Neither higher nor lower, they're just part of the biosphere.
2006-07-10 14:59:12
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
Plant is higher because the manufacture their own food but we human depends on the ready made food of this plant so plant can live without man but man cannot live without the existence of these plants so they are higher.
2006-07-10 21:51:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
evolutionary speaking, we and plants are made of the same thing, so I would say the same. And to those that claim plants make their own food and man can not, plants need nutrients to accomplish this, usually these nutrients are from decaying matter. (AKA compost) Humans can synthensize protiens as well. But meateaters get theres pre-made. Go veggie, and put your body to use. ;)
2006-07-11 14:55:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would say higher because without plants we wouldn't be here because they give off oxygen to us and also they can create their own food.
Or they can be lower because they do need us to give off carbon dioxide.
I guess when you look at it, we are on the same plane.
2006-07-10 19:32:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by black diamond 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
If by higher you mean more complex, than no. Humans are more complex than than plants due to our developed nervous system.
2006-07-10 15:02:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
you've requested a variety of one question. by technique of asking who created the cellular you're completely ignoring the prospect that the cellular ought to have ensue spontaneously. hence the answer you pick to hearken to is God created it. How wise you're. i'm now a Christian because you've arise with an argument so completely compelling, and so thoroughly with out the different explaination. as if. the answer it truly is top is that DNA prepared itself, and organized protein molecules into the ingredient we now recognize as a cellular. once this occurred once, and once the cellular managed to divide then it became infinitely better in all probability to "live to inform the tale" (i.e. reflect) than non cellular utilising DNA. *edit - So in reality you're speaking about abiogenesis no longer evolution. Abiogenesis is lots a lot less understood because it relies upon so much better on circumstances we do not get in present day circumstances. Evolution should be observed, it occurs each and each and every of the time; purely inspect drug resistant bacteria consisting of C. Difficile. Abiogenesis ought to have only ever occurred once - because it truly is so truly unlikely. Complexity is amazingly basic in nature. you'll detect complicated hydrocarbons and different chemical compounds from asteroids and so on. issues do not inevitably should be ordinary. Scientists contained in the 50s placed nitrogen, water, carbon and oxygen in a field, zapped it with electrical energy to furnish it some skill and poof; we were given amino acids. the issue comes with combining those amino acids into DNA, they pick to be prepared contained in the right way or it is purely garbage. it truly is amazingly impossible, like taking each and every understand the Bible, putitng them in a bag, jumbling them up and then throwing them onto the floor and watching for it to spell out the completed textual content. it truly is so unlikely - in spite of the indisputable fact that it is not no longer plausible. in spite of the indisputable fact that, if we are speaking about round common sense, then answer me those 2 questions - who created God and how do all of us understand God exists?
2016-12-01 00:57:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Most trees are evolved to a higher altitude than human beings. Why do you ask...? The cockroaches, if they could talk, could claim to be more evolved than we are, since they finished evolving bazillions of years ago. For that matter, most viruses could claim to be more evolved than we are, they mutate so rapidly.
Isn't it funny, how we very conveniently define 'highly evolved' to match what we happen to be....? As if we actually did evolve...?
2006-07-10 15:16:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by cdf-rom 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Depends.
Usually trees are higher,. But grass, say, is lower
2006-07-10 15:08:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by Up your Maslow 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
higher, but only from a sentient intelligence point of view, or as cheese said compared to christians and football players too
2006-07-10 15:08:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I have one in the conservatory that is 6 ft tall, so its higher lol
2006-07-10 15:02:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