Evolution?

[Tomk80]

No. But it did not answer the question. Why then eukaryotes evolved extensively into multicellular lives, but bacteria did not (not counting few very rare examples, even those, did not go very far).

So the question has changed from "why did bacteria not evolve" to "why did they not evolve multicellularity to the same extent that eukaryotes have?"

My guess here is that eukaryotes have developed a number of cell organelles that aid in the storage and production of energy, making them less dependent on diffusion as prokaryotes. This means that further specializations for the storage and transportation of energy have become a possibility, which is needed for larger multicellular organisms.

 

[Radagast]

You are interested in this subject. That make a big difference. I am NOT interested in this thing...

So why did you start the thread?

 

[Tomk80]

I did not bother to check my link. I remember it now. It is talking about the symmetry of protein structure. I think it is a proper link to the issue.

So, all of you should give me lectures. But I feel that all of you are so desperately trying to answer my questions. So, either I am a super student or you are unqualified teachers. Some of you are even trying to insult difficult students. If this were an academic environment, those who insults should be kicked out.

In an academic environment, a biology teacher would tell you to get out of his classroom and read a biology book. This is not a classroom, which means that you behaving as an insolent brat is tolerated by those trying to teach you something despite your behavior.

 

[Split Rock]

No. But it did not answer the question. Why then eukaryotes evolved extensively into multicellular lives, but bacteria did not (not counting few very rare examples, even those, did not go very far).

I don't know if we have all the answers to this question, but I can offer some hypotheses. Basically, eukaryotes had adaptations better suited for large multicellular organisms.

The first of these would be based on their internal organelles, such as mitochondria, nucleus, plastids, vacuoles, etc, and the internal compartmentation they provided. The mitochondria provided an energy provucer superior to any bacteria had, and chloroplasts provided a superior means of producing food. I suspect that the compartmentation provided by organelles also contributed by allowing for large differences in ion concentrations between areas of the cell. Calcium is an excellent example of this. While compartments such as vacuoles and endoplasmic reticulum are relatively high in calcium concentration, the cytoplasm is normally held to very low levels. Thus, calcium can be used as a signal transducer when allowed into the cytoplasm, where it activates various proteins resulting in a cascade effect.

Another big difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is that in eukaryotes the DNA is stored in a unique configuration with proteins (such as histones) in what are called, chromosomes. This allows for much finer regulation and control over transcription of the DNA, than exists with the naked DNA found in bacteria.

Thus, eukaryotes were better equipted to support the energy requirements and fine control necessary to coordinate and regulate the activities of mulitcellular organisms with many different cell types, tissues, organs, and eventually, organ systems, as we humans have.

 

[Bombila]

You are interested in this subject. That make a big difference. I am NOT interested in this thing. You can see all my arguments in this thread are logic related, but not content related.

That explains something, and that is that you admit you are not interested and have not enough knowledge to understand the questions or the answers. Your questions/responses are not really logic related, because you don't have enough broad knowledge to be logical about the subject matter.

It's as if someone with no knowledge of money asked about the breakdown of a dollar into its components, then assumed that cutting a dollar bill into 100 bits is the 'logical' way to make pennies, or that melting 100 pennies would get you a market dollar.

 

[Vene]

You are interested in this subject. That make a big difference. I am NOT interested in this thing. You can see all my arguments in this thread are logic related, but not content related.

You're right, your arguments have no content.

I did not bother to check my link.

I'm less than surprised

I remember it now. It is talking about the symmetry of protein structure. I think it is a proper link to the issue.

While proteins can be symmetrical or asymmetrical, it is not what determines the symmetry of an individual organism. It was irrelevant.

So, all of you should give me lectures. But I feel that all of you are so desperately trying to answer my questions. So, either I am a super student or you are unqualified teachers. Some of you are even trying to insult difficult students. If this were an academic environment, those who insults should be kicked out.

You think we're desperate? More like exasperated that you don't grasp the simplest of evolutionary concepts after having them spelled out to you. Not to mention that you're telling trained biologists that a central theory is wrong, but won't provide any arguments with content.

 

[juvenissun]

So the question has changed from "why did bacteria not evolve" to "why did they not evolve multicellularity to the same extent that eukaryotes have?"

My guess here is that eukaryotes have developed a number of cell organelles that aid in the storage and production of energy, making them less dependent on diffusion as prokaryotes. This means that further specializations for the storage and transportation of energy have become a possibility, which is needed for larger multicellular organisms.

No. the goal did not change AT ALL. What you said is an explanation of the OP.

According to what you said, it does not like a "random" change.

 

[juvenissun]

So why did you start the thread?

Have fun.
See how would evolutionist react.
Review a few principles of evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

In an academic environment, a biology teacher would tell you to get out of his classroom and read a biology book.

Ha ha ha, I wish I could do that.

 

[Vene]

No. the goal did not change AT ALL. What you said is an explanation of the OP.

Doesn't it suck to get caught in a lie?

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

 

[Bombila]

Have fun.
See how would evolutionist react.
Review a few principles of evolution.

Your original question was more than fully answered.

You don't actually seem to have had much fun, but hey, we all approach amusing ourselves differently.

How did you expect 'evolutionists' to react? They answered your questions and elaborated when you appeared unable to grasp the answers.

I hope you actually learned something. That would be a good outcome.

 

[Vene]

I hope you actually learned something. That would be a good outcome.

I doubt it, but I'd be happy if anybody lurking learned something. Assuming there are still lurkers here.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't know if we have all the answers to this question, but I can offer some hypotheses. Basically, eukaryotes had adaptations better suited for large multicellular organisms.

