# Discovered Animals need no Oxygen!



## Sickie Ickie (Jun 20, 2006)

Scientists have always claimed life needed oxygen to survive. This proves them wrong...

http://www.discoveryon.info/2010/04/multicellular-animals.html


----------



## Bone Dancer (Oct 7, 2005)

First off thanks for the link to that site, it's kinda cool.
Second, it all depends on if you call bacteria animals or not. Over the years that has went back and forth a few times. It's the old Groupers or Splitters thing as to how things are classified.


----------



## Sickie Ickie (Jun 20, 2006)

Yepper. Things will no doubt be reclassified again and again in the future to confuse those who finally learned the last classifications. LOL


----------



## RoxyBlue (Oct 6, 2008)

The difference noted in the article is that these were the first multicellular animals able to live in an anoxic environment. Unicellular organisms with that capability, such as viruses and bacteria, have been known to science for some time.

These are cute little creatures. They remind me of rotifers.


----------



## Bone Dancer (Oct 7, 2005)

See what I mean. 
"The first multicellular animal" picky picky, what some folk wont do to get published. 

I liked rotifers too. volvox were cool too. Ahhh for the good old days of swamp water and hay infusions.


----------



## Sickie Ickie (Jun 20, 2006)

"the good old days of swamp water and hay infusions. "

Sounds like a drink to get wasted on.


----------



## GothicCandle (Mar 26, 2007)

Sickie Ickie said:


> "the good old days of swamp water and hay infusions. "
> 
> Sounds like a drink to get wasted on.


swamp water pong doesn't sound as fun.


----------

