NESLife attempt #3

[Ekolite]

There is no such thing as plant or animal. It's just names humans gave to things that looked different. Today it is known that it's nonsense.

Hmmm, not really sure about that. There's a lot of difference between us and trees, you know?

 

[erez87]

Hmmm, not really sure about that. There's a lot of difference between us and trees, you know?

There is also a lot of similarities. I'll never forget I once saw somewhere that us and Bananas share 60%+ of similar genetic code. We are nothing but walking talking bananas!

 

[Fuschia]

Plants merely take up things on a gradient, an perhaps a bit of active uptake.. i don't think there is any "eating".. but how are we defining eating? phagocytosis?

The base definition of eating would be on a larger scale than phagocytosis. However, when I talk about "eating" in quotation marks it generally means taking in anything that is in the form of matter.

ya, that sounds like the best bet, but my bio/zoology teacher had me under the impression that plants don't eat anything they get from anything else, they just use it in the process of making sugars, etc. but then, they'd have to eat minerals right? i mean all organisms need minerals in their bodies, animals just get them from other organisms (like salt, iron, etc.) and plants would have to get them from the ground, so they would techincally be eating minerals. I'll have to ask my teacher about this next week.

The real difference in plants and animals is how they obtain glucose. Animals and fungii obtain it from the eating of other organisms and the breakdown of their sugars, proteins, fats, etc. Plants gain it from photosynthesis. If it is not gained in one of these ways, even if it is multicellular, it will be put in the Protista Kingdom. And this time I am sure.

There is no such thing as plant or animal. It's just names humans gave to things that looked different. Today it is known that it's nonsense.

That is the most outrageously wrong biological statement I have ever heard. Their are vast differences between plants and animals. The base difference, however, is in the method of obtaining glucose, which is used in the rejuvenation of ATP, which is used to help lower the effort to perform chemical reaction, which allows life to exist by fighting entropy. Plants obtain glucose through photosynthesis, the storing of sun energy into glucose, while animals gain it through organic consumption and the subsequent breakdown of the organic particles of the organisms they consume. Other differences are there, but not necessary for the distinction. This is the main difference, although mobility and a few others are important as well.

I hope this clears up some questions from some people...

There is also a lot of similarities. I'll never forget I once saw somewhere that us and Bananas share 60%+ of similar genetic code. We are nothing but walking talking bananas!

In fact, the majority of DNA is similar, from bacteria all the way to humans. However, the majority of DNA is also blank space that makes no difference in the overall organism, and what few similar genes there are in organisms are for the production of a very small number of necessary proteins, such as phosphofructokinase.

 

[erez87]

I didn't say plants and animals have no differences. I did say they have a lot of similarities. If the main difference is how they get glucose and thats pretty much the only real difference (movement doesn't count, there are animals that don't move or move very little and the difference cell structure in some ways doesn't count since no one ever said there couldn't be an animal with such a cell configuration).

Eventually there could have been a walking talking tree or a complete none-moving animal with their cells having "walls" (not sure of their name in English). Where would you put plants that eat animals for Glucose? They pretty much break the system. It's all just different forms of life, which in itself is hard to explain.

 

[Fuschia]

I didn't say plants and animals have no differences. I did say they have a lot of similarities. If the main difference is how they get glucose and thats pretty much the only real difference (movement doesn't count, there are animals that don't move or move very little and the difference cell structure in some ways doesn't count since no one ever said there couldn't be an animal with such a cell configuration).

You did claim that their was no difference, when you said, and I quote, "There is no such thing as plant or animal. It's just names humans gave to things that looked different. Today it is known that it's nonsense." And, although their are plants that move, their is not a plant in the world that has or ever will develop a nervous system of any kind, let alone a brain.

Eventually there could have been a walking talking tree or a complete none-moving animal with their cells having "walls" (not sure of their name in English). Where would you put plants that eat animals for Glucose? They pretty much break the system. It's all just different forms of life, which in itself is hard to explain.

No, and already happened. Trees cannot move, and never will. However, the simplest of animals, the sponge, do not move beyond a few flagella. As for plants that eat animals for glucose, there are none. The Venus Fly Trap and other plants from the same genus supplement their diet with flies to make up for a lack of minerals and nutrients in the soil. They lack any proper organs or organelles for digesting the flies and turning them into glucose.

 

[erez87]

Could they evolve such organs and give up photosynthesizing while developing a different kind of brain, not like "animal" ones to caught flies better?

 

[Fuschia]

Could they evolve such organs and give up photosynthesizing while developing a different kind of brain, not like "animal" ones to caught flies better?

