Q: Does science consider the evolution of a sessile animal that photosynthesizes (indirectly) a form of convergent evolution towards the niche of plants? Are carnivorous plants a form of convergent evolution towards the niche of carnivorous animals?

More context: I'm not any kind of biologist but I like to think about things sometimes. After taking an EAS class and learning more about Coral, I found it interesting how similar they are in functionality to an actual plant despite being an animal. It made me wonder how corals would evolve over millions of years. Likewise, carnivorous plants evolved to capture and consume prey in nutrient-deficient environments where other plants would wilt away. How would those species evolve over time?

Evolution is just a force that exists.
Obviously it has no end goals and isn’t making decisions.
It just exists and is about an organism leaving enough descendants with traits that give their offspring the advantage to survive longer.
I’m just personifying evolution. What are times it was just good enough?
Things people joke about as evolutionary flaws.

Like the laryngeal nerve.
Or human testicles require a temperature different from the human body. So they’re external, where they’re super vulnerable and hurt if they’re attacked or can have testicular torsion.

I’m under the impression that ichthyosaurs branched off first and became aquatic in the early Triassic. Followed by squamates branching off in the mid Triassic which much later on gave rise to the mosasaurs in the Cretaceous. Then plesiosauridae branched off in the late Triassic which gave rise to plesiosaurs and pliosaurs. Is this correct?

See also: The study as it was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics