does not explain why plants appear to be less impacted by mass extinction events?

Answer 1

Many plants can withstand catastrophic events unlike humans and animals.

Adaptation: a physical trait or behavior due to inherited characteristics that gives an organism the ability to survive in a given environment.

In evolutionary biology, adaptations are often acquired by modifying existing structures to accomplish new tasks. In the case of algae turning into plants, the preexisting structures are mostly absent. Few algae have differentiated tissues that could be adapted to a new use. To get around this, some suggest that fungi invaded the land with the plants to help in absorbing nutrients from the soil. There is much evidence of plants and fungi living in symbiotic relationships today, but nothing to suggest that they evolved to help one another.

The first plants to evolve were the small mosses and liverworts (bryophytes), but these evolutionary dead ends did not lead to the vas cular plants that are common today. The three groups of bryophytes are found in an unexpected sequence in the fossil record, so evolutionists must accept that they evolved separately from one another. The most likely ancestor is a mobile alga known as a “chlorophyte.”

Answer 2

I'm not sure that they weren't.

The simplest common sense answer is that animals reproduce directly from a living parent or at least no later than within a short time after the death of the parent (in the case of egg-laying creatures).

Plants reproduce by seeds that can remain viable (able to turn into a living thing) for years after being released. So even though a catastrophic event killed all the parent plants, the plants can come back when conditions become normal again. The animals are more likely to be long gone before that happens.

Answer 3

What is a near-Earth supernova event?

I'll take Potpourri for $400 next, Alex.