Evolution?

[Naraoia]

I'll answer that as soon as you give a good definition of life and a good measure of complexity Multiple colonies of ants can grow together and form a sort of superorganism. If you define life in a way that can include this, I'd say there are no bounds to complexity anymore.

Yeah, I know, I know. If Gould wrote about trends in complexity then I suppose he did have some kind of way to measure it

I though it was "bully for brontosaur". He delved a little bit into statistics for that one IIRC, which made it a must-read for me.

Hmm, statistics. Something I should really learn beyond the definition of standard deviation

I know how you feel.

But first I have to finish the Dark Tower series.

I doubt I'll read much more than textbooks and papers this academic year... and the next.

Of course it would help a lot if I wasted less time being glued to CF

 

[Radagast]

Yeah, I know, I know. If Gould wrote about trends in complexity then I suppose he did have some kind of way to measure it

If you find a good way of measuring complexity, please let me know...

 

[Naraoia]

If you find a good way of measuring complexity, please let me know...

Ok, I stand corrected. Gould presumably thought he had one.

 

[Tomk80]

Yeah, I know, I know. If Gould wrote about trends in complexity then I suppose he did have some kind of way to measure it

IIRC it was by identifying the number of organs, or some similar measure. What was especially interesting was that in most lineages, some kind of parasitism would often evolve.

Hmm, statistics. Something I should really learn beyond the definition of standard deviation

You'll get interested as soon as you do your own research.

I doubt I'll read much more than textbooks and papers this academic year... and the next.

Of course it would help a lot if I wasted less time being glued to CF

 

[juvenissun]

Yes it does. Because both eukaryotes and prokaryotes have developed multicellularity, as has already been shown. Only eukaryotes can develop into larger organisms than prokaryotes can.


It does not like a random change? What is that suppose to mean?

OK, we moved one tiny step forward.

So in the past 4 GA, "when" did a few rare prokaryotes evolved into multicellular lives? I guess the answer is, say, approximately 3.5 GA. Then it stopped (maintained) till now. No further progress.

Basically, this feature is still covered in the question of the OP.

 

[juvenissun]

Hmm, an interesting attitude to be sure. We devote our precious time and energy to answer questions you, by your own admission, only ask because you want to "have fun". And you expect us to hammer home every single point that whooshes past your head and you don't care enough to ask about. Is that about right?

I am a profession in academic field. Having fun in my way is pretty heavy in brain activity. To me, think about anything outside my field of geology is having fun. Sorry if this way of description offended you.

The only time my brain can rest for a while is when I watch fictional movies. If I could get one new idea from the movie in 90 minutes, I am happy.

 

[juvenissun]

The question is answered. You refuse to either understand or accept the answer.

How is trying to explain something to you 'trying to beat you'? What do you think we 'like to see'? Most of us like to see interested people learn things; it's unfortunate you seem to keep missing the facts and refusing to employ common sense about everyday things, but maybe something will come back to you someday.

There are a few here who, instead of debating the content, insulted me with low-level statements. I think they did that because they felt very awkward by my reply to their post.

It does not hurt me. I have read worse trash then they made.

 

[juvenissun]

If that's a compliment, thanks.
That's nice... are you trying to make any point with it?

Not much. Except that many many times, when some people were stuck with my understanding on evolution, they usually said: go back to read evolution 101.

 

[Tomk80]

OK, we moved one tiny step forward.

So in the past 4 GA, "when" did a few rare prokaryotes evolved into multicellular lives? I guess the answer is, say, approximately 3.5 GA. Then it stopped (maintained) till now. No further progress.

What data do you base that assertion on?

Basically, this feature is still covered in the question of the OP.

How?

 

[Assyrian]

OK, we moved one tiny step forward.

So in the past 4 GA, "when" did a few rare prokaryotes evolved into multicellular lives? I guess the answer is, say, approximately 3.5 GA. Then it stopped (maintained) till now. No further progress.

Basically, this feature is still covered in the question of the OP.

Why after 425 posts in this thread would you still think bacteria can only evolve if they become multicellular?

