Evolution?

[Wiccan_Child]

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

That is incorrect. Evolution in fungi and bacteria is much more easily observable, due to their short lifespans. Two quintessential examples: nylon-eating Flavobacterium, and citrate-eating E. coli.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

terrestrial vertebrates are descended from aquatic vertebrates, yet aquatic vertebrates still exist. terrestrial vertebrates are descended from a single branch of aquatic vertebrate, all others essentially remained aquatic. evolution is not teleological and there are no inevitabilities other than the simple axiom of evolve or be extinct.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Multicellular life would have evolved from single-celled life. But not all single-celled life would have evolved into multi-celled life.

And no, they would not encounter all the same environmental changes on Earth. Each environmental niche is unto itself and even other organisms make up an individual organism's environmental niche.

Sounds like Juvenissun is recycling the old Creationist Trash Argument: "If man evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?"

 

[juvenissun]

Ah I get you, you want to discuss it in the science framework, not usually what creationists mean when they talk of things being created. If you have been looking at it from a six day creation pov, I thought it was interesting you chose two form of life not mentioned in Genesis. Nevermind

If I wanted to talk about creation, I will not come to this forum.

 

[eMesreveR]

If I wanted to talk about creation, I will not come to this forum.

If you wanted to learn, you would not have consistently replied so disrespectfully, sarcastically, and provocatively. Just because someone tells you that the Earth is 6000 years old does not mean it is true. Just because someone tells you that the Earth is 4 billion years old does not mean it is true. Examine the evidence.

That's what science is about. Science isn't about what's Absolutely True and what isn't. It's about the best procedure to FIND the truth - the Scientific Method. Every advance since the advent of modern western civilization has been due to this process. Our "Scientific knowledge" arises due to this process. And it changes due to this process.

And suddenly this process is invalid when it comes to Evolution? Bullpocky.

Do you want to learn? If so, then tell us what evidence you have to support your view. Tell us what evidence would help convince you. What evidence you're looking for.

Because if no amount of evidence will convince you to change your opinion, then we are at an impasse and there is no reason to continue.

 

[juvenissun]

2) There is a discordance between evolution of phenotypes and genotypes. So a particular species could actually undergo a lot of genetic evolution throughout a period of history, but remain relatively unchanged in terms of its physical form. OTOH, a species could undergo rapid change in phenotype, but comparatively less evolution genetically.

This is a better response I expected. Several questions could follow, to fit the OP better, I just take one here:

So, the bacteria have been evolving genetically in the past 4 billion years. Then how are today's bacteria different from, say, bacteria 50 million years ago? 150 million years ago? 500 million years ago? etc. Was the change linear or was it random? If random, why?

I am not sure we can study the genetics of bacteria lived millions of years ago. But we certainly can do that in modern time. Can we predict how would a particular bacterium "change" in respond to some stimulation? And if we reverse the change, would the bacterium change "back"?

From this perspective, bacteria seems only respond to environmental change, but not really "evolve" to anything other than bacteria. Otherwise, we would give a different name to it.

I am not any kind of biologist, so I don't care if I am criticized as ignorant here (i.e. save your insult). But I think I can give cell biologist some explanation work to do.

 

[juvenissun]

If you wanted to learn, you would not have consistently replied so disrespectfully, sarcastically, and provocatively. Just because someone tells you that the Earth is 6000 years old does not mean it is true. Just because someone tells you that the Earth is 4 billion years old does not mean it is true. Examine the evidence.

That's what science is about. Science isn't about what's Absolutely True and what isn't. It's about the best procedure to FIND the truth - the Scientific Method. Every advance since the advent of modern western civilization has been due to this process. Our "Scientific knowledge" arises due to this process. And it changes due to this process.

And suddenly this process is invalid when it comes to Evolution? Bullpocky.

Do you want to learn? If so, then tell us what evidence you have to support your view. Tell us what evidence would help convince you. What evidence you're looking for.

Because if no amount of evidence will convince you to change your opinion, then we are at an impasse and there is no reason to continue.

I am not trying to ignore you. But I really don't know what to reply. Your comment is empty regards to the OP.

 

[juvenissun]

terrestrial vertebrates are descended from aquatic vertebrates, yet aquatic vertebrates still exist. terrestrial vertebrates are descended from a single branch of aquatic vertebrate, all others essentially remained aquatic. evolution is not teleological and there are no inevitabilities other than the simple axiom of evolve or be extinct.

I am not saying that bacteria should not exist today. I am saying they DO NOT EVOLVE into anything else. If this is true, then the question is Why? Plants evolved, animals evolved, why not bacteria?

 

[juvenissun]

That is incorrect. Evolution in fungi and bacteria is much more easily observable, due to their short lifespans. Two quintessential examples: nylon-eating Flavobacterium, and citrate-eating E. coli.

If the nature could not make E.Coli evolve to a non-E.Coli in 4 billion years, I don't think we can do that either in no-matter-how-many years.

If you do not agree, then tell me which bacterium is evolved from E.Coli?

 

[Bombila]

(sigh..) Scorned again.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Isn't this just a version of "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes"?

 

[Blayz]

So, the bacteria have been evolving genetically in the past 4 billion years.

Yes

Then how are today's bacteria different from, say, bacteria 50 million years ago? 150 million years ago? 500 million years ago? etc.

No idea. genes and metabolites don't fossilise.

Was the change linear or was it random? If random, why?

Why the dichotomy? What if it was linear and random...or neither? It was probably more like it is today, an incredibly entangled shrubery.

I am not sure we can study the genetics of bacteria lived millions of years ago.

we cant.

But we certainly can do that in modern time. Can we predict how would a particular bacterium "change" in respond to some stimulation?

