Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.It seems fungus and bacteria do not evolve since their creation. Is it correct? If so, why don't they?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.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?
At least you've got a sense of humour.But I think I can give cell biologist some explanation work to do.
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.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.
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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?