The first of these would be based on their internal organelles, such as mitochondria, nucleus, plastids, vacuoles, etc, and the internal compartmentation they provided. The mitochondria provided an energy provucer superior to any bacteria had, and chloroplasts provided a superior means of producing food. I suspect that the compartmentation provided by organelles also contributed by allowing for large differences in ion concentrations between areas of the cell. Calcium is an excellent example of this. While compartments such as vacuoles and endoplasmic reticulum are relatively high in calcium concentration, the cytoplasm is normally held to very low levels. Thus, calcium can be used as a signal transducer when allowed into the cytoplasm, where it activates various proteins resulting in a cascade effect.

Another big difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is that in eukaryotes the DNA is stored in a unique configuration with proteins (such as histones) in what are called, chromosomes. This allows for much finer regulation and control over transcription of the DNA, than exists with the naked DNA found in bacteria.

Thus, eukaryotes were better equipted to support the energy requirements and fine control necessary to coordinate and regulate the activities of mulitcellular organisms with many different cell types, tissues, organs, and eventually, organ systems, as we humans have.

Very good. Thank you. While I could not comment on what you said due to ignorance, I would argue on the process of evolution:

According to your reasons, eukaryotes eventually evolved not because the survivorship, not because of the niche difference, but because of its potential of evolving. In comparison, prokaryotes do not have the same potential.

Use a simple language to say the same thing, eukaryotes evolve because they can. Prokaryotes do not do the same because they can not.

I guess you would say I got it this time.

 

[Naraoia]

A goal means a direction toward which situation develops.

No, a goal means something someone wants to reach (in my dictionary, anyway). Something that you determine in advance and then go for it. Evolution does that not.

So, all your examples have so called "goals". I do accept that one goal of evolution is to survive.

No, it's not a goal. It is both an effect and a cause in evolution, but not a goal.

It's a cause, because if no organisms survive to reproduce they obviously don't evolve.

It's also an effect because natural selection leads to organisms that are better at surviving to reproduce in whatever environment they live in (unfortunately, that often happens to all inhabitants of said environment, so the end result is that nobody improves relative to the others)

But, bacteria are survivalists.

Because other creatures are not?

So, why not eukaryotic cells do what bacteria always do?

Such as?

Instead, they evolved into other life forms more fragile in surviving.

More fragile in some places. Less fragile in others.

By the way, not all bacteria are equally hardy everywhere (just like any other organism). I may be stating the obvious here but one can never know...

Not all bacteria/archaea (don't forget the archaea, they are cool ) can live in hot springs or salt pans or endure radiation doses that would kill a human. And conversely, (hyper)thermophilic microbes are not happy when they get somewhere "cold" (which in some cases could mean below 90°C - that's apparently the lowest temperature the archaeon Pyrolobus fumarii can grow).

Everyone in their own trade.

 

[Naraoia]

I told you something you do not know. You should humbly learn. That is the basic attitude of being a science student.

I think staff here prefer curiosity and critical thinking to humility

This forum is no different from a classroom.

Except each one of us is a potential teacher here.

 

[Naraoia]

You have to be considerate to me by knowing that I am NOT a biologist. I read your message with a filter. I only pick up points I can understand. I know I missed many good contents in some good arguments. But I don't have time to study them.

Do you have time to ask for clarification? I'm not saying I can always give it (sometimes I really don't know how to talk to non-biologists :o), but I think there are people here who can both understand biologist talk and communicate it to a layperson.

 

[juvenissun]

Your original question was more than fully answered.

You don't actually seem to have had much fun, but hey, we all approach amusing ourselves differently.

How did you expect 'evolutionists' to react? They answered your questions and elaborated when you appeared unable to grasp the answers.

I hope you actually learned something. That would be a good outcome.

Before I started, I know evolutionists could not answer the question. And I was right.

I did learn, even the question is not answered. You guys are trying to beat me. But you did not get what you like to see and I am still arguing. However, I do have a lot of fun in talking about things I don't understand much and see people who claimed that they know, but feel awkward as a result of the debate.

 

[juvenissun]

Do you have time to ask for clarification? I'm not saying I can always give it (sometimes I really don't know how to talk to non-biologists :o), but I think there are people here who can both understand biologist talk and communicate it to a layperson.

Sure I can. The point is, after you presented something I don't understand and I just let it go, you are not picking it up and emphasize it again. If you do that and stress its significance, I will certainly go back and read it a few more times. When I do that, I usually can see your point.

I asked for clarification when I intend to do followup argument. Otherwise, I may not if I am not really interested in the subject or I don't have time to do so.

 

[Naraoia]

I don't think evolution is a blind process. Just look at the life tree. Would you say that it is made by a blind, random process? Of course not.

Why not? You can produce beautiful fractals by setting a few rules and throwing dice. Isn't the tree of life a fractal? Isn't evolution throwing dice and letting the "rules" (i.e. selection) decide what the result means?

Now you shouldn't take the chaos game analogy too seriously (it's just to highlight the point that semi-random processes can produce highly regular objects). But I do wonder why you think that the tree of life precludes a "blind, random" process (which isn't random the way people here tend to use the word)

 

[Naraoia]

You are interested in this subject. That make a big difference. I am NOT interested in this thing. You can see all my arguments in this thread are logic related, but not content related.

Logic means diddlysquat if you apply it wrong. And why on earth did you start this thread if you aren't interested in the subject?