The Ghost of RubangB said:
Slimebeast said:
The problem with current evolution theory is that the biggest gene pool - by far biggest by a magnitude of thousands - consists of bacteria, who are supposed to be 500 or so millions of years old, yet they are very simple, they haven't evolved into multicellular organisms.
(there are a few very rare semi-multi cellular bacteria, but not any truly multi-cellular)
So much for statements like 'it was very likely that the eye as an organ would evolve' (or actually, they say the eye evolved some 7 or 8 times independently in different organisms). No it wasn't! Because it's not even likely that one celled organisms become multi cellular organisms, even if they populate the whole earth, apparently.
Bacteria are everywhere.
they multiply with an extremely high rate
There's something "wrong" with the theory of evolution. What's stupid is that intelligent people don't ask this question about why bacteria haven't evolved much. It's a statistical impossibility.
|
Evolving isn't mandatory for all life at all times. It only happens when a mutation makes one life form better able to survive when they're competing for food or other resources. Or when one life form gets wiped out by a disease or something else, and another mutated version remains.
Cockroaches haven't changed much, and neither have trees. They don't need to. They already have taken over the whole planet.
And many times when a new species evolves, it doesn't even have to replace the earlier species. So we can have bacteria, fish, monkeys, people, bugs, trees, and viruses, all at the same time. It's not like overnight one species appears and the other one disappears. It's a crazy complex web of families and kingdoms and species all related to each other, all mutating occasionally, and all eating each other and competing for resources. The fact that bacteria aren't changing doesn't disprove that everything else is.
|
