Evolution?

[juvenissun]

OK, compare the genetic variations among bacteria with the species diversification of animals are some what like to compare apple with banana.

Now, this is simply another way to see the OP. This thread has been turned around and around and around. However, to me, the question in the OP still stand.

 

[TheGnome]

Yeah, you're right.

However, the genetic diversity between different mice in the genus Mus is as large as the genetic diversity between humans and chimps. But humans and chimps are put in a different genus. Which was my point. And you could make the point that to be consistent, at least as far as genetic similarity is concerned, you either should divide the genus Mus into more classes, or put humans and chimps in the same genus.

I really don't know anything about the genetics of the species under Mus, to be quite honest. Humans, chimps, and bonobos probably should be under the same genus. There may be real arguments as to why humans should have their own genus, but as you've mentioned, the real problem with classification lies within other organisms.

Looking a bit further, Ochrotomys and Peromyscus aren't even in the same family as Mus. Heck, rats are more closely related to Mus than those two mice are. The difference being that those mice are native to the Americas, while Mus is native to Australia, Asia, Europe and Afrika. Similar to the difference between old world and new world monkeys. Perhaps old and new world mice also diverged at the same time that old and new world monkeys did? Do you know?

I don't know. In fact, the only reason why I know Ochrotomys and Peromyscus exist is because I did some field work under a grad student in catching golden mice, Ochrotomyus nuttalli. We also caught a lot of cotton mice in the process since they're most common. Mice have shorter generation times, so even if they diverged around the same time, they'd diverge a hell of a lot faster.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

OK, compare the genetic variations among bacteria with the species diversification of animals are some what like to compare apple with banana.

Is that the sound of goal posts retreating?

Now, this is simply another way to see the OP. This thread has been turned around and around and around. However, to me, the question in the OP still stand.

You've got to be kidding...

 

[Nathan Poe]

Is that the sound of goal posts retreating?

More like the sounds of the goal posts running for the hills making little shrieking noises.

You've got to be kidding...

Would he be a YEC if he was?

 

[Tomk80]

OK, compare the genetic variations among bacteria with the species diversification of animals are some what like to compare apple with banana.

Not if you're looking at relatedness. Then it is a useful metric, the only one.

Now, this is simply another way to see the OP. This thread has been turned around and around and around. However, to me, the question in the OP still stand.

Sure, because learning is a sin in your world.

 

[Assyrian]

OK, compare the genetic variations among bacteria with the species diversification of animals are some what like to compare apple with banana.

Now, this is simply another way to see the OP. This thread has been turned around and around and around. However, to me, the question in the OP still stand.

It seems fungus and bacteria do not evolve since their creation. Is it correct? If so, why don't they?

So you are saying we can't compare evolution in bacteria with animals, but even though we can't make meaningful comparisons, your OP still stands that bacteria haven't evolved

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

This chart is perfect to illustrate my point. You may say the environment in the past 20 Ma was not stable. I may say it was perfectly stable.

So, basically, the stability of environment (in short term or long term) is NOT QUALIFIED to be used as a factor in evolution.

Yes it is:


I suspect there are more driving forces behind evolution than we have though of, but environmental and/or climate change is a big one. The climate gets colder, so only the individuals within a species that have for whatever reason better cold tolerance survive and rise offspring. Without this ability to evolve, life as we see it today on this lump of rock would never of arisen.

Geology shows us the ever changing environment, life evolves to take advantage of the ever changing environment. Sometimes this lead species into cul-de-sacs and they go extinct, but there is always another species read to take advantage of empty space.

 

[Naraoia]

OK, compare the genetic variations among bacteria with the species diversification of animals are some what like to compare apple with banana.

Umm, sort of yes. That's why we thought it was a bad idea that you did that.

Now, this is simply another way to see the OP.

What do you mean?

This thread has been turned around and around and around. However, to me, the question in the OP still stand.

Then I really, really have no idea how to explain things to you.

 

[Tomk80]

Umm, sort of yes. That's why we thought it was a bad idea that you did that.

Is it? I disagree. Genetic distance can be a very good measure, given that it provides an indication of the number of generations between different organisms. It may not be an ideal indicator, but it gives us a lot more information on the evolutionary distance between different organisms than any other indicator. This is precisely the reason that it is also used as an indicator to draw up cladograms.

 

[juvenissun]

So you are saying we can't compare evolution in bacteria with animals, but even though we can't make meaningful comparisons, your OP still stands that bacteria haven't evolved

Yes. Here is the logic:

If we take animal evolution as an illustration (or even the definition) of evolution, then the type of change happened to bacteria is not evolution. And vice versa. (as it has been argued, I do not take "change with time" as the definition of evolution in this thread)

I think that was the meaning of the OP. And I think it is till valid.

 

[Tomk80]

Yes. Here is the logic:

If we take animal evolution as an illustration (or even the definition) of evolution, then the type of change happened to bacteria is not evolution. And vice versa. (as it has been argued, I do not take "change with time" as the definition of evolution in this thread)

But you argued that speciation was evolution. And speciation has been observed in bacteria. I even gave you the papers that show exactly that. So even by your own criteria evolution has happened in bacteria.

I think that was the meaning of the OP. And I think it is till valid.

Sure you do.

 

[Naraoia]

Is it? I disagree. Genetic distance can be a very good measure, given that it provides an indication of the number of generations between different organisms. It may not be an ideal indicator, but it gives us a lot more information on the evolutionary distance between different organisms than any other indicator. This is precisely the reason that it is also used as an indicator to draw up cladograms.

Oh, misunderstanding alert. I thought he was referring to comparing bacterial genetic diversity to the visible diversity of animals. Ooops.

I totally agree with you.

 

[Naraoia]

Yes. Here is the logic:

If we take animal evolution as an illustration (or even the definition) of evolution, then the type of change happened to bacteria is not evolution. And vice versa. (as it has been argued, I do not take "change with time" as the definition of evolution in this thread)

I'm sorry, the definition of biological evolution is descent with modification, whether you like it or not. If you aren't talking about evolution then DON'T CALL IT EVOLUTION.

Please.

It would help all of us.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes. Here is the logic:

If we take animal evolution as an illustration (or even the definition) of evolution, then the type of change happened to bacteria is not evolution. And vice versa. (as it has been argued, I do not take "change with time" as the definition of evolution in this thread)

I think that was the meaning of the OP. And I think it is till valid.

Perhaps, but what's your point? You aren't arguing against scientific reasoning, because you aren't using scientific words. You have built up a strawman of evolution that doesn't even resemble the actual scientific concept.

What is your point?

 

[Assyrian]

Yes. Here is the logic:

If we take animal evolution as an illustration (or even the definition) of evolution, then the type of change happened to bacteria is not evolution. And vice versa. (as it has been argued, I do not take "change with time" as the definition of evolution in this thread)

I think that was the meaning of the OP. And I think it is till valid.

If you take animals as the definition of what life is, then bacteria (and plants) aren't even alive. It's meaningless.

 

[juvenissun]

But you argued that speciation was evolution. And speciation has been observed in bacteria. I even gave you the papers that show exactly that. So even by your own criteria evolution has happened in bacteria.

Yes, you did give a few examples. However, it is not easy for me to evaluate your examples. The only thing I can tell is that your examples do not represent the normal situation. Then, the classification scheme issue came. We found that species, genus, class etc. are NOT the same thing used on bacteria and on animals. So my definition of evolution (speciation) may not apply to bacteria either (progress and learning to me). Obviously, we need to use an entirely "different" criteria (genetic) to evaluate the changes happened to bacteria. While I agree that evolution "can be" defined as change with time, it is not the one underlain the OP. In the evolution/creation debate, the default definition of evolution is the species evolution happened to plants/animals. It seems that we can agree now that this definition does not apply to bacteria.

Now, a vague or an improperly defined term does not eliminate the problem. Bacteria, one of the earliest form of life appeared on the earth, are still dramatically different from megascopic form of lives in their mechanism of evolution. With this understanding or modification, the question in the OP STILL STANDS. All the debates happened so far only served to clarify the question of the OP.

