According to evolutionists, all creatures evolved from a single cell life form. Did plant life also evolve?

Question

According to the law of natural selection and survival of the fittest, all life forms evolved over billions of years into intelligent life. The amoeba became a fish, which became a lizard, which became a monkey which became man. But what about plant life? Where did plants come from and how did we get so may different varieties? Did the fern evolve into an apple tree?

Answer 1

Exactly right.

There are single celled plants, included amongst the algae.

An interesting fact is that the chloroplasts, which are the structures in plants which contain chlorophyll and in which photosynthesis occurs, are very similar in structure to certain photosynthesising bacteria, the cyanobacteria. It is therefore possible that the first single celled plants were amoeba-like creatures which absorbed cyanobacteria in a symbiotic relationship.

Evolutionary biologists would resist saying a fern evolved into an apple tree. Rather they would say that a fern and an apple tree share a common ancestor.

Answer 2

Plant life also shares a common ancestry with animal life. Apple trees, being angiosperms, came later in evolutionary time than ferns (which I think are bryophytes). The first plants, I think, were algea. They probably originated through endosymbiosis of two bacteria, where one bacterium was the chloroplast and was absorbed by another bacterium.

The diversification of plant life happens in much the same way as animal life; natural selection is still the mechanism of adaptation and all assumptions of the hardy-weinberg equation still hold. Multiplication of chromosome sets happens a lot in the plant kingdom and thus mutations adding genetic diversity I think are more common than in the animal kingdom.

Update: To the evolution skeptic above: why do you creationists bother posting in the biology section? Nobody in the scientific community takes you seriously.

Answer 3

All life on Earth evolved from the same life, plants included. Just as animals evolved with endosymbiosis of purple photosynthetic bacteria as mitiochondria, plants evolved with endosymbiosis of green photosynthetic bacteria (algae) as chloroplasts.

Plants diversified just as animals did. There are several groups of trees including the tree ferns. Angiosperms (flowering plants) may or may not have evolved from seed ferns.

The human lineage contains neither amoebas nor monkeys.

Answer 4

Yes and its quite interesting how it happened. The first true land plants were the mosses and liverworts, then millions of years later the horsetails which grew to enormous sizes, then the ferns, then the cycads, then the conifers and evergreens then the flowering trees and plants then the grasses. Each step was a huge advancement in adaptability. They still all exist because they all fill a certain niche which the more advanced plants cant fill.

Answer 5

There are some good answers here - and some idiotic ones from non-thinking, ignorant creationist-types.

I would just like to comment that the phrase, "survival of the fittest" is not a very accurate description of natural selection and it often leads to misunderstandings about evolution. A better summary of the process is, "survival and reproduction of those best suited to their environment."

Answer 6

Apparently, life began with plant components based on photosynthesis and animal life evolved from that with plants and animals branching off into separate energy-consuming mechanisms with millions of changing, evolving variations in each branch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_life

Answer 7

I am a Fern but I never was an apple tree. - R. Fern

Answer 8

yes plants did evolve in a simmilar way animals did.

Answer 9

How about asking the evolutionists for some examples of evidence that amoebas turhed into fish, and fish turned into lizards.

Odd how we find find fossils of amoebas and fish which are allegedly millions of years old, yet they look just like amoebas and fish look today.

Evolution is the hypothesis that animals (or plants) can change into different kinds of animals (or plants) by means of natural selection working on genetic mutations.
These alleged mutations need to add genetic information. However no such genetic mutation has ever been observed. Mutations are information neutral or lossy.
'But evolution is too slow to see' protest the evolutionists. Well then it's not observable and not worthy of being even called a theory. In any case, time is the enemy - mutations are resulting in the degradation of the gene pool - that is observable.

Evolution is easily refuted by the moderately diligent student.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013

Answer 10

Yeah...it's a farce, alright...unlike the proven existence of "god"....hmmm I wonder which has some basis in fact and not fiction? Probably religion...yeah...facts...science...who needs stuff like that...I'd much rather explain all of life with "and the lord saeth" POOF, ABRACADABRA...Fossils...oh those are there to "test" our faith (actual quote from born again twit)