Evolution?

[Tomk80]

I must say I like Juvenissun's style of argument. I'll take my conclusion and then I'll mangle the facts beyond recognition and ignore everything that argues against my position so I can maintain it. I think I'll coopt that style of argument, it's going to make writing my reports so much more easy.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Do not distract the issue by nitpicking on the definition of evolution. It is not the point. If you want one, here is mine: no speciation, no evolution.

(emphasis added)

So asking people to "not nitpick" Juvenissun wholesale redefines evolution as requiring specition.

However actual evolutionary biologists define it somewhat differently:

DEFINITION: Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.(SOURCE)

This reminds of when Juvenissun tried to claim volcanoes weren't mountains in another thread.

He is a wonder to behold.

(Again, he likely has me on ignore so if someone could pass this along to him, it might help him with his "definition" of evolution and how it is not considered a valid limitation by actual biologists)

 

[thaumaturgy]

Do you know what is learning and progress?
I wish you can do the same.

"Learning". That's funny coming from Juvenissun.

 

[Tomk80]

(emphasis added)

So asking people to "not nitpick" Juvenissun wholesale redefines evolution as requiring specition.

However actual evolutionary biologists define it somewhat differently:



This reminds of when Juvenissun tried to claim volcanoes weren't mountains in another thread.

He is a wonder to behold.

(Again, he likely has me on ignore so if someone could pass this along to him, it might help him with his "definition" of evolution and how it is not considered a valid limitation by actual biologists)

There you go, now he can see your response.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Because that was plants and animals did. Why should bacteria be different?

Because they're neither plants nor animals .

If life on earth evolved, everything should evolve. If one behaved so differently, then the principle of evolution should be revised to accommodate the exception.

What principle?

Evolutionary theory is grounded in the fact that things evolve to adapt to their surroundings. But there are different types of surroundings! Monocellular life is exceedingly good at surviving as they are, so multicellular is probably not beneficial to them.

I ask you again: why do you think that bacteria should have evolved to become multicellular?

 

[TheGnome]

This guy is still stuck on the idea that bacteria don't evolve. He hasn't quite got it that bacteria is actually an entire domain of organisms. He also completely rejects bacteria that are obviously multicellular by making whatever claims without doing the necessary reading.

I don't understand why people believe in stupid things sometimes. It's an amazing behavior that people would reject even the most basic facts for something they've completely made up.

 

[juvenissun]

Because they're neither plants nor animals .


What principle?

Evolutionary theory is grounded in the fact that things evolve to adapt to their surroundings. But there are different types of surroundings! Monocellular life is exceedingly good at surviving as they are, so multicellular is probably not beneficial to them.

I ask you again: why do you think that bacteria should have evolved to become multicellular?

Now, the argument is leaving biology. It goes more toward an argument on logic. The answer has been given in previous posts, but is repeated here:

1. Because environment changed. It made plants and animals evolve A LOT. So, why not bacteria?

2. If bacteria is good enough not to evolve, then why plants and animals did not evolve toward that direction, so they could also be better off?

 

[Tomk80]

Now, the argument is leaving biology. It goes more toward an argument on logic. The answer has been given in previous posts, but is repeated here:

1. Because environment changed. It made plants and animals evolve A LOT. So, why not bacteria?

2. If bacteria is good enough not to evolve, then why plants and animals did not evolve toward that direction, so they could also be better off?

Get this into your stupid, ignorant head. Bacteria evolved, as everybody on this thread has already explained but you ignored. Peole have shown you examples of multicellularity in bacteria, which you also ignored. People have explained that "bacteria" is an entire domain with as much difference in it as all eukaryotes together, which you also ignored.

I don't think you are just ignorant anymore. At this point, you're just plain dishonest.

 

[paug]

Now, the argument is leaving biology. It goes more toward an argument on logic. The answer has been given in previous posts, but is repeated here:

1. Because environment changed. It made plants and animals evolve A LOT. So, why not bacteria?

2. If bacteria is good enough not to evolve, then why plants and animals did not evolve toward that direction, so they could also be better off?

My oh my. Have you read anybody's posts in this thread?

Just to answer one thing from your post: evolution doesn't work towards a goal. Why would bacteria and animals and plants evolve in the same direction? (Btw, what is that direction you're talking about?) They live in completely different environments, and thus evolve in completely different directions.


