English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-02-16 17:13:09 · 14 answers · asked by Realist 1 in Science & Mathematics Zoology

14 answers

rep,

The animal you describe does not exist. It rules out mammals and marsupials as both require care after birth to survive. I don't think there's a single organism that does not depend on another for survival, be it in the form of food, dependance or care.

2007-02-16 17:18:43 · answer #1 · answered by Wolfsburgh 6 · 1 0

There may be a few species of archaebacteria that do not require interactions of any other species for survival. The point that most people do not grasp very well is how much of the Earth's "non-living" processes are actually determined by life. Phytoplankton in the ocean produce 90% of the world's oxygen. Bacteria levels maintain the conditions necessary for phytoplankton to survive. Trees and wetlands are the CO2 sinks for moderation of the atmosphere, and have a huge impact on weather and climate. Bacteria may be responsible for trace mineral deposits essential to life. Microflora in the soil keep rhizomes in plant roots functioning. Water seepage into fault lines drives a lot more tectonic processes than we thought previously- this can be affected very strongly by vegetation cover and type. Some, by definition, any creature that depends on oxygen, water, and/or organic nutrients for life; is inherently dependent on other living creatures for its life. This applies to predators, parasites, and even the gut flora of human beings.

2007-02-17 11:11:25 · answer #2 · answered by Hauntedfox 5 · 0 0

Well, I guess the leech is right out. I'd vote for the predators, except they do depend on their prey. What animal . . . hmmm, no animal really. You either eat or get eaten, but it's a two-way street. If there's nothing to eat, you starve. So the prey grows abundant. Which means the predators get to feast and multiply. In the animal world, a nice balance is achieved. Mankind depends greatly on the animal resources of the world, but does not achieve a balance. I'm stumped -- I say all animals depend on another to survive.

2007-02-17 01:19:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The only animal that doesn't need others to survive is the producers of like oxygen and such. So if you can find the animal then what ever

2007-02-17 01:17:59 · answer #4 · answered by the_ninja_master8 2 · 0 0

No animal does because animals need to eat other living creatures to survive whether its plants or other animals.

2007-02-17 10:13:54 · answer #5 · answered by Leviathan 6 · 0 0

If you put humans in the animal category, then couldnt we survive on plant life?

2007-02-17 01:21:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I think all animals depend on others in one form or another the food chain etc. If you mean the panda that eats bamboo or the koala that eats eucalyptus?

2007-02-17 01:16:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Every carnivore that feeds off other animals, because you could arhue that technically deers and the like that eatplants are dependant on plants.

2007-02-17 01:16:37 · answer #8 · answered by writersbIock2006 5 · 0 1

I seem to recall that phytoplankton can synthesize its own energy from the sun.

2007-02-17 02:48:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Everything depends on something. it's the circle of life.

2007-02-17 01:15:59 · answer #10 · answered by Melissa 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers