By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - How many users on these boards actually support "The Theory of Evolution"?

Slimebeast on 14 May 2009
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Slimebeast said:

The problem with current evolution theory is that the biggest gene pool - by far biggest by a magnitude of thousands - consists of bacteria, who are supposed to be 500 or so millions of years old, yet they are very simple, they haven't evolved into multicellular organisms.
(there are a few very rare semi-multi cellular bacteria, but not any truly multi-cellular)

So much for statements like 'it was very likely that the eye as an organ would evolve' (or actually, they say the eye evolved some 7 or 8 times independently in different organisms). No it wasn't! Because it's not even likely that one celled organisms become multi cellular organisms, even if they populate the whole earth, apparently.

Bacteria are everywhere.
they multiply with an extremely high rate

There's something "wrong" with the theory of evolution. What's stupid is that intelligent people don't ask this question about why bacteria haven't evolved much. It's a statistical impossibility.

Evolving isn't mandatory for all life at all times.  It only happens when a mutation makes one life form better able to survive when they're competing for food or other resources.  Or when one life form gets wiped out by a disease or something else, and another mutated version remains.

Cockroaches haven't changed much, and neither have trees.  They don't need to.  They already have taken over the whole planet.

And many times when a new species evolves, it doesn't even have to replace the earlier species.  So we can have bacteria, fish, monkeys, people, bugs, trees, and viruses, all at the same time.  It's not like overnight one species appears and the other one disappears.  It's a crazy complex web of families and kingdoms and species all related to each other, all mutating occasionally, and all eating each other and competing for resources.  The fact that bacteria aren't changing doesn't disprove that everything else is.

I hear that pathetic excuse for this argument many times. It's so desperate.

Just think about how flawed it is.

How likely is it - that the organism that's by far far far the most common organism in earths history, who ha an extremely short generation/multiplying time, and who is in all possible environments and mutation causing conditions - how likely is it that these organisms haven't been subject to this fundamental change of when one cell becomies multiple?

You mean no bacterial colonies ended up in conditions wherre it would be beneficial to evolve into multicellular organisms?

That's so unlikely it's stupid. It's a scandal in evolution theory.

It's impossible.

 



Around the Network
MontanaHatchet on 14 May 2009

Declarative statements only mean that your viewpoint can't be changed. Rubang, don't even make the effort here.



 

 

Kasz216 on 14 May 2009
MontanaHatchet said:
Evolution happens because one trait is advantageous over another. Why would bacteria need to evolve? They seem to be doing just fine the way they are. Natural selection and evolution don't just happen for the hell of it.

The rate of mutation is so high in bacteria and the way bacteria reproduces means that each bacteria basically becomes it's own species of bacteria.

So if you put bacteria in a nuetral setting... it's going to mutate into different species just do to the random mutations not killing it.

It's the same with virus.

 

Really the best example would probably be animals of different species that can mate... but not produce children who are fertile.

They're the "missing links" between evolutionary paths.

 

For example... take like... the Marvel Universe.


Cyclops is born with Lazer eye beams, marries Jean Grey who is a telepath.  They have a kid Cable who is a Telepath.... there are still normal humans walking around... but since Jean Grey and Scott have a kid... these Telepath humans keep existing.

In such a world eventually a whole new species would evolve.  Many perhaps.

This would likely be the case with humans.  Which would be the point of where they were so genetically different they couldn't reproduce with each other.

Actually this is a difficult question since Bacteria doesn't reproduce with each other... when is it considered a new species?

Hm...

Wolves and Dogs are considered different species but they can mate and have offspring that are viable... so technically should be considered the same species as well... with dog evolution beign basically of the Macro kind.



largedarryl on 14 May 2009
Slimebeast said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Slimebeast said:

The problem with current evolution theory is that the biggest gene pool - by far biggest by a magnitude of thousands - consists of bacteria, who are supposed to be 500 or so millions of years old, yet they are very simple, they haven't evolved into multicellular organisms.
(there are a few very rare semi-multi cellular bacteria, but not any truly multi-cellular)

So much for statements like 'it was very likely that the eye as an organ would evolve' (or actually, they say the eye evolved some 7 or 8 times independently in different organisms). No it wasn't! Because it's not even likely that one celled organisms become multi cellular organisms, even if they populate the whole earth, apparently.

Bacteria are everywhere.
they multiply with an extremely high rate

There's something "wrong" with the theory of evolution. What's stupid is that intelligent people don't ask this question about why bacteria haven't evolved much. It's a statistical impossibility.

Evolving isn't mandatory for all life at all times.  It only happens when a mutation makes one life form better able to survive when they're competing for food or other resources.  Or when one life form gets wiped out by a disease or something else, and another mutated version remains.

Cockroaches haven't changed much, and neither have trees.  They don't need to.  They already have taken over the whole planet.

And many times when a new species evolves, it doesn't even have to replace the earlier species.  So we can have bacteria, fish, monkeys, people, bugs, trees, and viruses, all at the same time.  It's not like overnight one species appears and the other one disappears.  It's a crazy complex web of families and kingdoms and species all related to each other, all mutating occasionally, and all eating each other and competing for resources.  The fact that bacteria aren't changing doesn't disprove that everything else is.

I hear that pathetic excuse for this argument many times. It's so desperate.

Just think about how flawed it is.

How likely is it - that the organism that's by far far far the most common organism in earths history, who ha an extremely short generation/multiplying time, and who is in all possible environments and mutation causing conditions - how likely is it that these organisms haven't been subject to this fundamental change of when one cell becomies multiple?

