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"?

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

 Just saying if u missed it: im not saying bacteria doesn't evolve at all. Im asking why they are stuck. (yes, IMO "them being stuck" is a pretty good description to point at the essence of the problem, even if you can obviously easily dispute it by saying that there's a myriad of variety between bacteria)

Oh I see.  Well I don't see how some evolutionary "dead ends" may disprove evolution.  I think solving the riddle might change evolution a little bit, or expand it a little bit, but not refute it entirely.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

Around the Network
Slimebeast on 14 May 2009
largedarryl said:
Slimebeast said:
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).

That is a perfectly fine position to have and there isn't anything wrong with it, but faulting all of evolution theory based on the reasoning that bacteria do not ever evolve into multi-celled organisms is being a little narrow minded.  I thought there was some evidence proving that multi-celled bacteria couldn't exist based on some traits that exist in bacteria.

 

 

 I doubt it. That sounds like a spin argument to me.

If that was the case I just wanna ask why the bacteria are so dumb not to just "devolve" back then, to the point where they have the ability to branch off to multicellular organisms just like eukaryotes can. It shouldn't be so hard. I can see huge benefits with it too, no one can deny that.



Kasz216 on 14 May 2009
Slimebeast said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
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.

 

 Just saying if u missed it: im not saying bacteria doesn't evolve at all. Im asking why they are stuck. (yes, IMO "them being stuck" is a pretty good description to point at the essence of the problem, even if you can obviously easily dispute it by saying that there's a myriad of variety between bacteria)

So basically you want to see Proto bacteria evolve into Euka bacteria.

 



akuma587 on 14 May 2009
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
@Kasz: Absolutely, it is still just a hypothesis, but even the fact that you have something as strange as organelles in a bacteria that have their own set of DNA almost intuitively suggests that they were once their own separate bacteria. I have yet to see an explanation that makes as much sense given the nature of mitochondria/chloroplasts and bacteria themselves.

I believe in Evolution... so just playing devils advocate but...

What about helpful DNA Damage?

Rather then like with humans where it is negative... the DNA damage actually helped those parts of the bacteria... and as such the DNA damage was helpful?


After all Cancer Cells are genetically different from other cells.  If we were born with cancer one could come to the same conclusion you did?

Additionally there are people with two types of DNA.

Some are due to inheriting their wayward twins DNA and others happen due to errors in replication.

It could of just been the cause of a replication error.

That is also possible, although I still think endosymbiont hypothesis makes more sense considering the number of plasma membranes surrounding those cells which suggests that they were absorbed or ingested through a phospholipid bilayer.  It is highly unlikely that the DNA damage hypothesis would produce that result.  Not to mention that we have found an organism that exists (or at least existed) that is incredibly similar to a chloroplast, the cyanobacteria. 

The A and C illustrations in this picture don't directly mention what I am talking about with the phospholipid bilayers, but visually that is what I am talking about:

 

 



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

Rath on 14 May 2009
Slimebeast said:
largedarryl said:
\

That is a perfectly fine position to have and there isn't anything wrong with it, but faulting all of evolution theory based on the reasoning that bacteria do not ever evolve into muli-celled organisms is being a little narrow minded.  I thought there was some evidence proving that multi-celled bacteria couldn't exist based on some traits that exist in bacteria.

 

 

 I doubt it. That sounds like a spin argument to me.

If that was the case I just wanna ask why the bacteria are so dumb not to just "devolve" back then, to the point where they have the ability to branch off to multicellular organisms just like eukaryotes can. It shouldn't be so hard. I can see huge benefits with it too, no one can deny that.

What environmental pressures would cause that to happen?

Just because it seems advantageous to us doesn't mean that the laws of nature will cause it to happen, nature rarely causes evolution where it is disadvantageous to the population.

 



Around the Network
The Ghost of RubangB on 14 May 2009

Things don't get to decide what to evolve into, and they don't automatically evolve advantageously. They evolve at random, sometimes good, sometimes bad. Sometimes it helps them survive. Sometimes it helps them die off. The end result is that it looks like evolution is good because the survivors have survived. But it's entirely random.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

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

 Just saying if u missed it: im not saying bacteria doesn't evolve at all. Im asking why they are stuck. (yes, IMO "them being stuck" is a pretty good description to point at the essence of the problem, even if you can obviously easily dispute it by saying that there's a myriad of variety between bacteria)

Oh I see.  Well I don't see how some evolutionary "dead ends" may disprove evolution.  I think solving the riddle might change evolution a little bit, or expand it a little bit, but not refute it entirely.

I have no problem swallowing 'dead ends' like a pack of buffaloes getting stuck in a valley, split off of their relatives, so they evolved into spreckled stubby antilopes or something.

But we're talking about a mammoth gene pool which should hold pretty much all the basic potentials that are built in our life form on this earth. I cant see bacteria as "dead ends" being so extremely widespread, capable and damn successful on earth.

 



Rath on 14 May 2009

No bacteria aren't a dead end. They've found a massive and important ecological niche.

Also just in case you guys missed it, I think this is important.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm



largedarryl on 14 May 2009
Slimebeast said:
largedarryl said:
Slimebeast said:
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).

That is a perfectly fine position to have and there isn't anything wrong with it, but faulting all of evolution theory based on the reasoning that bacteria do not ever evolve into multi-celled organisms is being a little narrow minded.  I thought there was some evidence proving that multi-celled bacteria couldn't exist based on some traits that exist in bacteria.

 

 

 I doubt it. That sounds like a spin argument to me.

If that was the case I just wanna ask why the bacteria are so dumb not to just "devolve" back then, to the point where they have the ability to branch off to multicellular organisms just like eukaryotes can. It shouldn't be so hard. I can see huge benefits with it too, no one can deny that.

Hey, I'm not really that knowledgeable in this area.  I'm really only attempting to get as much info as possible, since that is truly the goal in discussions like this (unless you already have all the knowledge on the subject).

I would agree it does sound like a spin argument (or an attempt to justify observations) that read once, but I was younger and my knowledge of that is probably not correct.

 



Slimebeast on 14 May 2009
Rath said:
Slimebeast said:
largedarryl said:
 

That is a perfectly fine position to have and there isn't anything wrong with it, but faulting all of evolution theory based on the reasoning that bacteria do not ever evolve into muli-celled organisms is being a little narrow minded.  I thought there was some evidence proving that multi-celled bacteria couldn't exist based on some traits that exist in bacteria.

 

 

 I doubt it. That sounds like a spin argument to me.

If that was the case I just wanna ask why the bacteria are so dumb not to just "devolve" back then, to the point where they have the ability to branch off to multicellular organisms just like eukaryotes can. It shouldn't be so hard. I can see huge benefits with it too, no one can deny that.

What environmental pressures would cause that to happen?

Just because it seems advantageous to us doesn't mean that the laws of nature will cause it to happen, nature rarely causes evolution where it is disadvantageous to the population.

 

 

 As I said above, that's such a weak defense (or lack of understanding of the problem... maybe Im bad at explaining).

What environmental pressures would cause that to happen? you ask. How about pretty much any environmental condition you can imagine! Since bacteria live everywhere, and there's millions of factors and dynamics surrounding them that have potential to be "environmental pressure" to all sorts of stuff.

I wanna see bacteria-rabbits, bacteria-giants, bacteria that weight 1 milligram and 1 tonne, bacterias that have feet, bacterias that have eyes, bacteries that have feelings, bacterias that use tools, bacterias that form civlizations.