just wondering.
2007-08-22 00:11:26 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
We are certainly related to plants, but you have to go back in time pretty far, frankly. Of course, we're much more closely related to every other animal on the planet than we are to plants. But what surprises people sometimes when I give public lectures on such topics, is that we're more closely related to fungi than we are to plants. Of course all that this means is that we share a common ancestor with fungi more recently than we do with plants.
Our common ancestor with plants would have been a single-celled eukaryote that lived somewhere between 1.2 billion years ago and 700 million years ago. Sorry for the broad range, but that's what you get when you go back in time that far.
If you want to look for more info on-line, run searches for terms like "origin of eukaryotes" and "divergence of basal eukaryotes," and you'll find more complete info.
2007-08-22 00:27:37 · answer #1 · answered by Dr. Evol 5 · 8⤊ 3⤋
The primordial soup refers to what bring about the 1st actual microcopic existence. This microscopic existence could split in 2 substantial guidelines: animal existence, and vegetation. by ability of the time fish progressed, and then progressed into creatures which began traveling the land (amphibians) sure, the vegetation from the sea had already moved onto the land.
2016-10-16 10:58:21 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We share lots of DNA today. In fact we share over 90% of our genome with plant life. Animals, plants and a few other organisms form the "Eukaryotes"- complex life. Genetically, the various species are virtually indistinguishable. It's only a few genes that are different.
2007-08-22 00:29:00 · answer #3 · answered by Bob B 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
60% of the DNA in your body now is also found in the banana.
2007-08-22 00:27:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 2⤋
Humans are not related to plants at all.
Nor are we related to any other kind of animal.
Next time someone says we have a common ancestor with the apes, ask where the evidence is.
All hominind fossils discovered are either human or ape. (And *all* the bone fragments together could fit onto one small table.)
To change from microbe to man (the evolutionay hypothesis) has supposedly happened by means of natural selection working on genetic mutations.
These alleged mutations need to have added vast amounts of 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.
What we observe is new species arising from their more information-potent ancestors, in a process of devolution.
Evolution is really the religion of atheists, and is not supported by the evidence.
It is easily refuted by a moderately diligent student.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3302/106/
2007-08-25 22:56:27 · answer #5 · answered by a Real Truthseeker 7 · 3⤊ 16⤋
plants have a consciousness,they grow...same for humans too.
2007-08-22 00:29:38 · answer #6 · answered by ABCDEFGHIJ1234567890 2 · 3⤊ 6⤋
The days still early, take your medication and you'll be O.K.
2007-08-22 00:17:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 14⤋
no possible way
2007-08-22 00:21:32 · answer #8 · answered by White Wolf 4 · 2⤊ 14⤋