Did animals come from plants?  Or did they evolve side by side?
398613
Actually, animals preceded plants by a long way-The oxygen first produced was made by cyanobacteria and algae, not plants.  Plants did precede animals onto land, however.  Short answer, we evolved side-by-side for a very short period of time, prior to the formation of choroplasts some billion years ago or so, and after that have evolved separately.
364125
Sorry to be picky, but we didn't evolve from monkeys, we evolved from apes!\n\nModern monkeys aren't the same as our and their common ancestors, they have evolved too! They've just changed in different ways to adapt to their environment. Evolution has made them very well adapted to living in trees, e.g. long prehensile tails and both "hands" and "feet" that can grip. Note that humans don't have these marvellous adaptations!\n\nWe got bigger brains, tool-making and language skills, and the ability to walk upright, which enabled us to thrive in environments that monkeys would struggle to survive in. But you try living in a tree and eating bananas all day and see how well adapted you are to that! Evolution has just treated us differently, that's all.
937960
That all living organisms (known to date) come from one ancestor (somewhat of a pre-cell)
1169172
Babies are proof evolution is a fact.\n\nBabies evolve from minerals, liquids, vegetation and oxygen (gases) through natural processes.\n\nBabies are not created, they evolve.
353195
*Sigh* This question has been asked so many times, it's almost sad. Here's the deal: we did not evolve directly from monkeys and apes. Humans, monkeys and apes all evolved from ONE COMMON ANCESTOR. This common ancestor has since died off. So, let's put it this way: monkeys and apes are our distant cousins, rather than our distant brothers and sisters. That make sense?\n\nHere's a better question: if man DIDN'T evolve from monkeys and apes, why are we 99% genetically similar to them? \n\nThank you, by the way, for stating monkeys AND apes in your question instead of just monkeys. Strictly speaking, we are more related to apes than to monkeys. And yes, there's a difference.
1141808
This question isn't really as smart as you think it is, actually it underscores your ignorance of the topic. Even Creationists will agree that all modern dogs have come from man's selective breeding of the wolf, all domestic dogs are the same species.\n\nIf anything modern canine is a wonderful example of how species can change over time, we've managed to make a very varied group of animals in a relatively short amount of time, many that look different and excel at the task they were bred for (or their environment)\n\nIf we take your question and actually frame it in the bounds of scientific logic, the puppy would of had to come first, birthed by a not quite but almost there dog-like animal. This mother dog would of fed the puppy, being pack animals they have especially strong maternal instincts. I have a book in my library that tells the story and has pictures of a dog who took two lion cubs in and raised them, including breast feeding. I've seen other stories of dogs raising other animals as their own, most recently kittens, and a cute little bulldog who took in a squirrel.
1007176
Plants which reproduce without seeds appeared first in the history of the Earth.  Plants with seeds appeared much later.
580432
The problem that creations have with evolution is that they think of evolution as a ladder. You need to view it as a tree, each branch as smaller branches that are similar.\nFor example dogs and wolves are very similar. \nLions, tigers, and house cats are similar.\nall animals come from a single organism.\n\nDidn't you learn this in biology class???
216851
probably it evolved from seaweed.  and as seaweed eveloved it became grasses, and trees, and plants,and from it all of the vegetaion we see today.
472661
Cows were first domesitcated about 5,000 years ago.  I think if they were wild and allowed to run free, maybe they would behave alot like Bison or Wildebeasts.  They would probably stay in herds that graze in open grasslands, with sub-groups of a Bull and females.
1142498
No. Most life forms did not evolve from plants. Simple single-celled life was first, microscopic organisms at one point called protists and at another point moved into its own kingdom, bacteria. The first primitive multicellular animals preceeded plants by a few million years.
363668
We didn't come from apes. Apes and humans have a common simian ancestor, but the species evolved separately.
473099
my guess is that the egg did, since the animal that laid the egg was lower on the evolutionary scale.If you read new articles, we are constantly coming up with new creature fossils that  try to prove whether or not (or when) sea animals crawled on land or learned to fly.\nI believe the egg was the freakish change that eventually became whatever animal comes from the eggshell, be it snake or bird.
