How many users on these boards actually support "The Theory of Evolution"?

[largedarryl]

Slimebeast said:

largedarryl said:
You answered my question Slimebeast.

I would just like to know why you would choose bacteria as a basis for this argument. Ancient species of bacteria will have very little to no real fossil evidence to allow us to assume 1 way or another that evolution really occurred. So realistically basing your arguments on one of the more incomplete evolution chains is relatively difficult to discuss.

 

 That's a decent argument. But... I see it like this.

We do know that bacteria is a huge gene pool, and old too (according to common evol theory). If it is so... I see it like this - there should be all sorts of offsprings from the prokaryotic line, much similar to the eukaryotic line, pretty much "all the time". But there is none (xcept the rare cases I mention, but they arent genuinly multicellular).

That is a perfectly fine position to have and there isn't anything wrong with it, but faulting all of evolution theory based on the reasoning that bacteria do not ever evolve into multi-celled organisms is being a little narrow minded.  I thought there was some evidence proving that multi-celled bacteria couldn't exist based on some traits that exist in bacteria.