By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
akuma587 on 15 May 2009
Edit Thread
Slimebeast said:
akuma587 said:

Seriously dude, are you even paying attention?  A lot of them DO sexually reproduce (though not in the way you would think of sexual reproduction normally-more along the lines of genetic recombination with the help of plasmids and various other means).  And a lot of bacteria DID eventually evolve into organisms that sexually reproduce.  Where do you think we came from?

And there are plenty of advantages to asexual reproduction.  It takes less time, it doesn't require a mate, it can typically happen much faster, and it takes less resources to do.  Not to mention it works very nicely if you are a single-celled organism.  You are assuming that bacteria that don't sexually reproduce HAVE A NEED to sexually reproduce.  Traits are not favored through unnatural selection if they don't benefit a species.  Thus, many bacteria have been extremely successful using asexual reproduction and never selected in the direction of sexual reproduction.

No, YOU are not paying attention. I addressed sqrl's objection in a perfect way, then u start nit picking.

Yeah bacteria exchange genes by flagella and stuff, but the point above was the factor and dynamic that the "invention" of sexual reproduction as described by sqrl above - through recombination of genes when two cells unify - brought into the evolutionary process.

And again u do the same mistake that pretty much all non-religious zealots do - you stop using your mind, and just put the auto pilot on. You think I havent thought about that, that bacteria have a lot of advantages? That's not the point.

The point is, even if bacteria are the pinnacle, the best machine in evolution, the huge mass and long time should make it inevitable that the prokaryotic line of life would branch off to multicellular organisms too (you know, the rest of the bacteria can still remain single celled?!).

 

......You know that the circular strand of DNA bacteria have PREVENTS them from becoming multicellular, right?  That is why they branched off into eukaryotes who DO NOT have circular DNA strands.  If you don't have a circular DNA strand and have histone-DNA complexes, you are either eukaryotic or an archaebacteria.  Prokaryotes BY DEFINITION cannot be multicellular.  You are the one who has your brain on auto-pilot and are focusing only on the labels we slap on things.  We do have a lot of organisms out there - such as the protists - that really are not much more than globs of glorified bacteria simply with their DNA in a different structural arrangement.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson