RE: evolution, plants vs. animals
August 28, 2009 at 6:22 pm
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfront...paper.html
Claims that there is a single organism from which all organisms share a common ancestor (btw, that would include plants). However, it is just what they seem to say. It is a long paper, and i've not the time to read it right now.
Plants are not necessary for an ecosystem's survival, so photosynthesis might not have been necessary to occur first, and therefore plants would diverge from bacteria, as with animals. Searching for a specific article, i'll post ones i find somewhat relevant till i find it.
http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Dec96/LifeUnderground.html
I read an article in discovery magazine recently (like half a year or so ago), and it suggested similar things
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking...m-physics/
Alright, finally found the magazine, and here is one semi-relevance to the idea of non-photosynthetic life.
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/may/11-...alien-life
and i think this is the one i read:
http://discovermagazine.com/1997/jan/cav...tic%20life
Yes, it is.
As a summery, the bacteria found in that cave engage in a form of chemosynthesis... in layman's terms: they get food from chemicals, as apposed to sunlight and other organisms. I think that's rather intriguing.... Bacteria can survive very low temperatures, as well as very high temperatures (as apposed to humans anyway). And apparently they don't need oxygen or sunlight to live either.
As that article shows, this form of life can create a food chain which can continue into (somewhat) more advanced creatures like scorpions and spiders... i don't know, but possibly even advanced sentient life.
This broadens the chance of advanced extraterrestrial life's existence by leaps and bounds.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day