Could you at least cite a source that proves that bacteria have never evolved, not once, not ever, never ever never?
If so, I will believe your case, which is that bacteria haven't evolved.
But I don't see how that would prove or disprove anything bigger about anything else.
Because to my knowledge, bacteria have evolved in millions of ways, and there are millions of scientific articles studying it.
| highwaystar101 said: 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 |
I suppose the real question is though... what makes the bacteria a completly new species?
Currently our definitions of species aren't set in stone so to speak. There has yet to be a genetic barcode made to decide what species are what... and it's all very arbitrary... largely based on interbreeding.
Even if it does exist... it could be argued that the number of genetic difference needed could be arbitrary. It's why before such a thing exists they need to sequence every DNA code into a giant database.
Dogs for example are considered the same species because they can mate... yet couldn't they also mate with Canus Lupis? There are wolves that can breed with dogs... why aren't dogs still considered wolves? Personal conceit since dogs are ours and wolves are outside?
Numbers of interesting questions when it comes to the species problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
| Slimebeast said: But yeah, bacteria are the big proof that there's a fundamental difference between micro- and macroevolution. |
You forgot to ask the 'why' question. Why is it unlikely for bacteria to evolve to multicell organisms?
And how on earth do you know this hasn't already happened, unsuccessfully? And if it's unsuccessful, why is that?
How about other single-cell organisms? You didn't mention them. Are there any Eukaryot smallnumbered cell organisms? Why? And if so, are they disqualified as evidence?
I think the question here should be, why is the cellcore so important to multiple cell organisms, and do we have any idea where it came from?
This is invisible text!
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.
| MontanaHatchet said: This explains a good bit of what you're asking. Take from it what you will. |
Actually I read 'The Cell' in Medical Skool over 10 years ago. And I member that chapter vagely.
Citation:
"Summary
The evolution of large multicellular organisms depended on the ability of eucaryotic cells to express their hereditary information in many different ways and to function cooperatively in a single collective."
But why didn't it happen with the huge line of prokaryotic (bacteria) cells in world history? That's a big mystery.
The fact that bacteria have mitochondria and choloplasts (which if you look at them are actually little other bacteria that were "eaten" a long time ago and essentially became an organelle of the bacteria as time went on) is more than enough proof that they have evolved. And there are millions of other examples.
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
| Slimebeast said: Actually I read 'The Cell' in Medical Skool over 10 years ago. And I member that chapter vagely. Citation: |
Could it be, I venture, because there is some significant disadvantage to being procaryotic that makes multicell organisms impossible?
This is invisible text!
| 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).
| akuma587 said: The fact that bacteria have mitochondria and choloplasts (which if you look at them are actually little other bacteria that were "eaten" a long time ago and essentially became an organelle of the bacteria as time went on) is more than enough proof that they have evolved. And there are millions of other examples. |
Im not denying that bacteria have evolved (of course they have, but to what degree?). Im disputing/questioning the current evolution theory and the principle of the single origin hypothesis. Based on that principle, with such an early "split" into eukaryotes and prokaryotes in earth history, why did the prokaryotes get "stuck" in bacterial, extremely simple form, while eukaryotes just kept evolving into millions of species so different u only can fantasize about it? It doesnt make sense.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