 

[Split Rock]

Yes, you did give a few examples. However, it is not easy for me to evaluate your examples. The only thing I can tell is that your examples do not represent the normal situation. Then, the classification scheme issue came. We found that species, genus, class etc. are NOT the same thing used on bacteria and on animals. So my definition of evolution (speciation) may not apply to bacteria either (progress and learning to me). Obviously, we need to use an entirely "different" criteria (genetic) to evaluate the changes happened to bacteria. While I agree that evolution "can be" defined as change with time, it is not the one underlain the OP. In the evolution/creation debate, the default definition of evolution is the species evolution happened to plants/animals. It seems that we can agree now that this definition does not apply to bacteria.

Now, a vague or an improperly defined term does not eliminate the problem. Bacteria, one of the earliest form of life appeared on the earth, are still dramatically different from megascopic form of lives in their mechanism of evolution. With this understanding or modification, the question in the OP STILL STANDS. All the debates happened so far only served to clarify the question of the OP.

Bacteria are very diverse in their morphology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bacterial_morphology_diagram.svg), metabolism, and genetics. If genetics is what you want to key in on, here's a little factoid for you: Most bacteria have a single circular chromosome that can range in size from only 160,000 base pairs in the endosymbiotic bacteria Candidatus Carsonella ruddii,[105] to 12,200,000 base pairs in the soil-dwelling bacteria Sorangium cellulosum. (wikipedia) How is that for differences in genetic diversity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria

Your question still seems to be, why are there still bacteria? That has been answered, yet you still are not satisfied. At this point, I really don't know what you want.

 

[Vene]

I know what he wants, he wants to say that bacteria don't evolve. To hell with facts.

 

[Tomk80]

Yes, you did give a few examples. However, it is not easy for me to evaluate your examples. The only thing I can tell is that your examples do not represent the normal situation.

What "normal situation". If it happens in nature, it is normal.

Then, the classification scheme issue came. We found that species, genus, class etc. are NOT the same thing used on bacteria and on animals.

No, what I showed was that assignments to a certain clade (genus, family etc) is arbitrary in all organisms. In that way, bacteria do not differ from animals, since even amongst animals these classifications are not used consistently either. The only naturally occurring clade is the species, the rest is arbitrary.

So my definition of evolution (speciation) may not apply to bacteria either (progress and learning to me).

Speciation does apply to bacteria. Sex is the exchange of genetic material, speciation the point where this exchange is no longer possible. This exchange of genetic material happens between bacteria and can be impossible if the genetic distance between bacteria is too large, just as in animals. It is not the only criterium for designating a different species (neither in bacteria, nor in animals or plants), but as we have seen in this thread, it is one of the criteria used.

Obviously, we need to use an entirely "different" criteria (genetic) to evaluate the changes happened to bacteria.

To evaluate the changes that happened to animals, we need the exact same criterium. Of course, we can also use morphology to determine what happened with bacteria, another thing that you continuously keep ignoring. Not all bacteria look alike, for from it.

While I agree that evolution "can be" defined as change with time, it is not the one underlain the OP.

I couldn't care less. Learn some biology.

In the evolution/creation debate, the default definition of evolution is the species evolution happened to plants/animals.

No, the default definition is the one applied in biology, change in allele frequency over time in a population. That is the only rigorous definition of biology, no matter how much you deny it.

And as I and others have already shown in this thread, speciation also happens within bacteria.

It seems that we can agree now that this definition does not apply to bacteria.

No, we cannot. If you want to apply the same definition of speciation across all animals and plants consistently, the definition you need to use is the stop of the exchange of genetic material between two populations. This happens in bacteria just as it happens in animals, plants and fungi.

Now, a vague or an improperly defined term does not eliminate the problem. Bacteria, one of the earliest form of life appeared on the earth, are still dramatically different from megascopic form of lives in their mechanism of evolution.

Animals are also dramatically different from each other. If you don't think it's a problem for animals to be dramatically different, if you want to be consistent there is no problem in bacteria being just as different.

With this understanding or modification, the question in the OP STILL STANDS. All the debates happened so far only served to clarify the question of the OP.

The question in the OP was answered in the first few pages. Which part do you deem unanswered?

 

[juvenissun]

If you take animals as the definition of what life is, then bacteria (and plants) aren't even alive. It's meaningless.

May be what you said is true. Only lives created on Day 5 (and Day 6) are counted as lives. That is why Adam (and animals) is allowed to eat plants (not lives).