Which came first? plants or animals?

[PsychoSarah]

Does it bother you that I won't hold Aman to my own personal standards?

Not really, in fact I view it as you being more mature than you usually are. I have seen a lot of Christians get worked up at each other because how they interpret their religion isn't the same, so I am happy you can break that trend.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Strictly speaking the first life would probably have been classified as bacteria with today's methodology.

The first eukaryotes would probably be called plants today. Though the first animals would be hard to tell from some plants. Take a look at sponges. The earliest of life was probably very similar to these.

Without a record, and fossils by imprints are very few and very far in between, it is hard to say exactly how early life evolved.

 

[variant]

Hi there.

So I got to thinking. If abiogenesis kick-started life on this planet, which did it kick-start first? plants or animals?

If it kick-started plants, are we plants?

If it kick-started animals, are plants animals?

How then did plants transition to animals, or animals transition to plants?

Maybe there were two abiogeneses: one for plants and one for animals?

Thoughts?

The answer is neither if you were wondering, plants and animals are both multicellular kingdoms which have unicellular common ancestry.

Plants share a common ancestor with animals and fungus but would have branched off before animals and fungus under our current understanding.

 

[SkyWriting]

Plant or animal?

Evidently, the one parent of both. Manna.

This is an example of the Science/Fiction I speak about.

Life began with a planetary mega-organism - life - 25 November 2011 - New Scientist

 

[EternalDragon]

Just to correct ED, the scientific view is not that two different abiogenesis events occurred to produce plants and animals, rather we both evolved from a common ancestor, but the divergence occurred before multicellular life evolved. I know you don't like to be bothered with science, I just wanted to correct ED's misrepresentation. "Scholar" might have been a bit hyperbolic.

I was just looking at the available info. Animals are said to have evolved from a flagellated eukaryote. They do not classify eukaryotes with plants or bacteria.

"Animals are eukaryotic and multicellular,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal#cite_note-NationalZoo-4which separates them from bacteria and most protists."

The way I see it, there were all kinds of spontaneous, miraculous events happening all through evolution, according to the theory. Like nature running in reverse and acting intelligent.

 

[EternalDragon]

Evidently, the one parent of both. Manna.

This is an example of the Science/Fiction I speak about.

Life began with a planetary mega-organism - life - 25 November 2011 - New Scientist

Sort of like sponges becoming animals, eventually developing brains and then becoming man, who produced airplanes, ipods and computers. Sounds like science fiction to me.

 

[andy b]

well i wish i knew i had evolved from a plants when i was younger.I would have had an excuse for not eating my greens...cannibalism

 

[Nithavela]

Andy_b, please at least try to understand other peoples posts before mocking them.

 

[andy b]

Andy_b, please at least try to understand other peoples posts before mocking them.

im not mocking anything ..it was a joke

 

[poikilotherm]

Hi there.

So I got to thinking. If abiogenesis kick-started life on this planet, which did it kick-start first? plants or animals?

If it kick-started plants, are we plants?

If it kick-started animals, are plants animals?

How then did plants transition to animals, or animals transition to plants?

Maybe there were two abiogeneses: one for plants and one for animals?

Thoughts?

To use my model from the "can creationists draw the line" thread - If there was a common ancestor of the Galapagos and Swainsons hawk, (an example of "micro evolution", which you accept);

Is the Galapagos Hawk a Swainsons Hawk?

If Micro evolution kick-started the production of the Galapagos Hawk, and the Swainsons Hawk which did it kick-start first?

Now do you realise how vapid your OP is?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I was just looking at the available info. Animals are said to have evolved from a flagellated eukaryote. They do not classify eukaryotes with plants or bacteria.

"Animals are eukaryotic and multicellular,which separates them from bacteria and most protists."

The way I see it, there were all kinds of spontaneous, miraculous events happening all through evolution, according to the theory. Like nature running in reverse and acting intelligent.

The available info does not say there were two abiogenesis events to produce animals and plants. End of story.

 

[lasthero]

Sort of sponges becoming animals

Biology fail. Sponges are animals. You really should learn what that word means.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now do you realise how vapid your OP is?

No -- you used two animals to make your point.

I'm talking about plants & animals.

 

[variant]

No

It's better that way.

The realization of just how silly you look in these threads would cause you some serious psychological trauma for little gain.

 

[Golden Yak]

No -- you used two animals to make your point.

I'm talking about plants & animals.

The analogy works with any two forms of life that have a common ancestor.

My go-to one is with dogs - the common ancestor of the poodle and the chihuahua was a dog. But it wasn't a poodle or a chihuahua, nor was it a half-poodle / half-chihuahua. It was ancestral to both groups but a member of neither one.

 

[EternalDragon]

Biology fail. Sponges are animals. You really should learn what that word means.

Animals are generally considered to have evolved from a flagellated eukaryote.[39] Their closest known living relatives are the choanoflagellates, collared flagellates that have a morphology similar to the choanocytes of certain sponges.

Animal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So yeah, sponges did evolve into animals apparently. If I had said that animals evolved from a flagellated eukaryote, would you be saying "Biology fail. Eukaryotes are animals."?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Animals are generally considered to have evolved from a flagellated eukaryote.[39] Their closest known living relatives are the choanoflagellates, collared flagellates that have a morphology similar to the choanocytes of certain sponges.

Animal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So yeah, sponges did evolve into animals apparently. If I had said that animals evolved from a flagellated eukaryote, would you be saying "Biology fail. Eukaryotes are animals."?

It's more the other way around, animals are eucaryotes.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

It's more the other way around, animals are eucaryotes.

I think he thinks that he just quoted a source that supports his claim that animals evolved from sponges rather than that sponges are animals in their own right. I'd tell him but I am le blocked.

 

[lasthero]

Animals are generally considered to have evolved from a flagellated eukaryote.[39] Their closest known living relatives are the choanoflagellates, collared flagellates that have a morphology similar to the choanocytes of certain sponges.

Animal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So yeah, sponges did evolve into animals apparently. If I had said that animals evolved from a flagellated eukaryote, would you be saying "Biology fail. Eukaryotes are animals."?

 

[lasthero]

I'm curious, ED. If you don't think that sponges are animals, what are they? Plants? Fungi? There's only so many options.