RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/10/2008 7:52:14 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 787
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
What, in the theory of evolution, would make you expect it to become another kind of bacteria? And what in the "theory of evolution" makes you expect Ps aer would evolve into an amoeba?
Nothing. Bacteria did not evolve into protists.
Now what makes you think evolution would turn Ps. aerginsa into another kind of bacteria?
Or will you just admit you don't understand the nested hierarchy?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/10/2008 7:57:32 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 787
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I hardly expect anyone's biases to be overcome, but this is capital 'C' Cool stuff. What's even COOLER is that Pseudomonas aeruginsa was first characterized as a species in 1872 and has NEVER evolved into any other kind of bacteria in over 135 years. This is equivalent to approximately one million generations of Hominids (surely ample time for monkeys to turn into men!). Creation according to kinds leads to stasis which trumps evolution once again!
Forgive my squirrely ignorance, but I've a few questions.
Do you mean that every every strain of Psudomonas aeruginsa (aeruginosa?) still exists as Pseudomonas aeruginsa, or that there is a strain of Pseudomonas aeruginsa that still exists as Psudomonas aeruginsa?
The first would be quite hard to substantiate, which is why it should be the burden of someone who wishes to prove that it has evolved, rather than the opposite. However, there can still exist a strain of PA that is still PA while another group of that strain has become something else. Divergent evolution is the term, I believe.
This isn't to say that it has happened, but merely that point out that PA still exists isn't really a point in your favor.
However, is there any reason that this bacteria should have evolved? Has there been a dramatic change to their environment in the past 135 years? Are they inefficient at something they do, as to allow for adaptation to better suit that role?
From my understanding of evolution, if something is well suited to its environment, and the environment does not change, you will not see the species evolve simply because any mutation will move it further from the 'ideal' for that environment.
It's bad form, when someone presents evidence that a form of bacteria has evolved to say, "But this one hasn't!" It really doesn't help your argument at all. The fact that one did would be strong evidence for evolutionary theory. The only way to void his point is to show how Nylonase isn't an example of evolution, not by stating that another bacteria hasn't evolved in X years.
Right. In addition, even if it had changed, it would still be a Pseudomonas. The nylonase bacteria has a startling new function not seen in bacteria before, but it is still a Flavobacterium.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/10/2008 12:01:01 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 292
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I hardly expect anyone's biases to be overcome, but this is capital 'C' Cool stuff. What's even COOLER is that Pseudomonas aeruginsa was first characterized as a species in 1872 and has NEVER evolved into any other kind of bacteria in over 135 years. This is equivalent to approximately one million generations of Hominids (surely ample time for monkeys to turn into men!). Creation according to kinds leads to stasis which trumps evolution once again!
Forgive my squirrely ignorance, but I've a few questions.
Do you mean that every every strain of Psudomonas aeruginsa (aeruginosa?) still exists as Pseudomonas aeruginsa, or that there is a strain of Pseudomonas aeruginsa that still exists as Psudomonas aeruginsa?
The first would be quite hard to substantiate, which is why it should be the burden of someone who wishes to prove that it has evolved, rather than the opposite. However, there can still exist a strain of PA that is still PA while another group of that strain has become something else. Divergent evolution is the term, I believe.
This isn't to say that it has happened, but merely that point out that PA still exists isn't really a point in your favor.
However, is there any reason that this bacteria should have evolved? Has there been a dramatic change to their environment in the past 135 years? Are they inefficient at something they do, as to allow for adaptation to better suit that role?
From my understanding of evolution, if something is well suited to its environment, and the environment does not change, you will not see the species evolve simply because any mutation will move it further from the 'ideal' for that environment.
It's bad form, when someone presents evidence that a form of bacteria has evolved to say, "But this one hasn't!" It really doesn't help your argument at all. The fact that one did would be strong evidence for evolutionary theory. The only way to void his point is to show how Nylonase isn't an example of evolution, not by stating that another bacteria hasn't evolved in X years.
I'll be a little less quick to say "yes" (which question was that a yes to gluadys?) the way gluadys has.
We can say only a few things about P. aeruginosa and nylonase.
1. Nylon did not exist on this planet until 1935
2. All other bacteria do not digest nylon
3. A strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa emerged to occupy the niche defined as a nylon rich environment
Whether these facts (yes these are indisputable facts) are a 'no', 'yes', or 'maybe' to your questions requires more work.
