Which is more devoleped? Monocots or Dicots? My homie said that monocots are more devoleped than dicots. He stated some convincing points about that also. Googling it and searching in the internet said that monocots are more devoleped. But, dicots have TWO cotyledons. I'm asking this because, though monocots are more developed and evolved from dicots, then why the heck they lost all those cool features (like collenchyma, trichomes, secondary growth, palisade parenchyma and so on) that dicots had. So this is like "we are evolving but backwards". Can (de)evolution occur like this? Is it even legal? (Also, doing that fucking captcha is damn irritating.)
>>16918230Define "more developed"
Example: Humans are 'more devoleped' than microbes.Devoleped here refers who is complex and sophisticated in terms of morphology and physiology, who is efficient, who is evolutionarily advanced.
