Trees of Life
- From: "alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:02:49 +0100
There are two ways we know in which life can develop purely from non-living
matter - photosynthesis and chemosynthesis.
Why then, do we try to construct a tree of life originating back to a single
point? As organisms using photosynthesis and chemosynthesis are entirely
independent, would it not be more logical to have two separate trees of
life - basically one for plants and one for animals, or do we have real
evidence of a common ancestor? (I'm consciously leaving cyanobacteria out of
this as I don't think it affects my underlying point.)
A secondary area intrigues me. Outside of those basic organisms that use
photosynthesis or chemosynthesis, all other forms of life grow and develop
by consuming other organisms - cow eats grass, man eats cow, etc.
Do we have any knowledge of at what point in evolution this process of
organisms consuming organisms began?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Trees of Life
- From: Ernest Major
- Re: Trees of Life
- From: Ron O
- Re: Trees of Life
- Prev by Date: Re: Need some assistance
- Next by Date: Re: Pitman's Miller Time
- Previous by thread: evolution is an incomplete premise
- Next by thread: Re: Trees of Life
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|