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"?

akuma587 on 15 May 2009
Slimebeast said:
akuma587 said:

Seriously dude, are you even paying attention?  A lot of them DO sexually reproduce (though not in the way you would think of sexual reproduction normally-more along the lines of genetic recombination with the help of plasmids and various other means).  And a lot of bacteria DID eventually evolve into organisms that sexually reproduce.  Where do you think we came from?

And there are plenty of advantages to asexual reproduction.  It takes less time, it doesn't require a mate, it can typically happen much faster, and it takes less resources to do.  Not to mention it works very nicely if you are a single-celled organism.  You are assuming that bacteria that don't sexually reproduce HAVE A NEED to sexually reproduce.  Traits are not favored through unnatural selection if they don't benefit a species.  Thus, many bacteria have been extremely successful using asexual reproduction and never selected in the direction of sexual reproduction.

No, YOU are not paying attention. I addressed sqrl's objection in a perfect way, then u start nit picking.

Yeah bacteria exchange genes by flagella and stuff, but the point above was the factor and dynamic that the "invention" of sexual reproduction as described by sqrl above - through recombination of genes when two cells unify - brought into the evolutionary process.

And again u do the same mistake that pretty much all non-religious zealots do - you stop using your mind, and just put the auto pilot on. You think I havent thought about that, that bacteria have a lot of advantages? That's not the point.

The point is, even if bacteria are the pinnacle, the best machine in evolution, the huge mass and long time should make it inevitable that the prokaryotic line of life would branch off to multicellular organisms too (you know, the rest of the bacteria can still remain single celled?!).

 

......You know that the circular strand of DNA bacteria have PREVENTS them from becoming multicellular, right?  That is why they branched off into eukaryotes who DO NOT have circular DNA strands.  If you don't have a circular DNA strand and have histone-DNA complexes, you are either eukaryotic or an archaebacteria.  Prokaryotes BY DEFINITION cannot be multicellular.  You are the one who has your brain on auto-pilot and are focusing only on the labels we slap on things.  We do have a lot of organisms out there - such as the protists - that really are not much more than globs of glorified bacteria simply with their DNA in a different structural arrangement.

 



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

Around the Network
Slimebeast on 15 May 2009

Christian says:

- "I can't believe the single origin theory! Look at the multitude of organisms, there's so many different species, they can't all be from the same origin. A dog can't have the same fore father as a mosqito! We can't all come from just a pile of slime!"

Evolution zealot replies:

- "No problem mate. You just don't understand evolution. Evolution works that way u know. Mutations and survival of the fittest, and competition. Environmental pressure drives change. All these different specialized organs, they've evolved gradually. Life finds it's different ways"

Christian asks:

- "But look at bacteria! Being the biggest gene pool on earth, being present in the most varied environments and conditions on earth you can imagine (=everywhere), having the fastest generation/replication time and being at least 500 million years old - why haven't they evolved into something else than bacteria?"

Evo man replies:

- "Niche man. Niche. They don't need to."



bobacob on 15 May 2009

Firstly, evolutionary theory is highly possible, bacteria may not be able to reproduce sexually, but they do trade extra chromosomal DNA in the form of plasmids. This is how antimicrobial resistance is conferred.

Bacteria produce what are known as spores, by and large, these are asexual endospores that can be used to protect a bacterium from an unhospitable environment.

It would not be completely out of the question for bacteria at some point to have eventually become a eukaryote or possibly something very close to a eukaryote. Fungi are a good example of of unicellular organisms that have the ability to form complex bodies such as mushrooms. It should also be noted that fungi such as those from the phylum ascomycotia can form spores.

These fungal ascospores can be SEXUAL.

Now when you think about this in terms of a slow continuous process. A cell line from a bacterium, with its primitive DNA repair mechanisms, could easily change over time(with small gradual changes) into something similar to a fungus. These bacteria/fungi could eventually gain the ability to sexually reproduce.

Finally bearing in mind that these INDIVIDUAL cells of fungi can aggregate to form multicellular complex bodies, I would not be suprised that an individual body such as that of a bacterium could eventually produce an animal.

This is just but one path way of evolution to a multicellular complex organism from a unicellular organism.



Endure. In enduring, grow strong.

akuma587 on 15 May 2009

The answer is that both have happened.  Some bacteria DID change into something more complex.  Some bacteria DID NOT.  Simply because not all bacteria have evolved into more complex organisms does not disprove the theory of evolution.  If anything, it is evidence that natural selection works both ways.  If you are adapted to your environment already, you don't need to adapt as much.  If you are not adapted to your environment, you "need" to change more.



