Evolution?

[juvenissun]

Far as I know, up to now that only has succeeded with smallpox.


Good for them, if they would they'd stop existing as a species, given that they killed our food. I for one wouldn't be so sure that it isn't bacteria harvesting us instead of vice versa.


If we kill them, we die. How are we better?

I am not sure. We (and other animals) are just smart enough to use them like we once used slaves. Why would we die without some bacteria live within us? I think those bacteria just "changed" (not evolved), so they won't die within us. They simply take the advantages of their ability to make fast genetic change in order to adopt whatever environment they are in. That, to me, is a sign of low and primitive life.

 

[juvenissun]

I wonder how much of the perceived variation in the OP is a question of scale. To us bacteria look pretty similar and animals show wonderful variety. Yet to an e-coli we probably look pretty much the same as a cow. On the other hand our immune system learns to recognise some bug and deal with it, then it undergoes a simple little mutation and changes sugar or protein on the outside and suddenly our immune system is all 'hello, who are you, would you like to come in for coffee'.

Good point. But the property of shape is more related to symmetry, rather than to size. Put any shape to a distance, they would all look like a dot.

I would say all bacteria have highly symmetrical forms when compared with trees/animals. I am not sure what is the biological advantage of having asymmetrical morphology. A spherical bacterium looks pretty slick.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I am not sure. We (and other animals) are just smart enough to use them like we once used slaves. Why would we die without some bacteria live within us? I think those bacteria just "changed" (not evolved), so they won't die within us. They simply take the advantages of their ability to make fast genetic change in order to adopt whatever environment they are in. That, to me, is a sign of low and primitive life.

When you, I or anyone else eats food, very little is digested in our stomachs. After which, it travels through your intestines where it is further digested by bacteria. The bacteria also produce vitamins; whist the food gets digested, therefore humans gets vitamins (essential to life) and the bacteria get a free meal.

Humans cannot live alone, we are a symbiotic system, like it or not.

 

[Tomk80]

Sure we did. Otherwise, Homo Sapients (and all other animals) won't survive.

No, it just is good enough. Meaning that bacteria kill people, just not every last one. As I said, it's an arms race. Succes is never defined as "killing every last one of the others".

By the way, it's Homo sapiens, not sapients.

I think this is an example on the advantage of being a multi-cellular life. That is why eukaryote cells evolved (see the advantages), but bacteria does not. May be they are genetically more variable, but they used a wrong strategy in the course of evolution and never corrected themselves. So they are sort of "stupid".

Again, bacteria have evolved, even by your idiotic attempt to define "evolved" as "speciated". They even evolved multicellularity, as has also already been demonstrated to you. And quite a lot of them are still single-celled.

And how can you even talk about a wrong strategy? Bacteria are found in more environments, in larger numbers in more diversity than all eukaryotes taken together. They win out on every front in that respect.

What do you even mean when you talk about "success" any way. I suspect that, as with all your statements, what you call success is something inherently different from all other members of this forum, if not every single living person on this world.

 

[Tomk80]

I am not sure. We (and other animals) are just smart enough to use them like we once used slaves. Why would we die without some bacteria live within us?

Because they provide us with essential nutrients. They use us to get their food and in exchange, provide us with essential nutrients. It's a mutual beneficial relationship, not a relationship with only one beneficiary ("used as slaves").

I think those bacteria just "changed" (not evolved), so they won't die within us.

Because you don't know what you are talking about. Googling takes a few minutes, you know.

They simply take the advantages of their ability to make fast genetic change in order to adopt whatever environment they are in. That, to me, is a sign of low and primitive life.

Succes is a sign of low and primitive life?

 

[Tomk80]

Good point. But the property of shape is more related to symmetry, rather than to size. Put any shape to a distance, they would all look like a dot.

So? None of the enlargements of bacteria you've been shown look like a dot. That's the point of microscopic pictures.

I would say all bacteria have highly symmetrical forms when compared with trees/animals.

Because there is not an animal with symmetry.

*look in mirror*

Oh...

I am not sure what is the biological advantage of having asymmetrical morphology. A spherical bacterium looks pretty slick.

Pseudonomas in the pictures shows bilateral symmetry. So do humans. Are we now of the same shape?

Anyone have any idea what the point of Juvenissun's post was supposed to be?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I am not sure. We (and other animals) are just smart enough to use them like we once used slaves. Why would we die without some bacteria live within us? I think those bacteria just "changed" (not evolved), so they won't die within us. They simply take the advantages of their ability to make fast genetic change in order to adopt whatever environment they are in. That, to me, is a sign of low and primitive life.

