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

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

Killergran on 14 May 2009
Slimebeast said:

Because that would need proof that says that "inventing" the cellcore is an extremely unlikely event in organisms.
(but I have never ever heard anyone claim that)

The sheer unlikeliness of that happening is staggering. The fact that we had prokaryots for a billion years (according to Wikipedia) before we had Eukaryots should tell you how unlikely it is. It's not like there were much fewer bacterias around then. The major theories always starts with a bacteria however, which is kinda the antithesis of your argument. Bacteria evolving into eucaryotes, evolving into multicellular organisms.

So when you say "Why hasn't bacteria evolved into multicellular beings?" my answer would be, "They did". And the answer to the question "Why can't we see that happening with bacteria today?" would be "We're not looking closely enough".



This is invisible text!

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

Oh... so you set up rules to accept it, that are impossible.

If I saw all those types of bacteria, that would actually convince me of intelligent design.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

Rath on 14 May 2009
Slimebeast said:

Cancel my post. I'll write something later =P

 



Slimebeast on 14 May 2009
Killergran said:
Slimebeast said:

Because that would need proof that says that "inventing" the cellcore is an extremely unlikely event in organisms.
(but I have never ever heard anyone claim that)

The sheer unlikeliness of that happening is staggering. The fact that we had prokaryots for a billion years (according to Wikipedia) before we had Eukaryots should tell you how unlikely it is. It's not like there were much fewer bacterias around then. The major theories always starts with a bacteria however, which is kinda the antithesis of your argument. Bacteria evolving into eucaryotes, evolving into multicellular organisms.

So when you say "Why hasn't bacteria evolved into multicellular beings?" my answer would be, "They did". And the answer to the question "Why can't we see that happening with bacteria today?" would be "We're not looking closely enough".

"The fact that we had prokaryots for a billion years (according to Wikipedia) before we had Eukaryots should tell you how unlikely it is." - doesnt prove anything for me. It's other way around. Knowing what I know about bacteria makes it impossible for me to think there was 1 billion years between pro- and eukaryotes.

So when you say "Why hasn't bacteria evolved into multicellular beings?" my answer would be, "They did".

- yes yes, do u think I missed that there exists multicellular organisms? That the two lines split?
That's just looking at the problem from another angle, or rephrasing it. Why did it only happen once (knowing that the bacteria kept being widespread and successful for 100s of millions of years)?

 



Slimebeast on 14 May 2009
Rath said:
Slimebeast said:

Cancel my post. I'll write something later =P

 

 

 I was going to say that 1. your guessing (how do u know if its unlikely?) 2. you're dodging (u cant say "there's no pressure" and then switch to "they cant be changed")



Around the Network
The Ghost of RubangB on 14 May 2009
Slimebeast said:
Killergran said:
Slimebeast said:

Because that would need proof that says that "inventing" the cellcore is an extremely unlikely event in organisms.
(but I have never ever heard anyone claim that)

The sheer unlikeliness of that happening is staggering. The fact that we had prokaryots for a billion years (according to Wikipedia) before we had Eukaryots should tell you how unlikely it is. It's not like there were much fewer bacterias around then. The major theories always starts with a bacteria however, which is kinda the antithesis of your argument. Bacteria evolving into eucaryotes, evolving into multicellular organisms.

So when you say "Why hasn't bacteria evolved into multicellular beings?" my answer would be, "They did". And the answer to the question "Why can't we see that happening with bacteria today?" would be "We're not looking closely enough".

"The fact that we had prokaryots for a billion years (according to Wikipedia) before we had Eukaryots should tell you how unlikely it is." - doesnt prove anything for me. It's other way around. Knowing what I know about bacteria makes it impossible for me to think there was 1 billion years between pro- and eukaryotes.

So when you say "Why hasn't bacteria evolved into multicellular beings?" my answer would be, "They did".

