Evolution?

[Pete Harcoff]

I do get many answers. But none of them hits the point. Bacteria change, but they do not evolve. (biological evolution is MORE than just change. It turned monkey to human)

As has been pointed out (repeatedly), bacteria are incredibly diverse. Saying they don't evolve is like saying humans and trees share a common ancestor, but didn't evolve either.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think my question is: why don't we see any multiple cell bacteria, after 4 billion years of evolution?

Well, why should we? Bacteria seem to survive very well indeed as monocellular organisms.

That said, there are instances of pseudo-multicellular bacterial life (qv. paug's post).

I do get many answers. But none of them hits the point. Bacteria change, but they do not evolve. (biological evolution is MORE than just change. It turned monkey to human)

No. Evolution is change, nothing more. This may be the biggest hurdle for you to understand: an instance of evolution is a tiny change in the population. When accumulated over vast amounts of time, these tiny changes add up to something quite notable indeed.

It is the same fundamental concept that underpins calculus: adding up an infinite number of infinitely small strips yields something finite. An integral is, after all, just a special kind of summation.

 

[juvenissun]

As has been pointed out (repeatedly), bacteria are incredibly diverse. Saying they don't evolve is like saying humans and trees share a common ancestor, but didn't evolve either.

As I pointed out repeatedly, bacteria do change. But no matter how diverse bacteria change, they are still defined by one definition of bacteria. To say that bacteria evolve is like saying human race is a consequence of evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

does the evolution of bacteria (well, bacteria like life) into eukaryotes and multicelluar organisms like plants and animals count?

If not, I'd also put forward quarum sensing (chemical "communication" between bacteria in order to cooperate with one another and synchronize actions such as the formation of biofilms. This could be the start of a new branch of multicellular life)

It did not happen in the history of earth. It probably will not happen.

 

[juvenissun]

Let's see it this way: Do we expect bacteria to evolve into something which is not bacteria any more?

In the taxonomic sense, no, for the same reasons that we don't expect eukaryotes to evolve into something that isn't an eukaryote.

Until we see multiple cell bacteria, I insist that bacteria have not evolved a bit in the past billions of years.

Than why did plant cells and animal cells evolve? They did not either. There is no such thing called cell evolution.

That is my temporary conclusion.

 

[Vene]

As I pointed out repeatedly, bacteria do change. But no matter how diverse bacteria change, they are still defined by one definition of bacteria. To say that bacteria evolve is like saying human race is a consequence of evolution.

Endosymbiosis, look into it. It's how eukaryotic cells came into being. And before you start saying it's impossible, It's been observed in the lab.
And a picture, because I like pictures damn it! (link)

And humans are a consequence of evolution. You admit you know nothing about biology, but you are making biological claims. Then again, I shouldn't be surprised. You pretend to be a geologist.

You want evidence of it? Sure, how about endogenous retroviruses. You've been here long enough to hear about them. (link)

But, you know how it is, you could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.

 

[Vene]

Until we see multiple cell bacteria, I insist that bacteria have not evolved a bit in the past billions of years.

Than why did plant cells and animal cells evolve? They did not either. There is no such thing called cell evolution.

That is my temporary conclusion.

You are a dumbass.

But we do. Look at cyanobacteria:

And myxobacteria:

This is just two examples.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

As I pointed out repeatedly, bacteria do change. But no matter how diverse bacteria change, they are still defined by one definition of bacteria.

I'm not sure what you mean by "one definition of bacteria". It's like saying Eukaryotes are defined by one definition of Eukaryotes. But in the latter case, you're talking about everything from people to trees to protists.

Maybe you should look at the Tree of Life to get a sense of the scope of what we're talking about.

To say that bacteria evolve is like saying human race is a consequence of evolution.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

As I pointed out repeatedly, bacteria do change. But no matter how diverse bacteria change, they are still defined by one definition of bacteria. To say that bacteria evolve is like saying human race is a consequence of evolution.

skin color is an adaptation to mitigating the protection against UV exposure and the skin's absorbtion for vitamin D synthesis.

your characterization of bacteria as being singular is not at all accurate. more recently bacteria have been split into two kingdoms: archaea and eubacteria. they are so different they have been split into TWO KINGDOMS.

Until we see multiple cell bacteria, I insist that bacteria have not evolved a bit in the past billions of years.

Than why did plant cells and animal cells evolve? They did not either. There is no such thing called cell evolution.

