Evolution?

[juvenissun]

The fact that you can predict where a process is going doesn't mean that process has a goal. What's the goal of a falling raindrop? Sodium chloride dissolving in water? Burning gas heating a pot of soup?

A goal means a direction toward which situation develops. So, all your examples have so called "goals". I do accept that one goal of evolution is to survive.

But, bacteria are survivalists. So, why not eukaryotic cells do what bacteria always do? Instead, they evolved into other life forms more fragile in surviving.

 

[juvenissun]

Because prokaryotes and eukaryotes occupy different ecological niches.

So why were niches occupied by eukaryotic cells less favorable than that occupied by bacteria (so they have to evolve)? How bad was the niche to eukaryotes? Why didn't they simply move to a more favorable niches?

 

[Tomk80]

So why were niches occupied by eukaryotic cells less favorable than that occupied by bacteria (so they have to evolve)? How bad was the niche to eukaryotes?

They weren't less favorable. They're still here and have diversified, haven't they?

Why didn't they simply move to a more favorable niches?

Why are you contending that they didn't? That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[juvenissun]

Did you pick a random page with the word "biology" in it? All you do is redefine words to fit your arguments (ex. mountains, evolution, symmetry).

I told you something you do not know. You should humbly learn. That is the basic attitude of being a science student. This forum is no different from a classroom.

And for no good reason at all (because you'll just say it's not evolution or something equally stupid):
An example of bacteria evolution

Somehow I could not reach to this server.

 

[juvenissun]

No problem, it was loooong ago. I wasn't even sure it was in this thread. This strokes my wannabe scientist ego I think Juvenissun has problems with the English language or something. He seems to miss an awful lot of points.

You have to be considerate to me by knowing that I am NOT a biologist. I read your message with a filter. I only pick up points I can understand. I know I missed many good contents in some good arguments. But I don't have time to study them.

 

[pgp_protector]

I told you something you do not know. You should humbly learn. That is the basic attitude of being a science student. This forum is no different from a classroom.

That sound like it may be a problem with the classrooms you've been in then.

Somehow I could not reach to this server.

Resolves just fine for me.

 

[Bombila]

You have to be considerate to me by knowing that I am NOT a biologist. I read your message with a filter. I only pick up points I can understand. I know I missed many good contents in some good arguments. But I don't have time to study them.

Neither am I a biologist, or any kind of scientist. Did you read my last post?

 

[Split Rock]

So why were niches occupied by eukaryotic cells less favorable than that occupied by bacteria (so they have to evolve)? How bad was the niche to eukaryotes? Why didn't they simply move to a more favorable niches?

Bacteria occupy those ecological niches in which they are more successful (more fit) compared to eukaryotes. Eukaryotes occupy ecological niches in which they are more successful compared to bacteria. Is there something confusing to you about this?

 

[Tomk80]

Bacteria occupy those ecological niches in which they are more successful (more fit) compared to eukaryotes. Eukaryotes occupy ecological niches in which they are more successful compared to bacteria. Is there something confusing to you about this?

It seems to me that for Juvenissun, a species is only successfull if it's the only species left. World domination!

 

[Vene]

I told you something you do not know. You should humbly learn. That is the basic attitude of being a science student. This forum is no different from a classroom.

So you link to a page talking about proteins when we're discussing symmetry? I study biochemistry. If you have a point tell me what it is.

And if this forum is like a classroom I (or Naraoia, Tom, Split Rock, ChoratesLegacy, or Bombila) should be the one lecturing you seeing as I'm the one who actually studies biological systems.

 

[Vene]

A goal means a direction toward which situation develops. So, all your examples have so called "goals". I do accept that one goal of evolution is to survive.

Holy anthropomorphism Batman! Gravity, evolution, and thermodynamics are blind process without goals. They just are, it's not like the universe thinks.

But, bacteria are survivalists. So, why not eukaryotic cells do what bacteria always do? Instead, they evolved into other life forms more fragile in surviving.

Because evolution is a blind process. Because eukaryotes are very capable of surviving. Because as long as the body structure works and allows for the individual to reproduce there will be positive selection pressure on its genes.