- yes yes, do u think I missed that there exists multicellular organisms? That the two lines split?
That's just looking at the problem from another angle, or rephrasing it. Why did it only happen once (knowing that the bacteria kept being widespread and successful for 100s of millions of years)?

Maybe there's too much competition for it to happen again?  It only needed to happen once, and now maybe there are more complex organisms better at doing what the new guys try to do?



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

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

Oh... so you set up rules to accept it, that are impossible.

If I saw all those types of bacteria, that would actually convince me of intelligent design.

I hope you're not looking for flaws just for the sake of "winning" a debate, and make me show in a bad light? That's not me. I always use sweeping arguments and generalizations and drastic examples, so it's damn easy to nail me against a wall for some minor details I may say, that are harder to back up.

I was showing the essence, the sense moral should be apparent with the example of what kind of bacteria "I want to see".
(Im counting on the reader to not be a childish nit picker)

 



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

Because that would need proof that says that "inventing" the cellcore is an extremely unlikely event in organisms.
(but I have never ever heard anyone claim that)

The sheer unlikeliness of that happening is staggering. The fact that we had prokaryots for a billion years (according to Wikipedia) before we had Eukaryots should tell you how unlikely it is. It's not like there were much fewer bacterias around then. The major theories always starts with a bacteria however, which is kinda the antithesis of your argument. Bacteria evolving into eucaryotes, evolving into multicellular organisms.

So when you say "Why hasn't bacteria evolved into multicellular beings?" my answer would be, "They did". And the answer to the question "Why can't we see that happening with bacteria today?" would be "We're not looking closely enough".

"The fact that we had prokaryots for a billion years (according to Wikipedia) before we had Eukaryots should tell you how unlikely it is." - doesnt prove anything for me. It's other way around. Knowing what I know about bacteria makes it impossible for me to think there was 1 billion years between pro- and eukaryotes.

So when you say "Why hasn't bacteria evolved into multicellular beings?" my answer would be, "They did".

- yes yes, do u think I missed that there exists multicellular organisms? That the two lines split?
That's just looking at the problem from another angle, or rephrasing it. Why did it only happen once (knowing that the bacteria kept being widespread and successful for 100s of millions of years)?

 

Considering that more complex lifeforms already exist and are widespread is there any pressure for bacteria to evolve into a ecological niche which is already filled?

 



lightbleeder on 14 May 2009

Evolution is pretty much proven to exist, but genetic codes are made from a language and every language must come from some form of intelligence (I believe in God). ID for me



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

Because that would need proof that says that "inventing" the cellcore is an extremely unlikely event in organisms.
(but I have never ever heard anyone claim that)

The sheer unlikeliness of that happening is staggering. The fact that we had prokaryots for a billion years (according to Wikipedia) before we had Eukaryots should tell you how unlikely it is. It's not like there were much fewer bacterias around then. The major theories always starts with a bacteria however, which is kinda the antithesis of your argument. Bacteria evolving into eucaryotes, evolving into multicellular organisms.

So when you say "Why hasn't bacteria evolved into multicellular beings?" my answer would be, "They did". And the answer to the question "Why can't we see that happening with bacteria today?" would be "We're not looking closely enough".

"The fact that we had prokaryots for a billion years (according to Wikipedia) before we had Eukaryots should tell you how unlikely it is." - doesnt prove anything for me. It's other way around. Knowing what I know about bacteria makes it impossible for me to think there was 1 billion years between pro- and eukaryotes.

So when you say "Why hasn't bacteria evolved into multicellular beings?" my answer would be, "They did".

- yes yes, do u think I missed that there exists multicellular organisms? That the two lines split?
That's just looking at the problem from another angle, or rephrasing it. Why did it only happen once (knowing that the bacteria kept being widespread and successful for 100s of millions of years)?

Maybe there's too much competition for it to happen again?  It only needed to happen once, and now maybe there are more complex organisms better at doing what the new guys try to do?

I'm sorry, but this is a bad way of trying to discredit Slimebeast's arguments.