In some cases yes, in others, no.

And if we reverse the change, would the bacterium change "back"?

In some cases yes, in others, no.

From this perspective, bacteria seems only respond to environmental change, but not really "evolve" to anything other than bacteria.

Evolution in action. No evolving out of lineage.


And there was no E coli 4 billion years ago. Ecoli lives in the guts of animals. No animals...no Ecoli.

It seems to me that this is a variation on the cat giving birth to a canary pratt. You seem to the think that we should be able to observe a gross morphological change in bacteria, even though the last one took 4 billion years.

 

[[serious]]

You seem to misunderstand how phylogeny works. E coli haven't had "4 billion years" to evolve into "not E coli". E. coli is itself a product of billions of years of evolutionary selection. It has many features that have been added over that period of time:
1. aerobic respiration
2. flagella
3. Bacterial conjugation

That's just to name a few. Please note that number 1 there represents a MAJOR change in life at the time. oxygen was likely toxic to early life as it is to some specialized forms of bacteria today.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

So, the bacteria have been evolving genetically in the past 4 billion years. Then how are today's bacteria different from, say, bacteria 50 million years ago? 150 million years ago? 500 million years ago? etc. Was the change linear or was it random? If random, why?

We can't study the genomes of ancient bacteria, because those genomes are not preserved. At best, we can do comparative studies of contemporary bacteria to see where they fit in terms of evolutionary relationships with each other and perhaps how and why certain bacteria evolved the way they did.

I'm not really sure what you mean by linear or random in this context.

Can we predict how would a particular bacterium "change" in respond to some stimulation? And if we reverse the change, would the bacterium change "back"?

Yes, plenty of experiments have been done on bacteria evolution. And while you can apply selective pressure to favor certain traits in a population, and removing that pressure would cause those traits to not be favored any longer, there will still be overall genetic change in the population. Genotypes are not fixed.

From this perspective, bacteria seems only respond to environmental change, but not really "evolve" to anything other than bacteria. Otherwise, we would give a different name to it.

You have to understand that bacteria are incredibly diverse. Indeed, they form one of the three major domains of life with Archaea and Eukaryotes being the other two (note that Eukaryotes includes all animals, plants, protists, and other forms of life). I recall reading that there is more genetic difference between certain forms of bacteria than there is between humans and plants.

So talking about them as though they don't evolve into anything other than bacteria is like saying that eukaryotes haven't evolved into anything other than eukaryotes. Probably not the point you wanted to make.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I am not saying that bacteria should not exist today. I am saying they DO NOT EVOLVE into anything else. If this is true, then the question is Why? Plants evolved, animals evolved, why not bacteria?

bacteria evolve into other kinds of bacteria. there are MANY bacteria. more of them than anything else. again there is no inevitability to multicellularity or eukaryocity.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

The other point to this is that everything is the sum of its ancestry so nothing really becomes NOT what it evolved from. we are really just differentiated colonial organelled bacteria. we still retain several features of our fish ancestry (skeletal system) and our amphibian ancestry (5 digits and well-developed lungs) and our reptilian ancestry (keratinous epidermal layers). we are still apes, at some point we had an ancestor that was an ancient monkey and we retain several genes and features from that ancestor that we share with modern day monkeys. birds are still dinosaurs.

bacteria dont have to become something completely new like multicellular organisms, they just have to evolve. anyway bacteria are probably too simple to be multicellular. multicellularity has developed multiple times in the eukaryotes. even that doesnt guarantee that all eukaryote groups are destined to become multicellular. the only rule for evolution is that it must occur or extinction does in its place.

 

[Tomk80]

But I think I can give cell biologist some explanation work to do.

At least you've got a sense of humour.

 

[Tomk80]

You have to understand that bacteria are incredibly diverse. Indeed, they form one of the three major domains of life with Archaea and Eukaryotes being the other two (note that Eukaryotes includes all animals, plants, protists, and other forms of life). I recall reading that there is more genetic difference between certain forms of bacteria than there is between humans and plants.

So talking about them as though they don't evolve into anything other than bacteria is like saying that eukaryotes haven't evolved into anything other than eukaryotes. Probably not the point you wanted to make.

But it is one of the major misunderstandings creationists have. People like Juvenissun don't realize that nothing in evolution ever "leaves" it's ancestral group. Rather, the ancestral group diversifies into different directions. A human is still an ape, a mammal, a quadruped and a eukaryote. We still belong to all ancestral groups we evolved from. My guesstimate is that at least half of the creationist misunderstandings we get on this forum are of this kind.

 

[JBJoe]

I am not saying that bacteria should not exist today. I am saying they DO NOT EVOLVE into anything else. If this is true, then the question is Why? Plants evolved, animals evolved, why not bacteria?

If you compare the total percentage of humans killed by bacteria to the total percentage of bacteria killed by humans, I think you'll find that bacteria are winning the war.

From the evolutionary perspective of the bacteria, what is so great about being multicellular?

 

[juvenissun]

It seems to me that this is a variation on the cat giving birth to a canary pratt. You seem to the think that we should be able to observe a gross morphological change in bacteria, even though the last one took 4 billion years.

Yes, it is what I am thinking. What is wrong with that? Should everything evolve with time? Numerous plants did that, numerous animals did that, why not bacteria?

Yes, I heard it. Bacteria changes. But it does not change (evolve) like plants and animals. It stayed the same in such a long long time. Why?

Let's see it this way: Do we expect bacteria to evolve into something which is not bacteria any more? I believe many evolutionists are working on it. That means the answer is yes. That also means we do not have any reason to believe that bacteria will not evolve. But it did not.