came organisms which ate food. Then came other organisms which ate the organisms which ate food.

b - The ability to reproduce, those that then happened to have more drive to reproduced became more numerous than those who did not, naturally.

c - This is one where systems develop over millions of years, as they adapt to the changing environment, such as the increase in oxygen in the atmosphere. There are organisms with a variety of systems in different environments.

d - RNA systems developed first, according to abiogenesis theory. Being simpler it makes sense.

e - Probably flagellates, then termites without the flagellates then termites who found they could survive better with flagellates, then they out-competed termites without flagellates.

f - Plants, then insects, then plants that use insects to pollinate them. Those who cross pollinated using insects have come to dominate and out compete those who did not.

g - same answer as c, multipart systems tend to develop simultaneously, although worms have muscles without bones, so this would have developed sooner. Blood supply would have developed in response to an increasing organism size and complexity.

h - repair system. There are organisms without nervous systems or hormone systems, these would have developed from a need to control

more complex organs and systems

i - The need for an immune system. came first, adaptation is a result of a response to a need. Those organisms with a rudimentary immune system, even one acquired by ingesting suitable bacteria, say, would have had an advantage over those that did not, and a system would developed from that.

.