Evolution

[Thing]

they are neither:

What is a mushroom? Mushrooms are not plants! It is the fruit (like an apple) of the mushroom “body” and contain mushroom “seeds” called spores. The body of the mushroom in called mycelium and its individual parts are microscopic. Since the body of the mushroom is usually dispersed over a relatively large area it is rarely noticed. In nature some species of mushrooms may have a body that spreads over hundreds of square miles!

Mushrooms are fungi, and are usually placed in a Kingdom of there own apart from plants and animals. Mushrooms contain no chlorophyll and most are considered saprophytes. That is, they obtain their nutrition from metabolizing non living organic matter. This means they break down and “eat” dead plants, like your compost pile does.

Great! Thankyou. (How did you know about my compost pile).
I suppose its hard to classify some things.

 

[Thing]

Funny how its difficult to imagine a life-form which is neither a plant nor an animal.

Classifying stuff based on body design leads to apes living like a non-ape.
To describe the behavior of one ape, and not its physical design, could be to describe another type of animal.
Every life-form shares the same chemical and physical system. And many overlapping solutions can be found for the same problems. Eyes for example have many designs in many creatures, theres a physical and chemical limit to the physical design range but creatures with different designs sharing the same local systems have solutions with similar sensory results.

So perhaps sun-lovers could be classified together, they are generally imobile, they move their heads to follow the track of the sun and their vision is limited to what is just sufficient to allow a response to the light source.

From this we have strange things like sunflowers with eyes, sunflowers “see” light and twist on their stems in response to the direction of the light. They are ‘heliotropic’. The exact mechanism for this response is unknown.
And we have the sunbather as immobile as a plant, wearing sunshades which allow detection of just enough light to stimulate a response causing the head to turn towards the light source. The exact reason for this behaviour is probably also equally unknown.

With this type of classification system we also find other anomalies (but now normalities) like plants with animal characteristics; Movement and Locomotion;

The “walking tree”;
has an ability unique among trees: it is capable of moving itself from one place to another. The walking palm is a tree that forms stilt-like roots and, over a period of time, picks itself up on them ‘walking’ out from under fallen trees or toward light. This is the only plant that plants itself wherever it wants to!"

Fern gametophytes;
produce sperm which swim through a droplet of water and into the neck canal of the archegonium.

Venus flytraps.
The sensitive plant.

And also plants that lack plant-like characteristics; Cellulose Cell Walls & Photosynthesis;

Monotropa hypopitys does not contain chlorophyll.

Euglena gracilis, have no cell wall.

Life responds to life, and perhaps plants will some day become animals in much the same way as a plant has already responded to its local habitat and become neither a plant nor an animal.

 

[The_Barbarian]

From this we have strange things like sunflowers with eyes, sunflowers “see” light and twist on their stems in response to the direction of the light. They are ‘heliotropic’. The exact mechanism for this response is unknown.

In plants, it’s auxins, chemicals that cause growth. Sunlight tends to degrade auxins, so plants grow more on the shady side. Turns out, that makes them lean toward the light.

And we have the sunbather as immobile as a plant, wearing sunshades which allow detection of just enough light to stimulate a response causing the head to turn towards the light source. The exact reason for this behaviour is probably also equally unknown.

Novelty reaction. It’s more complex.

Monotropa hypopitys does not contain chlorophyll.

True of a number of parasitic or saphrophytic plants which have lost chloroplasts.

Euglena gracilis, have no cell wall.

Euglena is not a plant.

 

[Thaddeus]

catholicbible101.com/evolution.htm

 

[Thing]

In plants, it’s auxins, chemicals that cause growth. Sunlight tends to degrade auxins, so plants grow more on the shady side. Turns out, that makes them lean toward the light.

What are eyes but chemical responses to light.

Not sure how familiar you are with sunflowers but the flower head is big and shades the front of the stem under the flowerhead as much as the back of the stem is shaded. …oh ok.

Euglena is not a plant.

So I looked it up again, and I’ll just paste what I found;

Euglena sometimes can be considered to have both plant and animal features.
A euglena is a protist that can eat food like animals do (partly heterotrophic) and can make food like plants do (partly autotrophic).
This organism combines animal and plant characteristics. Its plantlike characteristics include the chloroplasts and its consequent ability to photosynthesize, and the rigid cellulose wall of some species. Its main animal characteristic is its motility, but it can also absorb food from its environment, and many species have a flexible body covering.

Taxonomic Hierarchy

Kingdom	Plantae -- Planta, plantes, plants, Vegetal	
Division	Euglenophycota -- euglènes, euglenoids	
Class	Euglenophyceae 	
Order	Euglenales 	
Family	Euglenaceae 	
Genus	Euglena Ehrenberg, 1838 	
Species	Euglena gracilis Klebs	
	Direct Children:	
Variety	Euglena gracilis bacillaris Pringsheim, 1956 	
Variety	Euglena gracilis gracilis Klebs, 1892 	
Variety	Euglena gracilis saccharophila

Not being an expert, but does the Euglena gracilis fall under the Plant Kingdom.

 

[SimonArizona]

According to the fall of man, man sinned and therefore was condemned to die. Death entered the world because of man’s disobedience to God.

1. Yet was man not dieing during his evolutionary process long before Adam and Eve sinned?
2. What is this about biblical characters living 400, 500 years etc? how is that possible?

Who can answer?

 

[Thing]

According to the fall of man, man sinned and therefore was condemned to die. Death entered the world because of man’s disobedience to God.

1. Yet was man not dieing during his evolutionary process long before Adam and Eve sinned?
2. What is this about biblical characters living 400, 500 years etc? how is that possible?

Who can answer?