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 on 15 May 2009
akuma587 said:

The answer is that both have happened.  Some bacteria DID change into something more complex.  Some bacteria DID NOT.  Simply because not all bacteria have evolved into more complex organisms does not disprove the theory of evolution.  If anything, it is evidence that natural selection works both ways.  If you are adapted to your environment already, you don't need to adapt as much.  If you are not adapted to your environment, you "need" to change more.

 

 Attention, attention everyone! Important announcement coming up. You may be surprised, but this is an everlasting truth:



akuma hereby proclaims that bacteria don't need to adapt as much.



Around the Network
bobacob on 15 May 2009
akuma587 said:

The answer is that both have happened.  Some bacteria DID change into something more complex.  Some bacteria DID NOT.  Simply because not all bacteria have evolved into more complex organisms does not disprove the theory of evolution.  If anything, it is evidence that natural selection works both ways.  If you are adapted to your environment already, you don't need to adapt as much.  If you are not adapted to your environment, you "need" to change more.

Hahaha atleast one man has some sense!!!! this man gets a sticker!!!

Many people falsely think that evolution is like what happens in pokemon, you reach a certain level of experience and then you evolve.

Base changes in DNA are completely randomised, unless by a means such as somatic hypermutation in antibody expressing cells.

Evolution is a randomised gradual process NOT a process that is predetermined NOT a process that is directly governed by will. ONE body changes it reproduces either sexually or asexually, it survives, it spreads, just like that.

Natural selection isnt a process by which things are chosen as the term suggests, it is more about how organisms are more likely to survive under different circumstances.

 

 



Endure. In enduring, grow strong.

Slimebeast on 15 May 2009
bobacob said:
akuma587 said:

The answer is that both have happened.  Some bacteria DID change into something more complex.  Some bacteria DID NOT.  Simply because not all bacteria have evolved into more complex organisms does not disprove the theory of evolution.  If anything, it is evidence that natural selection works both ways.  If you are adapted to your environment already, you don't need to adapt as much.  If you are not adapted to your environment, you "need" to change more.

Hahaha atleast one man has some sense!!!! this man gets a sticker!!!

Many people falsely think that evolution is like what happens in pokemon, you reach a certain level of experience and then you evolve.

Base changes in DNA are completely randomised, unless by a means such as somatic hypermutation in antibody expressing cells.

Evolution is a randomised gradual process NOT a process that is predetermined NOT a process that is directly governed by will. ONE body changes it reproduces either sexually or asexually, it survives, it spreads, just like that.

Natural selection isnt a process by which things are chosen as the term suggests, it is more about how organisms are more likely to survive under different circumstances.

 

 

 

 No... really?? I never thought of it that way! You opened my eyes man!!



akuma587 on 15 May 2009
Slimebeast said:
akuma587 said:

The answer is that both have happened.  Some bacteria DID change into something more complex.  Some bacteria DID NOT.  Simply because not all bacteria have evolved into more complex organisms does not disprove the theory of evolution.  If anything, it is evidence that natural selection works both ways.  If you are adapted to your environment already, you don't need to adapt as much.  If you are not adapted to your environment, you "need" to change more.

 

 Attention, attention everyone! Important announcement coming up. You may be surprised, but this is an everlasting truth:



akuma hereby proclaims that bacteria don't need to adapt as much.

Bacteria are the most successful branch of organisms on the PLANET that can withstand ALL KINDS OF environmental stress.  So obviously they are doing pretty well.



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 on 15 May 2009

So when change happen, it's perfectly fine for you to say:

- That's not strange at all, it's how evolution works.


But when change doesn't happen, you can also say:

- That's not strange at all, it's how evolution works.



bobacob on 15 May 2009
Slimebeast said:
bobacob said:
akuma587 said:

The answer is that both have happened.  Some bacteria DID change into something more complex.  Some bacteria DID NOT.  Simply because not all bacteria have evolved into more complex organisms does not disprove the theory of evolution.  If anything, it is evidence that natural selection works both ways.  If you are adapted to your environment already, you don't need to adapt as much.  If you are not adapted to your environment, you "need" to change more.

Hahaha atleast one man has some sense!!!! this man gets a sticker!!!

Many people falsely think that evolution is like what happens in pokemon, you reach a certain level of experience and then you evolve.

Base changes in DNA are completely randomised, unless by a means such as somatic hypermutation in antibody expressing cells.

Evolution is a randomised gradual process NOT a process that is predetermined NOT a process that is directly governed by will. ONE body changes it reproduces either sexually or asexually, it survives, it spreads, just like that.

Natural selection isnt a process by which things are chosen as the term suggests, it is more about how organisms are more likely to survive under different circumstances.

 

 

 

 No... really?? I never thought of it that way! You opened my eyes man!!

Slimebeast you ugly pug. :oP

Which do you think is more likely to occur? just out of curiousity?

Either way I do not care, I just like to explain things to people.

 



Endure. In enduring, grow strong.