Evolution?

[juvenissun]

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

 

[Tomk80]

No, that is incorrect.

 

[Veritas21]

Perhaps an evolutionary biologists could specify in greater detail, but I'll take a crack at this. Environmental change and competition for resources are the mechanisms for initiating evolution, but "evolution" does not necessarily mean there have to be huge differences between the starting population and the present one. As very simple organisms, fungi and bacteria do not have as much opportunity to change as more complex organisms. My simple question to you is has the wheel evolved? Small changes are still changes, so I would argue that bacteria and fungi have evolved. We also have the power to make them evolve in the laboratory.

 

[Psudopod]

Due to their lifespan and reproductive cycle, evolution is more visible in bacteria than longer lived organisms.

 

[juvenissun]

Perhaps an evolutionary biologists could specify in greater detail, but I'll take a crack at this. Environmental change and competition for resources are the mechanisms for initiating evolution, but "evolution" does not necessarily mean there have to be huge differences between the starting population and the present one. As very simple organisms, fungi and bacteria do not have as much opportunity to change as more complex organisms. My simple question to you is has the wheel evolved? Small changes are still changes, so I would argue that bacteria and fungi have evolved. We also have the power to make them evolve in the laboratory.

Multicellular life functions better than single cell life. Why doesn't this apply to bacteria? (so the original bacteria could try to evolve toward this goal).

Or are you saying the bacteria is a perfect form of life and it has no need to evolve?

 

[Assyrian]

It seems fungus and bacteria do not evolve since their creation.

When was that?

 

[Tomk80]

Multicellular life functions better than single cell life.

Where do you get that from? Single cell life is everywhere on earth, multicellular life is not. Heck, unicellular life lives in and off multicellular life.

Why doesn't this apply to bacteria? (so the original bacteria could try to evolve toward this goal).

This isn't even wrong.

Or are you saying the bacteria is a perfect form of life and it has no need to evolve?

Bacteria evolve.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Has this happened since the bacteria originated?

The Rise of Antibiotic-Resistant Infections

Antibiotic resistance

Antibiotic Resistance


S.F. General researchers follow strain of drug-resistant bacteria

Drug-Resistant Bacteria Found in Wild Arctic Birds


Ya know, if I could somehow become "resistant" to dying from gunshot wounds or arsenic poisoning or death by cyanide, I bet I'd be pretty impressive. Don't you?

 

[Vene]

*stares*
If you paid for a biology education, demand a refund.

 

[Bombila]

Multicellular life functions better than single cell life. Why doesn't this apply to bacteria? (so the original bacteria could try to evolve toward this goal).

Or are you saying the bacteria is a perfect form of life and it has no need to evolve?

Where do you get the idea that "Multicellular life functions better than single cell life"? Unicellular organisms function just fine. They eat, they grow, they reproduce with great efficiency, they develop resistance to environmental toxins and continually evolve to survive and flourish in previously hostile or uninhabited niches. Multicellular organisms are not 'better' at any of these things; they just have evolved to go about the same life functions in a different manner.

You persist in seeing life, in terms of evolution, as 'having a goal'. There is no goal. There is no "perfect form of life". There is no ideal form towards which life ever strives. There is no 'perfect replicant'. In fact, the whole of evolution depends on the reality of the imperfect replicant, which is subject to change.

With all the information that has been presented to you, with all the references to scientific cites, books, papers, working scientists, why is it you still see evolution as a 'ladder' up which life climbs towards some perfect being? That is a religious concept, akin to some Hindu beliefs, not a scientific fact, and you should know this by now.

An organism, single celled or multicelled, reproduces or does not. If it does not, then it is an evolutionary relic. If it reproduces before dying, it is successful, and the more generations of its descendants that successfully reproduce, the more successful the original organism can be said to be, as its genetic material is still present in these descendants.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Where do you get the idea that "Multicellular life functions better than single cell life"?

Hypothesis: "Multicellular life" goes to Church.

Unicellular organisms function just fine.

Sure as long as things are going along fine. But just wait until the going gets tough. THEN who will these unrepentent sinners turn to?

They eat, they grow, they reproduce with great efficiency, they develop resistance to environmental toxins and continually evolve to survive and flourish in previously hostile or uninhabited niches.

But do they have really good 401k plans? I think not. And do they tithe weekly? I think not. We'll see who's still around after the rapture.

Multicellular organisms are not 'better' at any of these things

Hey dude, I can anastamose with the best of 'em! Speak for yourself. Around the petri dish all the lady amoebas are all atwitter about my "game".

; they just have evolved to go about the same life functions in a different manner.

Remember: in the eyes of the Pious and Religious "different manner" is not necessarily a good thing. I heard tell some of them unicellular organisms don't even mate with an opposite sex! I've heard some of them just divide! Eww!