To the first question, there exist P. aeruginosa which cannot digest nylon. I'd say it is too much to define this new strain of P. aeruginosa as a new species. That's an encyclopedic answer not deduced from information about nylonase.
"Is there any reason that this bacteria should have evolved?" is a less than perfect evolution question because it invokes satisfying concepts like cause and effect. Explanations that are satisfying have too much power over the human mind. I'd rather ask, "Is there a reason this strain of bacteria survives to the exclusion of all other bacteria?" Answer: Yes, bacteria all other bacteria yield sub-optimal growth in a nylon rich environment because they do not have nylonase.
It is really a separate question to discuss "How did nylonase come to be?". Based on the previously listed facts about P. aeruginosa and nylonase, we cannot answer that question. Nylonase may have always been present in a small minority of P aeruginosa. Nylonase may be a slight modification of an existing enzyme. Nylonase may have been acquired intact by P. aeruginosa through a process of plasmid transfer from a completely different species of bacteria and may require a collection of enzymes already present in P. aeruginosa in order to digest nylon as food.... for us to discover this discovery in the first place.
< Message edited by swan42 -- 5/10/2008 12:15:27 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/10/2008 1:24:06 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3182
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
This isn't to say that it has happened, but merely that point out that PA still exists isn't really a point in your favor. I don't expect an evolutionist to accede points that do not support evolution, just as you do not expect me to accede points which do not support creationism. These are both faith-based worldviews used to interpret the observational evidence available to both sides.
quote:
Nothing. Bacteria did not evolve into protists. Unsubstantiated and unprovable opinion!
quote:
Now what makes you think evolution would turn Ps. aerginsa into another kind of bacteria? What makes you think it did not?
quote:
Or will you just admit you don't understand the nested hierarchy? Ahh, another meaningless term to banty about when the going gets tough.
< Message edited by drmark -- 5/10/2008 1:30:20 PM >
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/10/2008 10:23:40 PM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 330
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
This isn't to say that it has happened, but merely that point out that PA still exists isn't really a point in your favor. I don't expect an evolutionist to accede points that do not support evolution, just as you do not expect me to accede points which do not support creationism. These are both faith-based worldviews used to interpret the observational evidence available to both sides.
I will cede any good point you have. That was not a good point. I will not cede it.
I attempt to find out what is true, not to cling to a dogma. If a theory that better suited the available evidence were to emerge, I would abandon evolution. If the same is not true for you and creationism, there can be no dialog.
quote:
quote:
Now what makes you think evolution would turn Ps. aerginsa into another kind of bacteria? What makes you think it did not?
That's not a proper response to Gluadys' question. Glaudys' isn't ruling out the possibility that it did, merely asking why it would. Only if Glaudys had said, "What makes you thing evolution turned Ps. aerginas into another kind of bacteria?" would your response work. It was a question of reason, not of events.
This is equivalent to you saying, "What makes you think it is not?" to someone saying, "What makes you think the sky is green?"
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/10/2008 10:38:05 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3182
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
I will cede any good point you have. That was not a good point. I will not cede it. Yes, it's quite helpful for meaningful "dialog" when you can determine which points are good enough to "cede".
quote:
That's not a proper response to Gluadys' question. I gather you didn't catch that gluadys' question was not a proper response to my post either.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/10/2008 11:10:42 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 787
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I will cede any good point you have. That was not a good point. I will not cede it. Yes, it's quite helpful for meaningful "dialog" when you can determine which points are good enough to "cede".
quote:
That's not a proper response to Gluadys' question. I gather you didn't catch that gluadys' question was not a proper response to my post either.
On the contrary, my original question was a perfectly proper response. Here is the original exchange to which I replied.
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
ORIGINAL: swan 42
I hardly expect anyone's biases to be overcome, but this is capital 'C' Cool stuff.
What's even COOLER is that Pseudomonas aeruginsa was first characterized as a species in 1872 and has NEVER evolved into any other kind of bacteria in over 135 years. This is equivalent to approximately one million generations of Hominids (surely ample time for monkeys to turn into men!). Creation according to kinds leads to stasis which trumps evolution once again!
