Which came first? plants or animals?

[AV1611VET]

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.

As I said, others have no problem answering it.

I would say those who know the answer* do so; while those who don't, ridicule.

* eukaroytes

 

[PsychoSarah]

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

I'm talking about plants & animals.

And I tell you there are even currently living creatures both capable of photosynthesis and consuming matter.

 

[poikilotherm]

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

I'm talking about plants & animals.

But the principle is the same, two different products of evolution having a common ancestor does not mean that the common ancestor must be one or the other of its products, as you seem to suggest.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I tell you there are even currently living creatures both capable of photosynthesis and consuming matter.

I believe you.

What's that have to do with this thread, though?

 

[AV1611VET]

But the principle is the same, two different products of evolution having a common ancestor does not mean that the common ancestor must be one or the other of its products, as you seem to suggest.

For the record, this thread has already been answered; more than once, by more than one person now.

The answer (apparently) is: eukaroytes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I believe you.

What's that have to do with this thread, though?

That a creature can have traits of both, thus give rise and be an ancestor of both plants and animals. However, it is also possible that the ancestor was so primitive it didn't really have the traits of either so much, it really is hard to say what precisely it was beyond being eucaryotic.

 

[AV1611VET]

That a creature can have traits of both, thus give rise and be an ancestor of both plants and animals. However, it is also possible that the ancestor was so primitive it didn't really have the traits of either so much, it really is hard to say what precisely it was beyond being eucaryotic.

Eukaroytes for the win, then.

Case closed.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Eukaroytes for the win, then.

Case closed.

Pretty much. Satisfied then?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. Will everyone please ignore this insipid garbage and just let this thread die a lonely death?

Please.

 

[AV1611VET]

Satisfied then?

Why wouldn't I be?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why wouldn't I be?

Your tenacity for rejecting answers is pretty consistent. I think this is the first time I have seen you accept an answer to one of your questions you made a thread out of.

 

[poikilotherm]

For the record, this thread has already been answered; more than once, by more than one person now.

The answer (apparently) is: eukaroytes.

And there was only one abiogenesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your tenacity for rejecting answers is pretty consistent. I think this is the first time I have seen you accept an answer to one of your questions you made a thread out of.

You're new here.

 

[AV1611VET]

And there was only one abiogenesis.

Right -- got it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You're new here.

Relative to you.

 

[variant]

As I said, others have no problem answering it.

I would say those who know the answer* do so; while those who don't, ridicule.

* eukaroytes

I answered your question, I was just remarking that it is better for you that you remain generally ignorant of how you appear to others.

 

[AV1611VET]

I answered your question, I was just remarking that it is better for you that you remain generally ignorant of how you appear to others.

Diss boys ignit as theys no t'marra.

 

[variant]

So why do you persist AV, don't you think you've hurt your cause enough?

 

[AV1611VET]

So why do you persist AV, don't you think you've hurt your cause enough?

Doesn't the Bible hurt my cause, according to you guys?

You know ... geocentrism, genocide, incest, flat earth, burn witches, etc.?

How can I top those?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Doesn't the Bible hurt my cause, according to you guys?

You know ... geocentrism, genocide, incest, flat earth, burn witches, etc.?

How can I top those?

No, the Bible is irrelevant to your cause, regardless of the many flaws that it has.

And you forgot that it supports slavery in both the Old and New testaments.

That too is irrelevant.