You mean no bacterial colonies ended up in conditions wherre it would be beneficial to evolve into multicellular organisms?

That's so unlikely it's stupid. It's a scandal in evolution theory.

It's impossible.

So your position is that evolution is false because you believe there are fundamental flaws when moving micro evolution to a macro scale?

I'm not going to attempt to convince you otherwise, but I'm trying to clarify your position.

 



Slimebeast on 14 May 2009

Yeah Rubang don't even try. Because you are chanceless on this topic about bacteria.

"bacteria didn't need to evolve" is such a flawed statement that Im about to explode of frustration.



Around the Network
largedarryl on 14 May 2009
Kasz216 said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Evolution happens because one trait is advantageous over another. Why would bacteria need to evolve? They seem to be doing just fine the way they are. Natural selection and evolution don't just happen for the hell of it.

The rate of mutation is so high in bacteria and the way bacteria reproduces means that each bacteria basically becomes it's own species of bacteria.

So if you put bacteria in a nuetral setting... it's going to mutate into different species just do to the random mutations not killing it.

It's the same with virus.

 

 

For example... take like... the Marvel Universe.


Cyclops is born with Lazer eye beams, marries Jean Grey who is a telepath.  They have a kid Cable who is a Telepath.... there are still normal humans walking around... but since Jean Grey and Scott have a kid... these Telepath humans keep existing.

In such a world eventually a whole new species would evolve.  Many perhaps.

This would likely be the case with humans.  Which would be the point of where they were so genetically different they couldn't reproduce with each other.

Actually this is a difficult question since Bacteria doesn't reproduce with each other... when is it considered a new species?

Hm...

Wolves and Dogs are considered different species but they can mate and have offspring that are viable... so technically should be considered the same species as well... with dog evolution beign basically of the Macro kind.

I believe your are refering to the evolution theory that is considered genetic drift.  A very believable theory that actually has the ability to explain many questions about evolution.

 



Slimebeast on 14 May 2009
largedarryl said:
Slimebeast said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Slimebeast said:

The problem with current evolution theory is that the biggest gene pool - by far biggest by a magnitude of thousands - consists of bacteria, who are supposed to be 500 or so millions of years old, yet they are very simple, they haven't evolved into multicellular organisms.
(there are a few very rare semi-multi cellular bacteria, but not any truly multi-cellular)

So much for statements like 'it was very likely that the eye as an organ would evolve' (or actually, they say the eye evolved some 7 or 8 times independently in different organisms). No it wasn't! Because it's not even likely that one celled organisms become multi cellular organisms, even if they populate the whole earth, apparently.

Bacteria are everywhere.
they multiply with an extremely high rate

There's something "wrong" with the theory of evolution. What's stupid is that intelligent people don't ask this question about why bacteria haven't evolved much. It's a statistical impossibility.

Evolving isn't mandatory for all life at all times.  It only happens when a mutation makes one life form better able to survive when they're competing for food or other resources.  Or when one life form gets wiped out by a disease or something else, and another mutated version remains.

Cockroaches haven't changed much, and neither have trees.  They don't need to.  They already have taken over the whole planet.

And many times when a new species evolves, it doesn't even have to replace the earlier species.  So we can have bacteria, fish, monkeys, people, bugs, trees, and viruses, all at the same time.  It's not like overnight one species appears and the other one disappears.  It's a crazy complex web of families and kingdoms and species all related to each other, all mutating occasionally, and all eating each other and competing for resources.  The fact that bacteria aren't changing doesn't disprove that everything else is.

I hear that pathetic excuse for this argument many times. It's so desperate.

Just think about how flawed it is.

How likely is it - that the organism that's by far far far the most common organism in earths history, who ha an extremely short generation/multiplying time, and who is in all possible environments and mutation causing conditions - how likely is it that these organisms haven't been subject to this fundamental change of when one cell becomies multiple?

You mean no bacterial colonies ended up in conditions wherre it would be beneficial to evolve into multicellular organisms?

That's so unlikely it's stupid. It's a scandal in evolution theory.

It's impossible.

So your position is that evolution is false because you believe there are fundamental flaws when moving micro evolution to a macro scale?

I'm not going to attempt to convince you otherwise, but I'm trying to clarify your position.

 

Im not 100% sure i understand ur question.

But yeah, bacteria are the big proof that there's a fundamental difference between micro- and macroevolution.

That macroevolution is unlikely.

 



highwaystar101 on 14 May 2009

Bacteria evolve, they evolve into other bacteria all the damn time. I recall the e-coli experiments which saw the e-coli bacteria evolve from acidophobes into acidophiles. It only 40,000 generations for a bacteria to essentially completely evolve into another bacteria. The resistant who had mutations that allowed them to resist the acid had gained superiority over those that hadn't, and so they got to pass on their genetic traits.

In fact over 20,000 generations the reckoned hundreds of millions of mutations had occurred. so there bacteria do evolve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment



Slimebeast on 14 May 2009

^That's the point, highwaystar101. We know mutation rate and evolution/change is extremely high in bacteria, yet they don't seem to be able to take the fundamental - many would say inevitable - step to become multicellular organisms.



highwaystar101 on 14 May 2009

Oh Macro, you want macro, I getchya now

brb

here, this pretty much sums it up (It's long but you don't have to read all of it lol)

http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#microevolution