largedarryl said:
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.
|
I doubt it. That sounds like a spin argument to me.
If that was the case I just wanna ask why the bacteria are so dumb not to just "devolve" back then, to the point where they have the ability to branch off to multicellular organisms just like eukaryotes can. It shouldn't be so hard. I can see huge benefits with it too, no one can deny that.