 

[juvenissun]

Why after 425 posts in this thread would you still think bacteria can only evolve if they become multicellular?

First, if it is true, it is very rare.
Second, those evolved, they never go beyond the second step.

What makes bacteria "not" to evolve? I couldn't see a single undisputed reason.

 

[juvenissun]

Why after 425 posts in this thread would you still think bacteria can only evolve if they become multicellular?

Sorry, I misread your question.

They changed from this bacterium to that bacterium and so on. But we still call them bacteria instead of other names. You tell me why. So, if they remained to be single-cell lives, they did not evolve. Yes, the definition of evolution is important. Just like the definition of creationism is.

 

[juvenissun]

No it doesn't.


Individual animals have different mutations that make them better or worse at survival. But these mutations never have the goal of survival or living a better life, they just happen randomly. The individuals that have mutations that help it survive will thrive, but that was never the goal of the change. The mutations happen randomly.


So, no.


Only if evolution would lead to a definitive optimum and the environment stays constant. We know from simulations that evolution generally only reaches suboptimal solutions. We know from observation that the environment does not stay constant.


Evolution is stochastic. Meaning that different options have a different chance of happening, but this is still a chance. A faster rabbit will have a better chance of outrunning a fox, but there is still a chance it'll get caught.

The mutation process could be random (not sure). But which mutation is accepted by the life is not random. Biology is not chemistry. sub-stable environment is good enough for life to maintain the same trait (and to suppress all mutations).

I said the above based on the knowledge passed to me by evolutionist. I don't really like it.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm not sure I understand whose overall development you mean... individual creatures? Or multicellular life as a whole? (On both I could probably get you generalities and a few snippets of information, but I'm only beginning to learn about this stuff. Development is intriguing and sometimes very neat, but it also seems dauntingly complex to me)

The development described by the live tree. Do you suggest it is a product of random evolution? The geometry does not look like one.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm not sure I understand whose overall development you mean... individual creatures? Or multicellular life as a whole? (On both I could probably get you generalities and a few snippets of information, but I'm only beginning to learn about this stuff. Development is intriguing and sometimes very neat, but it also seems dauntingly complex to me)

The development described by the life tree. Do you suggest it is a product of random evolution? The geometry does not look like one.

 

[juvenissun]

Stephen J Gould had a nice argument on that. Basically his argument was that we see a trend towards increasingly complex animals, because the starting line is not complex. You can't get any less complex at the start, so the only way to go is up. Apparently in higher developed organisms he saw a trend both ways, to both increasing and decreasing complexity (but he probably researched shellfish, knowing Gould).

Then Gould echoed my OP. Bacteria does not evolve.

 

[Vene]

The mutation process could be random (not sure).

It pretty much is random.

But which mutation is accepted by the life is not random.

If you mean that whether or not the mutation is passed on for accepted, sure.

Biology is not chemistry.

Life itself isn't chemistry, but living things are made out of chemicals and life is only possible because of chemical processes. There's this neat little field that focuses on the chemistry of living things called biochemistry, you may have heard of it. In fact, it's gotten big enough that there are now three biological fields dealing directly with chemicals; biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics.

sub-stable environment is good enough for life to maintain the same trait (and to suppress all mutations).

Um, no, it is impossible to suppress all mutations. But if an organisms is already well suited for its environment it is unlikely that mutations will get selected.

I said the above based on the knowledge passed to me by evolutionist. I don't really like it.

You don't have to like it. Reality doesn't give a damn what you like and don't like.

 

[pgp_protector]

Then Gould echoed my OP. Bacteria does not evolve.

Evolution in Real Time: How Bacteria Beat Antibiotics

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

 

[Vene]

Then Gould echoed my OP. Bacteria does not evolve.

No, Gould was pretty adamant that all living things evolved. Maybe you should try reading some of his work.

Again, I present this as an example. I know you said you had problems opening it before, so you could always read the article in New Scientist instead of the peer-review article.

 

[pgp_protector]

But why bother.