Evolution? How?

thunder_runner32 wrote:

We evolved from plants?!?! I don't know where you're getting that information.

I don't know where he's getting it either. Rex gave up any attempt at logic and reason many many posts ago.

We did not evolve from plants.

However, Plants and Animals did have a common ancestor. Similarly, we have a common ancestor with Apes, but we did not evolve from Apes. And you and your cousin have a common ancestor also, but you did not evolve from your cousin.

Just because you're related to something else in the tree of life, doesn't necessarily mean you evolved from it.

I have heard it said that, "Lucy" an early hominoid, had four huge stomachs like a cow to digest vegetables and a small brain.

Animals evolved from plants... I don't know... and no one has given me any real evidence to dispute that...

Quote:

I have heard it said that, "Lucy" an early hominoid, had four huge stomachs like a cow to digest vegetables and a small brain.

Er, no. No idea where you might have heard this. A cow, by the way, does not have four stomachs: it has a three-chambered forestomach (akin to the cardiac part of our stomach) and a glandular stomach (akin to the rest of our stomach). One sphincter in, one sphincter out -- one stomach. Just to get that out there...

Quote:

Animals evolved from plants... I don't know... and no one has given me any real evidence to dispute that...

The presence of chloroplasts and a multitude of biochemical markers place plants in close relation (read: sharing a common ancestor with) a group of photosynthetic protists (free-living unicellular organisms).

Animals, meanwhile, are closely related to a different group of protists. For animals to have evolved from plants would have required them to evolve through another line of unicellular protists that is clearly very -- far older than multicellular plants.



That's the quick, common sense answer. I'm sure the fossil record is (even) more unequivocal on the point.

But, I have this feeling that plants were here on the earth long before humans or any animals (I am not sure of this though).... so from this perspective we evolved from plants...

I would think a simpler cell would evolve to a more dynamic cell. A plant cell evolved into an animal cell.

Animals evolved from plants... I don't know... and no one has given me any real evidence to dispute that...

RexRed wrote:

Animals evolved from plants... I don't know... and no one has given me any real evidence to dispute that...

George Bush eats poop sammiches and howls at the moon . . . i don't know . . . no one has given me any real evidence to dispute that . . .

i cannae see such things. i've got the pink eye, and my vision is obscured by the resulting prurulence.


(it's the closest i could come up with.)

There is tremendous poetry in biology when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, and look at it for what it is.

First was theater, then was biology, now is veterinary medicine, are my fields of study. Believe me, I've done poetry, fancying that my own invention was more interesting than plain nature laid out before me.

Turns out there can be greater wonder in a petri dish than on the largest stage (where, let's face it, most people just want to see people in cat suits singing insipid poetry set to more insipid music).



(...to wax, y'know, even more pedantic for a moment.)

No RexRed, it is the same thing. You have made a contention, and claim that you are correct to consider it operative unless and until it is disproven. However, that is not how imperical investigation works. Those who make claims, and more so, those who make extraordinary claims, have the burden of proof. Others are not obliged to disprove them in disputing the claim.