You're making this harder than it is. When eukaryotes evolved there was no competition against them. It was as eukaryotes evolved into different species that they experienced more and more competition, plus bacteria evolved right beside them. As eukaryotes got bigger some bacteria evolved to be parasitic. Things cannot evolve back to a previous ancestor so eukaryotic organisms were stuck that way.

As for diversity, of course bacteria are going to be more diverse, they have a 2 billion year head start.

 

[Bombila]

So why were niches occupied by eukaryotic cells less favorable than that occupied by bacteria (so they have to evolve)? How bad was the niche to eukaryotes? Why didn't they simply move to a more favorable niches?

Are you not aware that environments change, not only on the macro scale, but on the micro scale? Anything could have happened to change the environment of a lifeform, regardless of its being single celled or multicellular. An erupting volcano could change the mineral content of a water body. A mudslide could cut a cool stream off from a pond, which consequently became warmer, or a stream could enter a previously warm pond. A hydrovent could open on the seabed, changing conditions for whatever species lived nearby. Countless ordinary events of landscape and weather are daily changing micro-environments, now as then. We aren't talking about creatures that could travel a great distance in a short time, remember, as long as we're on bacteria and early eukaryotes.

Remember, not all eukaryotes evolved into multicellular lifeforms. There are still living single celled eukaryotes today. This Google image page links to articles and images of modern unicellular eukaryotes, also called protists:

http://images.google.com/images?q=m...F-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLR&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

This is not difficult. This is common sense; you should be able to imagine such possibilities from everyday interaction with the real world. I can only guess, since you think this is a hard question, that you live in a large city and rarely observe ordinary natural events.

 

[juvenissun]

They weren't less favorable. They're still here and have diversified, haven't they?


Why are you contending that they didn't? That doesn't make any sense at all.

It does. It compares one situation with another.
If the niches are of the same quality, then why would eukaryote cells evolve "differently" (in statistical sense) than bacteria? The niches MUST be different. I am asking WHAT are the differences so one went this way and one went other ways.

 

[juvenissun]

Because evolution is a blind process.
.

I don't think evolution is a blind process. Just look at the life tree. Would you say that it is made by a blind, random process? Of course not.

You obviously do not understand what evolution is. (Ha ha, it is my turn, isn't it?)

 

[juvenissun]

Neither am I a biologist, or any kind of scientist. Did you read my last post?

You are interested in this subject. That make a big difference. I am NOT interested in this thing. You can see all my arguments in this thread are logic related, but not content related.

 

[juvenissun]

Bacteria occupy those ecological niches in which they are more successful (more fit) compared to eukaryotes. Eukaryotes occupy ecological niches in which they are more successful compared to bacteria. Is there something confusing to you about this?

No. But it did not answer the question. Why then eukaryotes evolved extensively into multicellular lives, but bacteria did not (not counting few very rare examples, even those, did not go very far).

 

[Tomk80]

It does. It compares one situation with another.
If the niches are of the same quality, then why would eukaryote cells evolve "differently" (in statistical sense) than bacteria? The niches MUST be different.

Who said the niches are of the same quality?

I am asking WHAT are the differences so one went this way and one went other ways.

The same environment can have different niches. I already pointed that out. In the same environment, both being small and large can have advantages.

 

[Tomk80]

You are interested in this subject. That make a big difference. I am NOT interested in this thing. You can see all my arguments in this thread are logic related, but not content related.

No.

 

[Tomk80]

I don't think evolution is a blind process.

Figures.

Just look at the life tree. Would you say that it is made by a blind, random process? Of course not.

Random, no. Blind, yes.

You obviously do not understand what evolution is. (Ha ha, it is my turn, isn't it?)

No, it's not. Vene understands the theory evolution, you don't.

 

[juvenissun]

So you link to a page talking about proteins when we're discussing symmetry? I study biochemistry. If you have a point tell me what it is.

And if this forum is like a classroom I (or Naraoia, Tom, Split Rock, ChoratesLegacy, or Bombila) should be the one lecturing you seeing as I'm the one who actually studies biological systems.

I did not bother to check my link. I remember it now. It is talking about the symmetry of protein structure. I think it is a proper link to the issue.

So, all of you should give me lectures. But I feel that all of you are so desperately trying to answer my questions. So, either I am a super student or you are unqualified teachers. Some of you are even trying to insult difficult students. If this were an academic environment, those who insults should be kicked out.