'Living fossils' and amber fossils disproves evolution (the idea all life came from a common ancestor)

[izaaz101]

ArnoldRimmer said:

Slimebeast said:

OoSnap said:

Isn't it amazing how “modern” humans evolved supposedly from some ape ancestor less than 7 million year or so time which is 300,000 generations or less? Yet simple bacteria and protozoans undergoing up to 3.5 x 10 to the 9th power generations haven’t change one bit morphologically, even though theoretically their mutation rates should be infinitely higher that complicated multicellular life forms.

Yes, it's amazing and defies logic but most evolutionists seem to be perfectly fine with it.

It bothers me that intelligent people believe in this theory so easily.

I have been aware of this for a long time, namely that lack of bacterial evolution strongly talks against modern evolutionary theory.

I haven't been to school for 15 years and even back then I completely sucked at biology. But I think I still remember a plausible explanation:

Bacteria reproduce asexually, their "children" are genetic clones. Thus they are completely missing one of the three pillars of evolution (mutation, selection and recombination), namely recombination. As far as I remember, evolution was very slow until the "invention" of genders/sexual reproduction anyway.

Some bacteria do engage in recombination, via a structure known as a pilus.

At any rate, do to their immense propagation rates and short regeneration time, they produce many, many mutations and thus should 'evolve' relatively quickly, as seen in experiments with resistance to antibiotics in bacteria.