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.
(emphasis added)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.
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)
Do you know what is learning and progress?
I wish you can do the same.
There you go, now he can see your response.(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)
Because they're neither plants nor animalsBecause that was plants and animals did. Why should bacteria be different?
What principle?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.
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?
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.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?
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?
Any comments on that?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.
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.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?
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.
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
Then by your terminology, bacteria have not evolved for the 4 billion years ago.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.
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?