Boys, i think we have a schizophrenic on our hands.

 

[Maximum]

What sort of proof would be good enough for you for you to accept the fact that bacteria evolved?

 

[Naraoia]

Juvenissun, I think you might have missed this post of mine. So I'm shamelessly quoting myself:

(You are asking why all bacteria didn't evolve into something as complex as us, right?)

You could ask the same questions on every scale. Why have lungfish not "evolved" into something else since the Devonian? Why have ferns not evolved flowers? Why have lampreys not evolved jaws? Inuit, a thick fur?

The precise answers probably change with the situation, but there are two broad reasons.

First, they didn't need them. Someone's also said this: every problem has more than one solution. Inuit didn't re-evolve fur because they could wear other animals' fur instead - and that was much quicker than any genetic adaptation. Lampreys don't need jaws to function as parasites.

Second, the right mutations just didn't come. Mutation is random, it doesn't follow your wishes or needs, and some changes may require many or rare mutations and lucky coincidences. This is the case with the citrate-eating E. coli: it's likely that "potentiating" mutations were needed to evolve the ability. While most strains didn't have the right stuff, the one that originally gave rise to the citrate-eating bacteria was more likely to produce them again when they "replayed" the experiment from earlier, frozen generations. It was a matter of sheer luck.

And often you don't strictly need a certain novelty to survive, even though it gives you an advantage in your current environment and/or access to new territory if you have it. That's probably the situation with fish and legs. Fish are fine in the water, some of them are fine in shallow water. They don't exactly need legs. But once they have something similar the land awaits.

Any comments on that?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Now, the argument is leaving biology. It goes more toward an argument on logic. The answer has been given in previous posts, but is repeated here:

1. Because environment changed. It made plants and animals evolve A LOT. So, why not bacteria?

2. If bacteria is good enough not to evolve, then why plants and animals did not evolve toward that direction, so they could also be better off?

The answer to both is: because bacteria are neither plants nor animals. Just because plants benefited from being multicelluar doesn't mean bacteria will also benefit. Given how good bacteria are at being monocellular, the benefit conferred to plants by being multicellular may simply be that they escaped their number one competition: bacteria.

It is also a gross oversimplification to say "environmental change made plants and animals evolve into multicellular organisms, so therefore the same change should have made bacteria evolve into multicelluar organisms". First, it is unlikely to be a solely environmental change. Second, the same change may have hindered the bacterium's ability to get food, thus making it easier for it to remain monocellular.

In short, there is no reason to expect everything to evolve a certain way, just because one particular species does.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Remember the bible when arguing with Juvenissun:

Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

[plindboe]

It seems juvenissun is asking why no species from Archaea and Eubacteria have achieved the same level of multicellular complexity that some eukaryotes have, when he states that bacteria haven't evolved. Laymen often have troubles speaking the exact language of science which is why communication about these issues is often difficult to achieve.

Perhaps the most important difference between the three domains is the cellular compartmentalization in eukaryotes. Why exactly this occured among the earliest eukaryotes is impossible to say for sure. Evolution is very shortsighted, and sometimes it just stumbles upon solutions, that can have great consequences in the distant future.

Peter

 

[Bombila]

It seems juvenissun is asking why no species from Archaea and Eubacteria have achieved the same level of multicellular complexity that some eukaryotes have, when he states that bacteria haven't evolved. Laymen often have troubles speaking the exact language of science which is why communication about these issues is often difficult to achieve.

Perhaps the most important difference between the three domains is the cellular compartmentalization in eukaryotes. Why exactly this occured among the earliest eukaryotes is impossible to say for sure. Evolution is very shortsighted, and sometimes it just stumbles upon solutions, that can have great consequences in the distant future.

Peter

Well, no. Most of what you say here has been repeatedly explained to juvenissun in multiple ways. The main difficulty remains, which is that despite being told repeatedly that evolution has no goal outside of survival to reproduce, he still indicates by his responses that he thinks 'more complex' is required to assume evolution happened, therefore, life sticking with one cell instead of all one-celled creatures becoming multi-celled indicates evolution does not happen to all life (this despite being shown that bacteria have evolved into different shapes, sizes, food sources, niches, etc.).