1. Ah…but was he man if he had not yet evolved into a man.
2. I think people are looking to genetics to find why creatures age. But anyway, I suppose a person could be said to live on genetically through his progeny.

 

[SimonArizona]

Death entered the world because of sin, yet animals and plants were dieing for billions of years before man.

 

[rossum]

catholicbible101.com/evolution.htm

Try Understanding Evolution. The writer of the webpage you referenced needs to read it.

rossum

 

[Thing]

Death entered the world because of sin, yet animals and plants were dieing for billions of years before man.

Hmm…Adam and Eve were cast out of paradise. But, within that paradise the Lord had made them clothes from animal skins.

 

[SimonArizona]

Hmm…Adam and Eve were cast out of paradise. But, within that paradise the Lord had made them clothes from animal skins.

Nevermind I have my answer.

The answer is: mankind was created by God with special grace that enabled him to never die.

“Man is the only creature that God wanted for Himself.” -JP2

Animals and plants are purposed to die as man eats them.
It is because of man’s wickedness and loss of grace that death for man now enters the world.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Funny how its difficult to imagine a life-form which is neither a plant nor an animal.

Classifying stuff based on body design leads to apes living like a non-ape.
To describe the behavior of one ape, and not its physical design, could be to describe another type of animal.
Every life-form shares the same chemical and physical system. And many overlapping solutions can be found for the same problems. Eyes for example have many designs in many creatures, theres a physical and chemical limit to the physical design range but creatures with different designs sharing the same local systems have solutions with similar sensory results.

So perhaps sun-lovers could be classified together, they are generally imobile, they move their heads to follow the track of the sun and their vision is limited to what is just sufficient to allow a response to the light source.

From this we have strange things like sunflowers with eyes, sunflowers “see” light and twist on their stems in response to the direction of the light. They are ‘heliotropic’. The exact mechanism for this response is unknown.
And we have the sunbather as immobile as a plant, wearing sunshades which allow detection of just enough light to stimulate a response causing the head to turn towards the light source. The exact reason for this behaviour is probably also equally unknown.

With this type of classification system we also find other anomalies (but now normalities) like plants with animal characteristics; Movement and Locomotion;

The “walking tree”;
has an ability unique among trees: it is capable of moving itself from one place to another. The walking palm is a tree that forms stilt-like roots and, over a period of time, picks itself up on them ‘walking’ out from under fallen trees or toward light. This is the only plant that plants itself wherever it wants to!"

Fern gametophytes;
produce sperm which swim through a droplet of water and into the neck canal of the archegonium.

Venus flytraps.
The sensitive plant.

And also plants that lack plant-like characteristics; Cellulose Cell Walls & Photosynthesis;

Monotropa hypopitys does not contain chlorophyll.

Euglena gracilis, have no cell wall.

Life responds to life, and perhaps plants will some day become animals in much the same way as a plant has already responded to its local habitat and become neither a plant nor an animal.

I love it! There are so many weird things that defy classification. How about the Duckbill Platypus? God works in mysterious ways, that’s for sure!

 

[wildleafblower]

Quite frankly, I don’t see God (The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) tinkering around with Nature except for my spiritual and immortal soul. When I’m feeding the doves and caring for my immense garden or helping people, it’s because I love to do it. I thank God for this love I have inside of me. I believe God is Love and Love isn’t illogical!

Referrencing back to my message 236 and Rossum’s response in message 237. My response comes from Howard Hughes Hughes Medical Institute:

Question:
James, Boston, MA, USA
In the human body what is the most compelling evidence that we are ancestors of apes or other lower primates?

Answer
Kristie Mather
HHMI predoctoral fellow,
University of California at Berkeley

First, I’d like to clarify a common misconception regarding human evolution. Humans are not the ancestors of living nonhuman primates, nor are any living nonhuman primates the ancestors of humans. Instead, humans and nonhuman primates share a common ancestor. That is, humans, apes, and other primates are branches on a primate tree that evolved from a common ancestor that existed at the convergence of the branches. ( See diagram below .)

That said, the most compelling evidence that all primates (including humans) share a common ancestor comes from a variety of sources: molecular studies, comparative morphology (the study of the physical similarities and differences between different taxa), and paleoanthropology.

Molecular studies (which are essentially comparative studies at the genetic level) have demonstrated the great similarity between human DNA and that of other primates. For example, 98.5% of the DNA sequence of humans and chimpanzees is identical.

When comparative morphologists study the physical characteristics of mammals, they find that primates (including humans) share a unique suite of characteristics. Some of these include grasping hands (opposable thumbs), locomotion that’s dominated by the hind limbs, increased reliance on vision (the eyes are shifted to the front of the head for stereoscopic vision), decreased reliance on smell (the snout is smaller), larger brains, longer life spans, and lower reproductive output. All of these are evidence that all primates share a common ancestor.

Finally, when paleoanthropologists study the fossils of our ancestors, they find that they resemble the fossils of the ancestors of other primates and that the similarity increases as you go further back in time I recommend Introduction to Physical Anthropology , by Robert Jurmain and Harry Nelson (1994, West Publishing Company), especially the chapters on primates (“Living Primates,” “Fundamentals of Primate Behavior,” and “Primate Models for Human Evolution and Primate Evolution”).
hhmi.org/askascientist/answers/in_the_human_body_what_is_the_most_compelling_evidence_that_we_are_ancestors_of_apes_or_other_lower.html
http://www.hhmi.org/askascientist/a..._we_are_ancestors_of_apes_or_other_lower.html
Again I repeat, my parents (Mom & Dad) weren’t apes. God bless their spiritual and immortal souls. I honestly do believe they are by now in heaven. Thank you.