Evolution?

[thaumaturgy]

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

Patently false.



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?

If only the "specialized" cell was a big beefy arm or some "majesty":

 

[Vene]

I can't say I'm surprised. Juv claims to be a geologist, but gets that wrong. Why would we expect him to get microbiology right?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I am not ignorant, I am not convinced.

At this point whether or not you are convinced is moot. People have demonstrated what you have asked. You are just handwaving.

 

[juvenissun]

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

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

 

[paug]

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

Do you have anything else to say, after all these posts, than

"Why didn't bacteria evolve?"

If not, then I suggest the mods shut this thread down.

 

[Bombila]

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

Juvenissun, I don't understand you. You've been repeatedly told that bacteria have evolved, and can be seen to be evolving today. Are you fixating on the fact that most bacteria are one-celled? In case you are, evolution does not require more than one cell per animal to occur, and it is not necessary for one celled animals to evolve into multi-celled animals in order to see that evolution has occurred in the one-celled animal.

Remember that evolution has no goal. If an animal lineage, one-celled or multi-celled, is surviving and reproducing nicely, then natural selection may never favour big changes like becoming multi-celled or growing a beak. If, OTOH, you actually look at a selection of bacteria, the first thing you would notice is how different they all look, all different shapes and sizes and with different cilia positioned differently - look at the picture on this page, or google bacteria shapes, images:

http://schaechter.asmblog.org/schaechter/2007/04/bacterial_shape.html

All these differences are a result of bacteria evolving to suit the niche they inhabit. So the bacteria are not behaving differently in terms of evolution; they have changed just as all other life has changed. Some even became colonial, or multi-celled. Others didn't, the changes are in other directions. Multi-celled existence is not in any way necessary to evolution. You are not more likely to survive and flourish because you are multi-celled, and surviving and flourishing is all that is required by natural selection.

 

[Vene]

*twitch* *twitch*
There is no such thing as a one celled animal. There are eukaryotes that have a single cell (for example, the obsolete kingdom protista), but animals are multicellular by definition.

 

[Bombila]

Vene, I did not know that. Amoeba is not called animal?

 

[juvenissun]

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?

No, I did not and I am NOT embarrassed. However, it is a good link. Thanks.

Even so, the argument in my OP still stands:

1. Even today, people are STILL studying this fundamental step of evolution and are still just modeling. We simply do not understand the nature of life of bacteria, which represents the extreme sluggish end of the evolution process. So, if we do not understand one end of the process, how could we claim that we understand the other end of the same process, which is represented by animals and plants?

2. The article said:

There's no doubt about the fact that this version of a multicellular organism predates the evolution of metazoa by about 2-3 billion years.

. This is a truly embarrassment to the evolution process. What did these simple multicellular organisms do during that long period of time? And what did they do AFTER metazoa started to evolve? This feature does not make sense in the theory of evolution.

3. The appearance of multicellular bacteria only makes the evolution process of bacteria look worse. If the evolution did not continue, why did it even bother to begin? If the multicellular bacteria have some evolutional advantages, why didn’t it continue? If not, why did it happen?

 

[Vene]

Vene, I did not know that. Amoeba is not called animal?

Nope, Amoeba are not animals. They actually have their own kingdom called Amoebozoa. There has been a lot of work in the last decade or so to properly classify unicellular eukaryotes. In all reality, multicellular life is the exception, not the norm.



Juv, why the hell do you think that life should strive to be multicellular? Evolution is not teleological, all that matters for evolution is that the organism can survive long enough to reproduce. Unicellular life does a great job of that. There is also a huge amount of diversity in unicellular life, if you don't believe me read this. Or maybe you think that there is one 'perfect' form of life. This is the kind of understanding I would expect from a kid. There are an obscene number of solutions to the problem of survival. I bet you don't even know that we humans rely on unicellular organisms to survive.

 

[Maximum]

You asked why bacteria and fungi don't evolve.
We proved you wrong, that they do evolve.
You asked for multicellular bacteria.
We gave you multicellular bacteria.
Now you are asking for something else.
This debate is worthless if you keep on moving the goal posts.

 

[Bombila]

Nope, Amoeba are not animals. They actually have their own kingdom called Amoebozoa. There has been a lot of work in the last decade or so to properly classify unicellular eukaryotes. In all reality, multicellular life is the exception, not the norm.



