Daftpanzer
canonically ambiguous
Daft, too late to submit an evolution?
No, please go ahead. I just had Macromedia Flash crash on me and I lost a few drawings

Daft, too late to submit an evolution?
You mean 'Eukaryote', not 'Prokaryote'.Welcome, bestshot9!
The Yellow Bathysplate looks good - and yes, it is probably better and more logical to evolve from something similar to what you wanted, rather than try to build it from scratch.
Anything that doesn't move in its adult form, I've called a 'plant'. I realise that doesn't really make sense, its just for simplicity's sake in this NES.
[\QUOTE]
If you'd like, I know the things that an organism has to meet to be considered a plant, animal, and fungus.
plant: multicellular prokaryotic autotroph with cell walls (means multicelluar organism, each cell has a nucleus and cell walls, and it makes its own food.)
fungus: multicellular prokaryotic heterotroph with cell walls (means multicellular organism, each cell has a nucleus, cell walls, but doesn't make its own food.)
animal: multicellular prokaryotic heterotroph without cell walls (means multicellular organism, each cell has nucleus but no cell walls, and doesn't make its own food.)
so by that definition the bathysphere would be either a fungus or an animal (depending on whether or not it has cell walls, do you know? lol)
I agree that plant and animal are arbitrary definitions... as I have said before.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.
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!
You've misrepresented protista. Protists are just single-celled Eukaryotic lifeforms.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.
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.![]()
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...
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.
No, they couldn't. Venus flytraps, and Sundews, the best-known moving predatory plants, have no intelligence whatsoever. The Venus functions like a mousetrap, with 'sensor' hairs. The Sundew simply changes shape and curls up the trapped insect, by having its leaves change shape. Evolving a brain would be such an energy loss that it would go extinct if there was any competition whatsoever.Could they evolve such organs and give up photosynthesizing while developing a different kind of brain, not like "animal" ones to caught flies better?
To summarize: Every definition is arbitrary, you could theoretically have a mobile, 'animal' organism which augments its energy income with 'plant' structures on its back, like the Garden Worms from 'The Future is Wild'. We just create definitions because it makes organizing things possible.
You've misrepresented protista. Protists are just single-celled Eukaryotic lifeforms.
and if there were an organism that photosynthized and fed on other organisms, then it would probably get classified in its own kingdom. (not counting stuff like coral and such that have photosynthizing organisms that live inside of them, because that's just symbiosis between two differen't species, i'm talking if an organism was all one organism that had the ability to eat organic materials and photosynthize, but that wasn't a colony of organisms living on an animal's back.)
Colonial algae and bacteria perhaps? All protists are capable of surviving and reproducing as single cells.This is not true. Many orders of the Protista Kindom include multicellular creatures, be they slime molds or various types of non-photosynthetic algae. I would provide a link or something, but I'm too lazy...![]()
Yeah, and Lichens too....
Yeah, Venus Flytraps are in their own kingdom.
Yeah, Venus Flytraps are in their own kingdom.
Yeah, and Lichens too.
Where to slime molds fit? I'm keeping one of them as a pet in my bedroom window. Now, is it a pet, or a houseplant?
It's all arbitrary!
...
Yeah, Venus Flytraps are in their own kingdom.
bestshot9 said:lol nvm i don't know how to explain myself seems like all i'm doing is pissing people off xP sorry for joining this nes bye!