Now, if you think that not evolving into another kind of bacteria represents a failure of evolution, you must have some idea of evolution in mind that requires this sort of change.
So I asked: "What, in the theory of evolution, would make you expect it to become another kind of bacteria?"
I am still waiting for an answer to that question, for instead of answering it, you responded with another question---one that is right off the wall. You asked: "what in the "theory of evolution" makes you expect Ps aer would evolve into an amoeba?"
To which I again responded quite properly and factually: "Nothing." And repeated my first question.
And again, instead of responding, you simply throw it back.
So, twice now, you have answered a question with a question instead of providing an answer to the question.
What makes you think the theory of evolution posits that any kind of bacteria must, over time, turn into another kind of bacteria -- never mind an amoeba?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/10/2008 11:20:03 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3182
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
From Theory of Evolution:quote:
The theory of evolution posits a process of self-transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.
Based on this standard definition, TOE posits that bacteria underwent a process of self-transformation to more complex life forms. I used an amoeba as an illustrative case. I retract the specific use if it makes you feel better, gluadys. Do you agree that TOE "posits a process of self-transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms"? Yes or no. I'm really tired of wasting time on semantics with someone of your linguistic capability.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/11/2008 8:19:21 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 787
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
From Theory of Evolution:quote:
The theory of evolution posits a process of self-transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.
Based on this standard definition, TOE posits that bacteria underwent a process of self-transformation to more complex life forms. I used an amoeba as an illustrative case. I retract the specific use if it makes you feel better, gluadys. Do you agree that TOE "posits a process of self-transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms"? Yes or no. I'm really tired of wasting time on semantics with someone of your linguistic capability.
No, I do not agree with this definition and I challenge you to find it in any standard undergrad textbook on biological evolution. Unless you find it in the texts actually used to teach evolution, it is not a "standard" definition.
Using a non-standard definition of evolution is what leads you to incorrect conclusions about what is to be expected from evolution.
Start with a real standard definition--one actually used by scientists-- instead of one concocted by anti-evolutionists for their convenience, and you will find far fewer examples of the "failure" of evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/12/2008 11:46:44 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 445
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
From Theory of Evolution:quote:
The theory of evolution posits a process of self-transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.
Based on this standard definition, TOE posits that bacteria underwent a process of self-transformation to more complex life forms. I used an amoeba as an illustrative case. I retract the specific use if it makes you feel better, gluadys. Do you agree that TOE "posits a process of self-transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms"? Yes or no. I'm really tired of wasting time on semantics with someone of your linguistic capability.
No, I do not agree with this definition and I challenge you to find it in any standard undergrad textbook on biological evolution. Unless you find it in the texts actually used to teach evolution, it is not a "standard" definition.
Using a non-standard definition of evolution is what leads you to incorrect conclusions about what is to be expected from evolution.
Start with a real standard definition--one actually used by scientists-- instead of one concocted by anti-evolutionists for their convenience, and you will find far fewer examples of the "failure" of evolution.
Yeah, Dr. Mark. Find the definition of evolution that has the least amount of problems and you'll find that evolution has no problems at all!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/12/2008 11:59:46 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3182
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
Indeeed, DanJ, evolutionists have become masters of the bait-and-switch con game to define the word anyway they need for particular argumentive purposes. Here's the classic example on "What is Evolution?" from talkorigins.org. Such a pathetic display of circular reasoning and self-serving relativism from so-called scientists!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/12/2008 12:45:42 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 787
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Yeah, Dr. Mark. Find the definition of evolution that has the least amount of problems and you'll find that evolution has no problems at all!
No, don't invent a definition out of thin air. Use the definition which is used by scientists. Otherwise, all objections to evolution are merely tilting at windmills of your own invention. It is not hard to find the correct definition. As the article Dr. Mark referenced concludes: Reading a textbook would help.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/12/2008 12:47:35 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 787
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Indeeed, DanJ, evolutionists have become masters of the bait-and-switch con game to define the word anyway they need for particular argumentive purposes. Here's the classic example on "What is Evolution?" from talkorigins.org. Such a pathetic display of circular reasoning and self-serving relativism from so-called scientists!
