Bacterial Evolution

[flaja]

If the bacteria go extinct, then organisms that feed on bacteria will either adapt to another food source or also go extinct.

So it's like I said: by evolving into a eukaryote a bacterium puts itself at risk, meaning it doesn't gain anything by evolving.

 

[notto]

[/font][/font][/color]

In terms of Darwinism you cannot have one without the other. Your habitat is inextricably connected with your niche because how you can interact with your physical environment determines how you must interact with other living things.

But that doesn't make them the same. Words have meanings. Bacteria and mammals do not fit the same niche.

I guess you haven’t been paying attention. I am considering all bacteria as a group and I am comparing this group with the group that includes every other type of organism. The bacteria group outnumbers the other group both in terms of number of individuals and in number of habitats.

So then why the specific examples of men and cows?

There certainly are niches that animalia fill that are not filled by bacteria. You are filling one right now.

All of this is besides the point because your argument is nonsensical unless you can tell us how bacteria can tell the future.

Do you think that bacteria can tell the future? If not, then what exactly is your argument based on?

 

[flaja]

Do you think the bacteria know that they are risking long term survivability?

You think that living things are simply freaks that must subject themselves to the whims of nature?

 

[notto]

So it's like I said: by evolving into a eukaryote a bacterium puts itself at risk, meaning it doesn't gain anything by evolving.

Sure it did. It gained a survivability advantage in the current niche. No risk to the current population there. It is a benefit.

Do you think that bacteria that evolve antibiotic resistance are gaining anything even if a new antibiotic is in the making in a lab across town?

(How exactly would a bacterium population know it is putting itself at risk?)

Lurkers and others. Am I missing something here or is this argument as silly as it appears?

 

[notto]

You think that living things are simply freaks that must subject themselves to the whims of nature?

What?

Whatever it is you are talking about now, it is clearly not evolution.

Do you understand the mechanisms that lead to adaptation of a population?

You do understand that populations evolve and not individuals, right?

 

[shernren]

You think that living things are simply freaks that must subject themselves to the whims of nature?

Of course - as shown by the Lederberg experiments.

 

[sfs]

I guess you haven’t been paying attention. I am considering all bacteria as a group and I am comparing this group with the group that includes every other type of organism. The bacteria group outnumbers the other group both in terms of number of individuals and in number of habitats.

That's not a meaningful comparison. All bacteria as a group didn't evolve into eukaryotes. A single population of a single species out of all bacteria (and possibly a single individual) evolved into eukaryotes. The offspring of that particular lineage have done spectacularly well, probably filling more niches than any other bacterial lineage around at the same time.

 

[sfs]

So it's like I said: by evolving into a eukaryote a bacterium puts itself at risk, meaning it doesn't gain anything by evolving.

Huh? Eukaryotes that are dependent on a particular species of bacteria will be in trouble if those bacteria disappear. Bacteria that are dependent on a particular species of eukaryote will be in trouble if those eukaryotes disappear. If you have a point here, I'm missing it.