672312
My guess: chickens evolved from animals who breed via eggs, so eggs were first. Like there was one animal similiar to a chicken, that one day dropped an egg, and out of the egg came the first chicken. Or something like that...
900194
Divergence leads to different developments in species, even those that share a common ancestor. We didn't come from apes as they are today. We came from an ape-like ancestor (primate) that we share with the apes of today, but there were divergent events at some points in history that lead to the developments of homosapiens and the other various primates of today.
729900
1. plants can make their own food while animals depend on the othe living things.\n\n2. plants needed carbon dioxide to live while animals need oxygen.\n\n3. plants and animals have cells in them while nonliving things have atoms in them.\n\n4. living things undergo stages of development while nonliving things do not.\n\n5. living things multiply while nonliving things do not.\n\n6. living things contains DNA(deoxyribonucleic acid).\n\n7. living things have lives.
580576
Primates are remarkably recent animals.  Most species of living things had become extinct long before the first monkeys and their prosimian ancestors evolved.  While the Earth is about 4.55 billion years old and the first life dates to at least 3.5 billion years ago, the first primates did not appear until around 60 million years ago.  That was after the dinosaurs had become extinct.\n  \n\n \n65,000,000 years ago\n \n\n \npresent \nTransitional primate-like creatures were evolving by the end of the Mesozoic Era (ca. 65 million years ago).   At that time, the world was very different from today.  The continents were in other locations and they had somewhat different shapes.  North America was still connected to Europe but not to South America.  India was not yet part of Asia but heading towards it.  Australia was close to Antarctica.  Most land masses had warm tropical or subtropical climates.\n \n\n \n  \n Small Insectivore from the\n end of the Mesozoic Era \nThe flora and fauna  at the end of the Mesozoic Era  would have seemed alien since most of the plants and animals that are familiar to us had not yet evolved.  Large reptiles were beginning to be replaced by mammals as the dominant large land animals.  Among the mammals, there were a few archaic egg-layers (monotremes) like the ancestors of the platypus and echidna.  There were larger numbers of pouched opossum-like mammals (marsupials).  The few placental mammals that existed at that time mainly consisted of the Insectivore  ancestors of primates.  The large grass-eating placental mammals, such as cattle and wildebeest,  were absent as were the vast grasslands that would later develop.  Rodents and small-seed eating birds were also absent.  The great proliferation of flowering plants had not taken place yet, however, forests of broad-leafed trees were developing over much of the earth.\n\n\nProto-primates\n\nThe first primate-like mammals, or proto-primates , were roughly similar to squirrels and tree shrews in size and appearance.  The existing, very fragmentary fossil evidence (mostly from North Africa) suggests that they were adapted to an arboreal  way of life in warm, moist climates.  They probably were equipped with relatively good eyesight as well as hands and feet with pads and claws for climbing.  These proto-primates will remain rather shadowy creatures for us until more fossil data becomes available.\n\nEarly primate-like mammals do not seem to have played an important role in the general transformation of terrestrial animal life immediately following the massive global extinctions of plants and animals that occurred approximately 65,000,000 years ago.  The most dramatic changes were brought about by the emergence of large grazing and browsing mammals with tough hoofs, grinding teeth, and digestive tracts specialized for the processing of grass, leaves, and other fibrous plant materials.  The evolution of these herbivorous  mammals provided the opportunity for the evolution of the carnivorous  mammals specialized to eat them.  These new hunters and scavengers included the dogs, cats, and bears.  Adaptive radiation was resulting in the evolution of new species to fill expanding ecological niches, or food getting opportunities.  Most of these new animals were placental mammals.  With the exception of bats, none of them reached Australia and New Guinea.  This explains why they did not exist there until people brought them in recent times.  South America had also drifted away from Africa and was not connected to North America after 80,000,000 years ago.  However, around 20,000,000 years ago, South America reconnected with North America and placental mammals streamed in for the first time, resulting in the extinction of most of the existing marsupial fauna there.\n\n\nEarly Prosimians\n\nThe first primates may have evolved during the last part of the Paleocene Epoch .  These were members of the genus Altiatlasius .  Their bones have been found in 60,000,000 year