Bacterial mutualism is a symbiotic relationship. A good example is the huge numbers of bacteria in the human intestinal tract. If dried out, at least 10 % of the human weight would be bacteria. The bacteria act to breakdown foodstuff and therefore aid the host animal, in this case humans. As well, certain bacteria produce products that are crucial to health, such as Vitamin K, B12, biotin and riboflavin, which we cannot produce yourselves.

Therefore humans are not a single special creature; we are a bag of co-existing creatures living symbiotically for mutual benefit. This said not all symbiotic relationships are beneficial to both sides; in fact some are detrimental to both sides.

And lets not forget mitochondria, a bacteria that invaded our ancestors body billions of years ago and without which no higher forms of life would exist, at least as we know them.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I am not sure. We (and other animals) are just smart enough to use them like we once used slaves. Why would we die without some bacteria live within us? I think those bacteria just "changed" (not evolved), so they won't die within us. They simply take the advantages of their ability to make fast genetic change in order to adopt whatever environment they are in. That, to me, is a sign of low and primitive life.

Double post: sorry

 

[Naraoia]

OK. So we do not know why are bacteria showing much simpler morphology than trees/animals.

Huh?

I do not know. (If "we" means you and I then you are right, I guess ).

That doesn't mean no one knows. Remember, I'm just a nosy undergrad.

And anyway, I don't think I said anything about bacteria as opposed to animals. Definitely didn't want to. I just pointed out that (1) I have very little idea of what sigma factors do and (2) the number of whatever type of gene regulating factor alone tells us little about the amount of morphological variation in a group, even if said factor is involved in morphology.

 

[Naraoia]

Sure we did. Otherwise, Homo Sapients (and all other animals) won't survive.

And if we really "beat them solidly" then they would not survive.

Are there still disease-causing bacteria?

I think this is an example on the advantage of being a multi-cellular life. That is why eukaryote cells evolved (see the advantages), but bacteria does not. May be they are genetically more variable, but they used a wrong strategy in the course of evolution and never corrected themselves. So they are sort of "stupid".

Wrong strategy? If anything, being tiny lone prokaryotic cells is the best strategy life has ever invented. It has lived through all the hardships of the past four billion years (including the appearance of eukaryotes!) and it's still highly successful in a much wider range of environments than our puny eukaryotic relatives can endure.

As for "never correcting", have you never heard of MRSA?

 

[Naraoia]

I am not sure. We (and other animals) are just smart enough to use them like we once used slaves.

Meet Wolbachia and Pasteuria ramosa.

Who uses whom, really?

 

[juvenissun]

And how can you even talk about a wrong strategy? Bacteria are found in more environments, in larger numbers in more diversity than all eukaryotes taken together. They win out on every front in that respect.

What do you even mean when you talk about "success" any way. I suspect that, as with all your statements, what you call success is something inherently different from all other members of this forum, if not every single living person on this world.

This is an example of argument that I don't like the most about evolution from any point of view. When convenient, evolutionist said that something "wins" in evolution struggle. When necessary, they said there is no such thing called "success". When a goal is needed (to release environmental stress), they said things evolved toward the goal. When the goal could not be identified, they said evolution is not about reaching any goal. When attacked from one way, evolution ALWAYS has many ways to escape. But put all cases together, many principles of evolution contradict to one another. Even in that situation, there is still an escape: the processes work to give the most benefit to a life form "at different places (niches) in different time". We have seen all these options in this long thread. The methodology of argument is simply opportunistic and non-sensical.

I think I am good enough in defending evolution from ANT attack just by giving a few examples to illustrate what it is NOT, rather than trying to prove what it is. In fact, anyone can do that. It is no better than saying God does it.

 

[juvenissun]

So? None of the enlargements of bacteria you've been shown look like a dot. That's the point of microscopic pictures.


Because there is not an animal with symmetry.

*look in mirror*

Oh...


Pseudonomas in the pictures shows bilateral symmetry. So do humans. Are we now of the same shape?

Anyone have any idea what the point of Juvenissun's post was supposed to be?

You do not know symmetry geometry.

Most animals have symmetry in "m" class, which has one reflective plane and is just slightly better than non-symmetrical. But bacteria seems have at least one dimension which is circular (the most symmetrical form), with at least one two-fold symmetrical axis.