That is my temporary conclusion.

bacteria are probably too simple to support a multicellular organism. animal, plant, fungal, and algal cells do a lot of work and have a lot of specialized machinery to help them achieve it efficiently.

 

[Tomk80]

As I pointed out repeatedly, bacteria do change. But no matter how diverse bacteria change, they are still defined by one definition of bacteria.

Just as all animals and plants fall under the same category of eukaryotes. If you look at the tree of life website, perhaps it will give you a better understanding of the diversity inherent in eubacteria and archaea.

To say that bacteria evolve is like saying human race is a consequence of evolution.

Human race (or better, clines) is a consequence of evolution.

And no, the situations are not analogous since the diversity in bacteria is a lot bigger (both genetically and in stucture/function) than between humans of different races/clines.

 

[Tomk80]

Until we see multiple cell bacteria, I insist that bacteria have not evolved a bit in the past billions of years.

1) You have been shown examples of multiple cell bacteria
2) It has already been pointed out to you that evolution is more than just the development of multiple cellularity to single cellularity.

Than why did plant cells and animal cells evolve? They did not either. There is no such thing called cell evolution.

What does this even mean in the context of the post you were responding to? Some guesses as to what may provide an answer:

Guess answer 1) In the laboratory, algae have evolved multicellularity in response to predation from flagellates.

Guess answer 2) Eukaryotes have evolved through endosymbiosis. This process has been observed in the lab. That this happened in eukaryotes is shown because mitochondria have their own DNA.

What is possibly interesting, is that with processes like endosymbiosis it is hard to designate a single group from which an organism evolved. This is because the process involves the symbiosis between two organisms from a different group. This is different from the more usual route of evolution, where a single group diversifies.

That is my temporary conclusion.

Which fails on several counts:
1) It ignores the existence of (pseudo-)multicellular bacteria.
2) It ignores the immense diversity in bacteria, both in function and form.
3) It shows a complete lack of comprehension of classification.
4) It ignores what evolution actually is in the first place.

 

[juvenissun]

You are a dumbass.

Yeah, I am dumb on this issue. But it takes you smart people so many days to give me (a dumb) back a real challenge.

Good examples, I need to study (when I have time) it.

Even so, I have to say that the TIME is a critical factor. Over the time of earth history, plants and animals evolved a lot, but bacteria did minimum (or nothing). Nobody has yet given me a good explanation on this fact.

 

[atomweaver]

Yeah, I am dumb on this issue.

Needlessly so;

Post 56 Juvenissun (paraphrasing ')I'll accept that evolution applies to bacteria when bacteria evolve multiceulluarity'.

Post 57 Paug; (paraphrasing) 'They already did that. Look; cyanobacteria and myxobacteria are perfect examples'

Post 65 juvenissun "Until we see multiple cell bacteria, I insist that bacteria have not evolved a bit in the past billions of years. "

Chorus of "!!????!!!?!!" ensues...

But it takes you smart people so many days to give me (a dumb) back a real challenge.

"So many days"..? Check the timestamps please. Paug posted #57 two hours after you posted #56.

Even so, I have to say that the TIME is a critical factor. Over the time of earth history, plants and animals evolved a lot, but bacteria did minimum (or nothing).

Given that you clearly didn't know that bacteria were already multi-cellular, you'll understand that we have to be extremely skeptical about a comment like "bacteria did minimum (or nothing) [evolving]" coming from you. If you were honest with yourself, you'd admit that you have no idea what bacteria have been doing in terms of evolution, and go out and do some learning before making such assertions.

Nobody has yet given me a good explanation on this fact.

 

[Naraoia]

I think my question is: why don't we see any multiple cell bacteria, after 4 billion years of evolution?

Meet Anabaena. It even has different cell types, though it's far less sophisticated than a plant or an animal.

EDIT: Oh, Paug et al. beat me. Still, it seems it's worth hammering the point... MANY CELLS. CELL DIFFERENTIATION. BACTERIA.

I do get many answers. But none of them hits the point.

Then I don't see your point.

Any comments on the part of my post that tries to explain why some things don't evolve certain traits? That bit was meant to address your mysterious point but if that didn't hit then I really have no idea what answers you want from us.

Bacteria change, but they do not evolve. (biological evolution is MORE than just change.

You know you are telling that to an evolutionary biology student?

It turned monkey to human)

It did, but that doesn't mean smaller changes don't count as evolution. That's like saying crossing the continent is travelling but going to the next village isn't.