There is only one way to efficiently conduct a neural system, and animals already reflect that system. As such, any plant that were to develop digestion and a brain while losing photosynthesis would be classified as an animal.

 

[erez87]

How can you tell there is only one way? Have you ever seen any other less efficient?

I'm just asking question, I am in no way a biology student

 

[Fuschia]

How can you tell there is only one way? Have you ever seen any other less efficient?

I'm just asking question, I am in no way a biology student

Obviously, there is no way to know for sure. However, I will "prove" it logically.

Short-term evolution is a fact. Long-term evolution is debatable. However, I will use long-term evolution as the basis for my argument, since that is the basis of this NES. It goes something like this:

Evolution states that the most efficient organisms will survive in any given niche. One niche of animals that has developed is that of being the most intelligent or adaptable creatures. As such, since we are still using the same neural structures as our predecessors, it must be the most efficient available method or some random mutation would have taken hold and become a new organism because of its more efficient brain.

I hope that makes sense...

 

[erez87]

The most efficient to evolve, no way to make sure it's the most efficient to exist anywhere in the universe. If there is the "most" efficient.

What about walking trees without neural connections?

 

[Ekolite]

I don't think it would be possible to walk without neural connections. Plants can do photosynthesis etc. because all that is is a set of chemical reactions. Walking is actually a pretty complex thing to do: you'd need a brain.

@Daft: Are we getting an update soon?

And anyway, everybody stop spamming the thread. Of course plants and animals are different. Erez clearly doesn't know what he's on about.

There is no such thing as plant or animal. It's just names humans gave to things that looked different. Today it is known that it's nonsense.

Known to who exactly?

 

[erez87]

I do know what I'm on about, it's called a chair.

And after the Zeeboo with brains that could communicate, I don't see plants as much different then animals. You want to call brainy Zeeboos animals because you want to keep the taxonomy, enjoy.

 

[Abaddon]

There is no such thing as plant or animal. It's just names humans gave to things that looked different. Today it is known that it's nonsense.

I'm sorry, but there are quite fundamental differences. Yes, human comparrisons, largely on a phenotypic level.. but difference all the same.


Animal/Plant evolution branched a long long long time ago..

 

[Abaddon]

(Didn't know there was a page of discussion. Either way, Fus seems to have covered my bases)

 

[bestshot9]

if a plant evolves a brain and starts walking around and talking, as long as it has cell walls and uses photosynthesis it is still a plant. if it starts eating other organisms but still has cell walls its a fungus, if it loses those cell walls and feeds on other organisms its an animal. nothing in the official definitions of the three groups that says only animals can move around and evolve body systems, its just that so far animals are the only ones to have been able to do it.

because i'm sure if it was possible in millions of years from now, if trees could move around then they'd be better adapted to survive because then they could get into sunlight better and if they need more water they can find a more damp spot of ground to place their roots etc. its just they haven't evloved that way yet.

 

[Abaddon]

You could never generate enough enegry through photosynthese to power a brain or movement.

 

[Daftpanzer]

This discussion has been interesting to read, thankyou all

I hope its OK if i don't get so technical with this NES. I'd like to keep things as simple as possible, without getting too crazy, otherwise it will be a real nightmare to update this.

Speaking of which, friday has kinda sneaked up on me. I will try to update tommorrow, but suprise suprise there may be a delay until saturday

 

[Abaddon]

Daft, was long as this chugs along every week or so, it is more than amazing

 

[Terrance888]

Asmara Scraper: Charles Li
Evolved form : Tundra Oltic Scraper
Survival Status: Thriving
Genes(25) : Skeleton x1, Jaws x1, Plant Eating x6, Swimming x2, Eyes x1, Water Retention x2, Crawling x2, Lungs x2, Walking x3, Spikes x1, Digging x1, Vibration Sense x1, Cold Resistance x2, Hibernation x1 Brain x1 Mineral eating x1 Complex musles. x1

New Genes: Spikes X1 Brain x1 Mineral Eating x1 Coimplex Musless
Description: With complex musles, they can spike only when they need to. And as they run faster, a new brain game to cope with all the new imput. The Spikes became razored and finally, the new Asmara Scrapers can suck on various mosses and chew as they hibernate through long cold years.

 

[North King]

if a plant evolves a brain and starts walking around and talking, as long as it has cell walls and uses photosynthesis it is still a plant. if it starts eating other organisms but still has cell walls its a fungus, if it loses those cell walls and feeds on other organisms its an animal.

Head... hurts... so much...

The three kingdom classification scheme was dumped a while ago, and even if that were how it were done, your criteria are simply factually incorrect.

Daft, too late to submit an evolution?