Ok, I'm back, I apologise for my absence from this thread. I've was extremely busy Friday night and yesterday.

Anyway slimebeast, to answer your question on why hasn't bacteria evolved into any forms of higher life in a little more detail as promised.

Well the truth is they do, it's just that you have chosen this argument based solely on the fact that you know evolution is an extremely slow process and so we can't give examples that have been directly observed for such a large evolution. An evolution from unicellular life to multicellular life is massive, it takes literally hundreds of million of years to occur. It's like asking to see how a star system forms, it would be impossible to show as it exists on such a large time-scale. We can only give you snapshots of this evolution, as opposed to give the complete story.

Unicellular life would have evolved into multicellular life forms by forming colonies. A colony is a group of unicellular lifeforms of the same species which better thrive as a colonial organism. The main difference between colonial organisms and multicellular life is that a separated cell from a colonial organism can survive independently, where as a separated cell from a multicellular organism would die.

We can observe several life forms that exist in this colonial state between unicellular and multicellular life such as the sea-sponge. Sea-sponges form colonial organisms, with many unicellular organisms of the same species living closely together to form a single colonial organism, with the single cells forming specialities in a similar style to a multicellular organism. It is far more beneficial for the single cells to exist in this state than as individuals.

A whole sponge can be sifted to separate the cells. Once the cells are separated they can live independently, but will re-form with each other to recreate the colonial organism So even though the unicellular life can survive outside of the colony, it will reform a colony because it has a better chance of survival.

The evolution into a multicellular organism is when these cells evolve to grow more dependant on being in a colonial state to the point that they find it impossible to survive when they are no longer in a colony. But this process from colonial life to multicellular life is a process which takes millions of years.

Bacteria, as well a lot of other unicellular life forms, can exist in colonies, where living together as a group is more beneficial than living as an individual.

I think that you seem to think that if bacteria do evolve into a higher form of life, then it would just be a case of one day a bacteria has one cell, the next it has ten. This isn't the case.

But ... no.  If apes have morals, I deny that other animals cannot have morals and defy you to show otherwise. 

And how exactly would those learned social norms differ from morals? 

Food is really almost the only commodity available to animals, so obviously that's what they're going to focus on.  Just because we have created money to embody wealth in a more abstract way doesn't make it fundamentally different from if there was an orange worth $5000 in that wallet.  Or for a more realistic example, think back to the 1500s in Europe when spices were ridiculously expensive. 

And remember that the monkey was actually trading a white chip for food.  Another monkey trading the same chip got way better food; the monkey felt the researcher himself was being "immoral", or unfair, in his trading. 

Also, if I saw someone handing out bread to the homeless, and one guy got a big cake for no reason, I would wonder why, and I would ask if I could think of a good excuse to insert myself into the situation.  Including if I was one of the guys who didn't get cake. 

Imprinted social norms are not based on a reasoned sense of right and wrong.

Evolution is the best theory we have on exsistance, yet it will always be ony a theory like all religions.

Modern biology would not exist without the theory of evolution, it teaches us that well are more similar than different. It should be respected and taken just as seriously as religion.

Religions aren't theories in the scientific sense. They do not rely on empirical evidence and are not falsifiable.

@smidlee

Actually your sighting a proof of the simplicity of life not its complexity. Life isn't entirely orchestrated within the nucleus of a cell. The truth is cellular biology appears to be symbiotic in nature. Different structures within cells will function with or without a nucleus. The fact that a life form can translate its physical pattern from generation to generation would in a real sense be a definitive proof of the evolutionary process. That a creature could simply just copy using its own body as a template would probably predate later models of reproduction which rely heavily upon DNA guiding an exact process.

Take for example human development. During initial development vestigial traits form, and then later disappear. Which is probably indicative that early development is being regulated by different segments of the genetic code which in turn likely predate the species. To keep it short. We basically evolve as we develop. We basically go from fish to anphibian to reptile, and then finally to mammal. This seems counter to what we think would happen if DNA was a direct translator. Natural Selection doesn't discard the play book with each new species. Basically life is full of reusing old ideas especially if the cost of developing a new one is too high. The fact that a simple life form can get by without using DNA to guide the process isn't really a counter argument. All it shows is life can get at its goal in so many ways.

Oh by the way let me explain it yet again. Ignorance is not a proof of complexity. The only thing ignorance is proof of is a lack of information and understanding. The underlying cause of something can be ridiculously simple, and in fact it usually is fairly simple. The Earth centric glass sphere model of the universe was far more complex then Heliocentrism. That was a system filled with massively incomprehensible complex mechanics where things moved forward, and then looped back upon themselves. By simply moving the center. Which right now seems ridiculously simple. You didn't need all the complex math. You realize that everything is just moving in a elipses around a single point. A over simplification granted, but you can see the point.

I am sure back when the glass model came out it would probably have taken someone explaining it to me a good deal of time to describe the apparent complexity of the situation. They would also probably point out the massive gaps in their understanding. Today I can get the answer to my question in just a few minutes. Basically with a more complete understanding the explanation gets simpler.

Your making the problem complex, because you lack the imagination to see it in any other way. Life uses templates to get the job of replication done. There is no good, better, best. A creature can use DNA as a template, or it can use the structure of the cell as a template, or it can even use a body as a template. The process may not be exactly the same in each instance, but each process is probably fairly simple if you completely understand how it does what it does. Don't confuse the tedium of trial and effort solving of problems with the answer being equally verbose. After all it took humans thousands of years to properly place Earth within the context of the Universe, but it doesn't take thousands of years to explain it. Hell it doesn't even take five minutes.

How do humans developing a sense of right and wrong differ from apes or other higher mammals knowing the difference from right and wrong?  Both are developed through experience and interaction from the world around them. We see this in the human world as one cultures morals can differ greatly from anothers.

Kent Hovind. Ah yes, personally, I think recent creationists like this guy are the one's making anyone that has a non-world view on the old creation/evolution chestnut look like crackpots. People like Hugh Ross tend to have a more balanced view on the subject. Alternatively, people like Hovind are just like the extreme element of the church when the Galileo was around. You can only hold onto the idea that the earth is the centre of the universe for so long. And no, a lot of theology of the time did NOT have a strong dogma about this topic.

Kent Hovind's Doctrate is not even in a science, as far as I know. It was in education (probably theologically based). Last I heard of Hovind was that he was serving time for tax evasion. I find it almost offensive to teach children that man walked with the dinosaurs. It's just ridiculous.

As for the age of the earth/universe. I put it at about 4.5b for the earth and 13.8b for the rest :). Extreme fundalmentalists will look at Genesis in an absolute literal sense, based on the English (ie, non-original script) version, and then build their science around this premise. Maybe they need to look at Genesis as being a laying of theological principals and possibly poetic in some form or analogous.

It can't be overstated enough the divide between what a scientific theory is and what a theory is to people outside of science.

Two different definitions, hence the confusion.