 

[juvenissun]

But we do. Look at cyanobacteria:

This one is not that hard to shoot down:

It is a colony of the same bacteria. They are NOT multicellular bacteria. Many other such examples can be easily found.

 

[juvenissun]

Given that you clearly didn't know that bacteria were already multi-cellular, you'll understand that we have to be extremely skeptical about a comment like "bacteria did minimum (or nothing) [evolving]" coming from you. If you were honest with yourself, you'd admit that you have no idea what bacteria have been doing in terms of evolution, and go out and do some learning before making such assertions.

I still say bacteria are not multicellular. I still say bacteria did not evolve in the past 4 billion years. I am not ignorant, I am not convinced. And I think all you are simply defending the idea of evolution, not the particular issue of bacteria evolution.

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.

 

[thaumaturgy]

But we do. Look at cyanobacteria:

And myxobacteria:

This is just two examples.

Excellent post Paug! thanks for putting that up there. Since I'm not a biologist I am still mystified by some of this stuff.

The thing that really is fascinating seems to be the development of colonial cells into full-fledged single organism.

I still find myself fascinated by sponges which, if I recall my bio and paleo, really aren't single organisms but communal cells which work together.

Even our own bodies and the mysterious aspects of mitochondria are fascinating evidence that we really are still kind of communal or at least bear evidence of having been communal.

My gut is teaming with stuff that isn't "me" but allows me to survive, correct?

Life is so much more amazing to look at than the simplified cartoon Creationists wish it was.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I still say bacteria are not multicellular. I still say bacteria did not evolve in the past 4 billion years.

You seem to be equating 'evolved' with 'became multicellular'. Why?

I am not ignorant, I am not convinced. And I think all you are simply defending the idea of evolution, not the particular issue of bacteria evolution.

As we have shown you countless times, bacterial have evolved. We have observed them evolve specific, complex features in a matter of decades (the ability to metabolise nylon, the ability to ingest citric acid, etc).

You ask why bacteria haven't evolved over 4 billion years? We tell you that your premise is wrong: they have evolved.

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.

Explain 'speciation', in terms of bacterial evolution.

Your strawmen are showing, juvenissun...

 

[thaumaturgy]

You seem to be equating 'evolved' with 'became multicellular'. Why?

I believe this is called "strawman" argument style. It is the first line of debate for most Creationists. Either they attempt to mischaracterize the meaning of the concept and then attack that mischaracterization or they simply unilaterally redefine terms to their liking so that they can more easily attack those newly "redefined" terms.

As we have shown you countless times, bacterial have evolved. We have observed them evolve specific, complex features in a matter of decades (the ability to metabolise nylon, the ability to ingest citric acid, etc).

Given enough pressure the Creationist Argument will evolve as well. In this case if you continue adding pressure to the argument you may be surprised to find that "evolution" now requires that bacteria grow human noses and start wearing glasses in order to be technically "evolved".

That's the joy of "Strawman Evolution". However it is actually quite unlikely you'll get that level of specificity from Juvenissun. He is uniquely incapable of dealing with details. He will ultimately just wander off. But you'll be amazingly frustrated trying to pin him down on anything.

That's probably the biggest give-away that he isn't a real scientist. That's part of why he has me on "ignore", because I am an actual degreed geologist and he claims to be a geologist. When he runs up against my points he is usually unable to address them in detail. Our last interaction ended badly and I used some intemperate words. But still, it is a testament to his "weakness" in the field that he has to actively "ignore" someone who could directly address his points if he'd only "flesh them out". I suspect that now that he's tangling with a bunch of biologists on a topic he demonstrably knows less about will result in a few more "ignores".

Your strawmen are showing, juvenissun...

Creationists learn one or two things apparently. And logic fallacies and specious debate points appear to be their strong suit.

 

[atomweaver]

This one is not that hard to shoot down:

Its easy to think so, if you only think easily...

It is a colony of the same bacteria. They are NOT multicellular bacteria. Many other such examples can be easily found.

Patently false.

Look carefully at the Anabaena filament. Do you see the fat round cell in the middle of the filament? That's a heterocyst. It's a differentiated cell that has become specialized for nitrogen fixation. All the other cells are capable of photosynthesis but the heterocyst specializes in fixing nitrogen. This species is a bacterial example of a multicellular organism with two types of cells.

LINK

Seriously, juvenissun. Your willful ignorance is embarrassing. Before you went off on this bacteria evolution tangent, did you even bother to Google "multicellular bacteria" and read the first two links?