No offense, as everybody does it, but I think we unfortunately often use personalizing language to describe scientific concepts, which leads to confusion among the literal-minded, as in your saying: "Evolution is very shortsighted, and sometimes it just stumbles upon solutions...". This makes it sound as if evolution is a thinking, directing force, which in the mind of someone with a simple concept of God being a person who thinks, acts, and directs, implies scientists think of evolution as a kind of clumsy active god.

 

[plindboe]

Well, no. Most of what you say here has been repeatedly explained to juvenissun in multiple ways. The main difficulty remains, which is that despite being told repeatedly that evolution has no goal outside of survival to reproduce, he still indicates by his responses that he thinks 'more complex' is required to assume evolution happened, therefore, life sticking with one cell instead of all one-celled creatures becoming multi-celled indicates evolution does not happen to all life (this despite being shown that bacteria have evolved into different shapes, sizes, food sources, niches, etc.).

It's obvious he has several misunderstandings, but asking why there are such differences between the three domains is a valid question. Sure, it's important to explain to him that evolution doesn't have any long term goal, that increased complexity isn't a requirement of evolution, that there are multicellular bacteria, that bacteria have evolved into countless, shapes and sizes etc. But trying to see his underlying point, through all his misunderstandings, zeal and arrogance, there's still the interesting question as to why eukaryotes manage to achieve such extreme multicellular complexity as we see today, while bacteria haven't to an equal degree.

I tend to be the diplomat; always trying to understand what people are saying instead of worrying about the differences.

No offense, as everybody does it, but I think we unfortunately often use personalizing language to describe scientific concepts, which leads to confusion among the literal-minded, as in your saying: "Evolution is very shortsighted, and sometimes it just stumbles upon solutions...". This makes it sound as if evolution is a thinking, directing force, which in the mind of someone with a simple concept of God being a person who thinks, acts, and directs, implies scientists think of evolution as a kind of clumsy active god.

Using this kind of informal language is often a good way to communicate ideas though. It's true it might lead to misunderstandings as well. Whether to avoid it completely I'm not sure is the best strategy.

Peter

 

[Bombila]

We're human, so it isn't completely avoidable, Peter. But I can also just understand how a theist with a simple anthropomorphic belief can be confused by the way we talk about, for example, evolution. This, I think, is part of why some feel justified in accusing us of having 'evolution' as a religion. We don't , of course, but there are examples a-plenty out there of scientific colloquialisms or nicknames for things confusing the common sense out of people who don't grasp the science - how much confusion and misunderstanding could have been avoided if no one had ever used the term 'God particle', for instance?

 

[juvenissun]

It seems juvenissun is asking why no species from Archaea and Eubacteria have achieved the same level of multicellular complexity that some eukaryotes have, when he states that bacteria haven't evolved. Laymen often have troubles speaking the exact language of science which is why communication about these issues is often difficult to achieve.

Perhaps the most important difference between the three domains is the cellular compartmentalization in eukaryotes. Why exactly this occured among the earliest eukaryotes is impossible to say for sure. Evolution is very shortsighted, and sometimes it just stumbles upon solutions, that can have great consequences in the distant future.

Peter

I like the second part of this post. My response:

Evolution is playing on statistics. So, one critical content in the OP is the immense amount of time. We do not have to find out the exact reason of evolution long long time ago. But give enough time (chance) under a constantly changing environment, something NEED to happen and continue to happen. Otherwise, evolution would not be a valid idea. (please do not repeat the point that bacteria DO change, I know they change, but they do not evolve. And, don't say evolution is change (only) again!. That is not the definition used in this thread). Obviously, bacteria defied this principle.

 

[paug]

Ah, so you have your own definition of evolution! Wonderful.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Evolution is playing on statistics. So, one critical content in the OP is the immense amount of time. We do not have to find out the exact reason of evolution long long time ago. But give enough time (chance) under a constantly changing environment, something NEED to happen and continue to happen. Otherwise, evolution would not be a valid idea. (please do not repeat the point that bacteria DO change, I know they change, but they do not evolve. And, don't say evolution is change (only) again!. That is not the definition used in this thread). Obviously, bacteria defied this principle.

Then by your terminology, bacteria have not evolved for the 4 billion years ago.

But please don't conflate this with anything scientific.