Perhaps you would like to point out a specific example of circular reasoning in the article?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/13/2008 3:55:38 PM
|
|
|
Zuniceratops
Posts: 18
Joined: 3/16/2008
Status: online
|
Evolution does posit that over time, bacteria, or at least some bacteria-like life form, developed into a more amoeba-like life form. Since science is supposed to be observable, testable, and repeatable, it follows that if we could simulate the right conditions and have enough time, we could cause bacteria to evolve into amoebas again. Drmark’s point that over 135 years no strain of Ps. aeruginsa has been observed evolving into something with eukaryote characteristics means that Ps. aerigunsas has failed to substantiate this part of the theory of evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/13/2008 4:54:34 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 787
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops
Evolution does posit that over time, bacteria, or at least some bacteria-like life form, developed into a more amoeba-like life form. Since science is supposed to be observable, testable, and repeatable, it follows that if we could simulate the right conditions and have enough time, we could cause bacteria to evolve into amoebas again. Drmark’s point that over 135 years no strain of Ps. aeruginsa has been observed evolving into something with eukaryote characteristics means that Ps. aerigunsas has failed to substantiate this part of the theory of evolution.
No, he and you are still wrong.
Evolution does not predict that a given organism or group of organisms will all follow the same route to survival. In fact, it is more likely that you will get a diversity of responses.
Time alone will certainly not provide a reason for developing eukaryote characteristics. Nor would a simulation of the right conditions. After all, in the actual event, most bacteria did not become eukaryotes, and we could expect that most bacteria in a simulation would not either. Why would a Pseudomonas develop characteristics in a simulation which its ancestors did not in real history?
I expect as well that you are aware of the theory that eukaryotes are a product of one or more instances of symbiosis involving both archea and bacteria. This is also not something one would expect from a Pseudomonas in the ordinary course of reproduction no matter for how long.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/13/2008 5:45:30 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1000
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops
Evolution does posit that over time, bacteria, or at least some bacteria-like life form, developed into a more amoeba-like life form. Since science is supposed to be observable, testable, and repeatable, it follows that if we could simulate the right conditions and have enough time, we could cause bacteria to evolve into amoebas again.
For that to happen we would need to use bacteria which have the same DNA as their ancestors who existed 3 billion years ago. We would also need to clear all life from the Earth and allow bacteria to multiply to astounding numbers (10^30?) and allow them to evolve into every possible niche. I really don't see how this experiment is feasible unless we terraform Mars to the same condition as a young Earth.
quote:
Drmark’s point that over 135 years no strain of Ps. aeruginsa has been observed evolving into something with eukaryote characteristics means that Ps. aerigunsas has failed to substantiate this part of the theory of evolution.
I sat for 5 min at a construction site one time and I failed to see a skyscraper built. Does this mean it is impossible for humans to build skyscrapers?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/20/2008 8:09:03 PM
|
|
|
Zuniceratops
Posts: 18
Joined: 3/16/2008
Status: online
|
Supposing that it would really take billions of years for prokaryotes to evolve into eukaryotes, surely we could still see bacteria in experiments take some steps on the way to becoming eukaryotes. It seems we might see bacteria permanently losing cell walls and finding ways to survive without them (so they could be more flexible). Or we might see the membrane of a bacteria invaginate, and maybe even move inside the bacteria to form a crude covering over the DNA. It seems we should see bacteria doing something that evolutionists have postulated bacteria would have had to have done in the past to evolve.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/20/2008 8:16:28 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 292
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops
Supposing that it would really take billions of years for prokaryotes to evolve into eukaryotes, surely we could still see bacteria in experiments take some steps on the way to becoming eukaryotes. It seems we might see bacteria permanently losing cell walls and finding ways to survive without them (so they could be more flexible). Or we might see the membrane of a bacteria invaginate, and maybe even move inside the bacteria to form a crude covering over the DNA. It seems we should see bacteria doing something that evolutionists have postulated bacteria would have had to have done in the past to evolve.
Surely this line of reasoning lacks logical strength.