 

[juvenissun]

And if we really "beat them solidly" then they would not survive.

Are there still disease-causing bacteria?

Wrong strategy? If anything, being tiny lone prokaryotic cells is the best strategy life has ever invented. It has lived through all the hardships of the past four billion years (including the appearance of eukaryotes!) and it's still highly successful in a much wider range of environments than our puny eukaryotic relatives can endure.

As for "never correcting", have you never heard of MRSA?

This repeats the argument I made before: Bacteria is the most successful life form on earth. All plants and animals are simply evolutional mistakes. (Yeah, I know, evolution makes no mistakes, it just adapts. I certainly heard this argument before).

I start to feel bored.

 

[Vene]

*adds geometry to list of subjects juvenissun knows nothing about*
We're bilaterally symmetrical. There are also (multicellular) organisms with radial symmetry.(link)

Why do you insist on using your own definitions? Is this another case of the mountain incident?

 

[Nathan Poe]

This repeats the argument I made before: Bacteria is the most successful life form on earth. All plants and animals are simply evolutional mistakes. (Yeah, I know, evolution makes no mistakes, it just adapts. I certainly heard this argument before).

Heard, yes -- understand... very iffy.

I start to feel bored.

A chimp might start getting restless during a Mozart symphony -- hardly Mozart's fault.

 

[Tomk80]

This is an example of argument that I don't like the most about evolution from any point of view. When convenient, evolutionist said that something "wins" in evolution struggle. When necessary, they said there is no such thing called "success". When a goal is needed (to release environmental stress), they said things evolved toward the goal. When the goal could not be identified, they said evolution is not about reaching any goal. When attacked from one way, evolution ALWAYS has many ways to escape. But put all cases together, many principles of evolution contradict to one another. Even in that situation, there is still an escape: the processes work to give the most benefit to a life form "at different places (niches) in different time". We have seen all these options in this long thread. The methodology of argument is simply opportunistic and non-sensical.

I think I am good enough in defending evolution from ANT attack just by giving a few examples to illustrate what it is NOT, rather than trying to prove what it is. In fact, anyone can do that. It is no better than saying God does it.

It's really very simple. In evolution, success is nothing else than having your children's children survive. This success is achieved by different species in different ways. It is not a directional process, it is only guided by a number of random processes (mutation, genetic drift) and a number of selective pressures (environment, other organisms of the same and different species). That is all it is. The rest derives logically from this. Even if there is only one species available at a point in time, some may get a mutation that makes them smaller but reproduce quicker, while others will get a mutation that makes them bigger, less vulnerable but not as quick to reproduce. In a single environment, both strategies can work. All your so-called contradictions etc can be drawn back to your unwillingness to accept this process, even though it has been observed in nature in exactly this kind of ways. This has been explained to you, but is ignored by you. It is not logically contradictory, but simply follows from observation.

The way people talk about this (reaching goals, evolving toward a goal etc) are ways to convey this concept, not meant literally. This also has already been explained to you. But then, you seem to have hard time picking up anything shown to you.

 

[Tomk80]

You do not know symmetry geometry.

Even if that would be true my knowledge on symmetry is still better than yours on biology

Most animals have symmetry in "m" class, which has one reflective plane and is just slightly better than non-symmetrical. But bacteria seems have at least one dimension which is circular (the most symmetrical form), with at least one two-fold symmetrical axis.

Problem is that if you want to define symmetry this way, which is fine by me, a number of worms also have at least one circular dimension. Are different species of worms not morphologically different if they have a circular dimension?

Again, what's your point?

 

[Tomk80]

This repeats the argument I made before: Bacteria is the most successful life form on earth. All plants and animals are simply evolutional mistakes. (Yeah, I know, evolution makes no mistakes, it just adapts. I certainly heard this argument before).

Life finds different ways to survive. That, again, is just a basic observation of nature. You fail at the very basics. Have you ever even been outside? Reading your posts, it seems like you're actually locked up in a dark, sterile cellar, with only an internet connection that has all links to sites even slightly biological in nature tightly blocked.

Should we maybe start at the beginning with you? This is a sheep:

It doesn't talk. It goes "baaah". Can you make that noise Juvenissun. "Baaah".

I start to feel bored.

That's because it only gets interesting if you put some effort in, instead of making empty assertions.

 

[Bombila]

How can you be bored with minute lifeforms when there are things like cordyceps out there? It ain't pretty, what it does, but it certainly isn't boring.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=xa0uxeHDgBg&feature=related