Juv, why the hell do you think that life should strive to be multicellular? Evolution is not teleological, all that matters for evolution is that the organism can survive long enough to reproduce. Unicellular life does a great job of that. There is also a huge amount of diversity in unicellular life, if you don't believe me read this. Or maybe you think that there is one 'perfect' form of life. This is the kind of understanding I would expect from a kid. There are an obscene number of solutions to the problem of survival. I bet you don't even know that we humans rely on unicellular organisms to survive.

"lot of work in the last decade or so..." that makes sense. I'm pretty sure back in the Dark Ages I was taught amoeba were animals. Fortunately, juvenissun doesn't read my posts anyway, AFAICT, so he won't be led astray by my mistake.

As for juvenissun's peculiar fixation on this subject, I'd say he really does think evolution has to do with becoming more obviously complex, and no amount of repeating that this concept is WRONG seems to sway his erroneous notion.

 

[juvenissun]

You asked why bacteria and fungi don't evolve.
We proved you wrong, that they do evolve.
You asked for multicellular bacteria.
We gave you multicellular bacteria.
Now you are asking for something else.
This debate is worthless if you keep on moving the goal posts.

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

 

[juvenissun]

Nope, Amoeba are not animals. They actually have their own kingdom called Amoebozoa. There has been a lot of work in the last decade or so to properly classify unicellular eukaryotes. In all reality, multicellular life is the exception, not the norm.



Juv, why the hell do you think that life should strive to be multicellular? Evolution is not teleological, all that matters for evolution is that the organism can survive long enough to reproduce. Unicellular life does a great job of that. There is also a huge amount of diversity in unicellular life, if you don't believe me read this. Or maybe you think that there is one 'perfect' form of life. This is the kind of understanding I would expect from a kid. There are an obscene number of solutions to the problem of survival. I bet you don't even know that we humans rely on unicellular organisms to survive.

I agree with you 100% on this regard. I don't think unicellular lives have to become multicellular. And I agree with you that multicellular life is exceptional rather than normal.

Welcome to the club of creationism.

 

[juvenissun]

"lot of work in the last decade or so..." that makes sense. I'm pretty sure back in the Dark Ages I was taught amoeba were animals. Fortunately, juvenissun doesn't read my posts anyway, AFAICT, so he won't be led astray by my mistake.

As for juvenissun's peculiar fixation on this subject, I'd say he really does think evolution has to do with becoming more obviously complex, and no amount of repeating that this concept is WRONG seems to sway his erroneous notion.

So, educate me. Please give me one example which demonstrates that evolution turned a more complex life into a simpler life. (I guess this is off topic, so I will not get too much into this issue)

 

[Vene]

I agree with you 100% on this regard. I don't think unicellular lives have to become multicellular. And I agree with you that multicellular life is exceptional rather than normal.

Welcome to the club of creationism.

Exceptional as in it's not as common, not exceptional as in better. Unicellular life did evolve into multicellular life. You have zero understanding of even the most childish biological concepts.

 

[paug]

So, educate me. Please give me one example which demonstrates that evolution turned a more complex life into a simpler life. (I guess this is off topic, so I will not get too much into this issue)

from teh intarnets:
The exact function of the human appendix is unknown, and it is considered to be a remnant of a portion of the digestive tract which was once more functional and is now in the process of evolutionary regression.

 

[Vene]

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0010003
Cats have lost the gene that allows them to taste sugar.

 

[Bombila]

So, educate me. Please give me one example which demonstrates that evolution turned a more complex life into a simpler life. (I guess this is off topic, so I will not get too much into this issue)

If it helps you understand, it is not off-topic.

I think you would consider that having legs, then evolving to have no legs, or just rudimentary legs, is arguably simpler, at the very least in terms of morphology. Slow Worms are legless lizards.

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/slow-worm

This does not mean that Slow Worms are 'devolving'. It means it became more advantageous for them to feed by burrowing, and legs were not so useful in that environment.

It could be argued that parasites such as tapeworms are more simple than the segmented worms they evolved from - they have little in the way of neurons and essentially no gut, taking nutrients directly from the host.

Some plants, like Indian Pipe, have become parasitic. They no longer have chlorophyll in their cells and cannot photosynthesize, although their ancestors certainly could. Some have only rudimentary leaves. Certainly seems simpler to feed off something else than to be able to manufacture your own food.

 

[Vene]

How about these guys. Blind cave fish have no eyes. If the loss of an organ isn't a reduction in complexity, I don't know what is.