We need to preserve the sanctity of reproduction. Asexual reproducing organisms are trying to impose their agenda on all of us good people!

There is no "perfect form of life".

You obviously don't work in industry. We have a perfect form of life. Called a CEO. They are more valuable than a million lesser beings and their deeds are legend.

An organism, single celled or multicelled, reproduces or does not. If it does not, then it is an evolutionary relic.

My wife and I are waving at you all in your rear-veiw mirror.

If it reproduces before dying, it is successful

But if it reproduces after dying it is waaaay more successful! Scary successful!

 

[Bombila]

Thaumaturgy, I am curled up in my petri dish laughing. And I would indeed be an evolutionary relic if my family gene pool weren't so shallow that my cousins' and sister's children likely carry most of the genetic bling I'd have cared to propagate. Some of 'em look scarily like me.

Maybe I'll give that 'reproduce after dying' thing a try though...

Braaaaainnnnsssss!

 

[juvenissun]

When was that?

4 "billion years ago"?

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by juvenissun

Multicellular life functions better than single cell life.

Where do you get that from? Single cell life is everywhere on earth, multicellular life is not. Heck, unicellular life lives in and off multicellular life.

If not, then why did animal/plant cell evolve into multicellular forms, but not the bacteria? Did they all encounter the same environmental changes on earth?

Answer the question, or admit you do not know. There is no use to fool around with the meaning/process of evolution. I know the tricks.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

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

No, it's not correct.

1) You seem to think of evolution in term of goal direction. It's not. Evolution is simply about diversification of biological forms to fill different environmental niches. So there would have been forms of life that "split off" from ancient bacteria, fungi, etc, that diversified and adapted into other forms filling different niches.

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.

Not knowing the latter point in particular is an area where a lot of incorrect assumptions stem from. People assuming that since something has a similar phenotype, that it's essentially the same organism even genetically. When in fact it could be remarkably different.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

If not, then why did animal/plant cell evolve into multicellular forms, but not the bacteria? Did they all encounter the same environmental changes on earth?

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.

 

[Vene]

4 "billion years ago"?

Again, if you paid somebody to teach you about biology, demand a refund.

 

[Assyrian]

4 "billion years ago"?

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

 

[Tomk80]

If not, then why did animal/plant cell evolve into multicellular forms, but not the bacteria? Did they all encounter the same environmental changes on earth?

Short answer: no, but. No, they did not all encounter the same environmental stressors. But even if they did all encounter the same environmental stressors, different groups within the same species can take different ways of dealing with these stressors.

Long answer on the no:
There can be different reasons why not all species take the same route in evolution. One can be different circumstances. Even you should be aware that earth is a big place with lots of different niches. This would even hold true for an ancient earth without any other life. Different circumstances like different temperatures, different salinity, different currents, different acidity. If we start out with only a single species on earth, different groups within this species would encounter different stressors, depending on their place on earth.

Long answer on the but:
Even if all individuals within a species encounter the same environmental stressors, there can be different ways to handle the same problem. For example, one way to avoid predators may be to get larger. A different way may be to run faster. Different solutions to the same problem can produce diversification within a single group of organisms. Examples of this are the evolution of different ways of antibiotic resistance in the same species of bacteria, the specialization of insects of a single species on different types of plants leading to speciation, or the diversification of a species of salmon (IIRC) in the same river from a single species to one species living near the edge of the river and a different one in the center.

Answer the question, or admit you do not know. There is no use to fool around with the meaning/process of evolution. I know the tricks.

Your ignorance is showing here, big time. Just an observation.

I would also point out once more, that multicellular life does not function better then single celled life. Where do you get these asinine statements from?

 

[Bombila]

If not, then why did animal/plant cell evolve into multicellular forms, but not the bacteria? Did they all encounter the same environmental changes on earth?

Answer the question, or admit you do not know. There is no use to fool around with the meaning/process of evolution. I know the tricks.

Assuming you read my earlier post...

Why would all unicellular life evolve into multicellular life?

You are still not, apparently, getting it. Bacteria have always been evolving, are presently evolving, will continue to evolve. The antibiotic resistant disease causing bacteria of today have evolved from bacteria that were easily killed by the same antibiotics forty years ago.

There are many possible factors that may have influenced one bacteria evolving into multicellular life and another not, but the a likely one is food. In a nutrient rich environment, a single celled animal doesn't evolve towards being more efficient at getting fed. In a nutrient poor environment, if it turns out being multicellular helps get one fed, that is what eventually happens.

Here's an interesting living organism that may echo the earliesr forms of multicellular life, if you're interested.

Volvox:

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag...microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artdec03/volvox.html