Time is necessary for prokaryotes to evolve into eukaryotes, but time alone is not sufficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_sufficient_conditions
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/20/2008 9:49:48 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 787
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops
Supposing that it would really take billions of years for prokaryotes to evolve into eukaryotes, surely we could still see bacteria in experiments take some steps on the way to becoming eukaryotes. It seems we might see bacteria permanently losing cell walls and finding ways to survive without them (so they could be more flexible). Or we might see the membrane of a bacteria invaginate, and maybe even move inside the bacteria to form a crude covering over the DNA. It seems we should see bacteria doing something that evolutionists have postulated bacteria would have had to have done in the past to evolve.
Why? We don't expect history to repeat itself in other fields? Why should we expect the unique events of evolutionary history to be repeated. Remember, modern bacteria are descendants of those bacteria which were never involved in the development of eukaryotes in the first place. What makes it likely that they would be now?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/21/2008 12:00:02 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1000
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops
Supposing that it would really take billions of years for prokaryotes to evolve into eukaryotes, surely we could still see bacteria in experiments take some steps on the way to becoming eukaryotes. It seems we might see bacteria permanently losing cell walls and finding ways to survive without them (so they could be more flexible). Or we might see the membrane of a bacteria invaginate, and maybe even move inside the bacteria to form a crude covering over the DNA. It seems we should see bacteria doing something that evolutionists have postulated bacteria would have had to have done in the past to evolve.
Why would we see bacteria go against 3.5 billion years of evolution? It could be argued that bacteria are the most highly evolved type of life on the planet. They definitely make up the vast majority of life on this planet making up most of the Earth's biomass. From the bottom of your feet to the top of your head bacteria outnumber your human cells 100 to 1. But I am a bit biased being a microbiologist and all.;)
Modern bacteria have gone down the path of unicellularity too far to ever retreat back to multicellularity. There are species that are eons past them when it comes to being a multicellular lifeform so there is no real way for them to compete, but why would they. Bacteria can grow from a few thousand to several billion within a single day. No mammal can do that.
So the real question is why would bacteria evolve more complexity when they don't need it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/22/2008 6:54:16 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 445
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops
Supposing that it would really take billions of years for prokaryotes to evolve into eukaryotes, surely we could still see bacteria in experiments take some steps on the way to becoming eukaryotes. It seems we might see bacteria permanently losing cell walls and finding ways to survive without them (so they could be more flexible). Or we might see the membrane of a bacteria invaginate, and maybe even move inside the bacteria to form a crude covering over the DNA. It seems we should see bacteria doing something that evolutionists have postulated bacteria would have had to have done in the past to evolve.
Why? We don't expect history to repeat itself in other fields? Why should we expect the unique events of evolutionary history to be repeated. Remember, modern bacteria are descendants of those bacteria which were never involved in the development of eukaryotes in the first place. What makes it likely that they would be now?
My irony meter is pegging. Of course we wouldn't expect it to happen. One of the many things that makes evolution such a weak theory is that it does not produce such testable results. If it were properly scrutinized, one might ask why we would never expect a prokaryote to develop novel genetic information suitable for producing the wonders of eukaryotic life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/22/2008 8:14:24 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 787
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops
Supposing that it would really take billions of years for prokaryotes to evolve into eukaryotes, surely we could still see bacteria in experiments take some steps on the way to becoming eukaryotes. It seems we might see bacteria permanently losing cell walls and finding ways to survive without them (so they could be more flexible). Or we might see the membrane of a bacteria invaginate, and maybe even move inside the bacteria to form a crude covering over the DNA. It seems we should see bacteria doing something that evolutionists have postulated bacteria would have had to have done in the past to evolve.
Why? We don't expect history to repeat itself in other fields? Why should we expect the unique events of evolutionary history to be repeated. Remember, modern bacteria are descendants of those bacteria which were never involved in the development of eukaryotes in the first place. What makes it likely that they would be now?
My irony meter is pegging. Of course we wouldn't expect it to happen. One of the many things that makes evolution such a weak theory is that it does not produce such testable results. If it were properly scrutinized, one might ask why we would never expect a prokaryote to develop novel genetic information suitable for producing the wonders of eukaryotic life.
Indeed, much of evolution is unexpected before it happens. This is due to the contingency of the events by which it happens. That is why Stephen J. Gould liked to say that if we could rewind the tape of history and start again where we were 3.8 billion years ago, we would probably get an entirely different evolutionary history. We might get 3 billion years of nothing but prokaryotes. Or we might get something happening that was as complex as eukaryotes but in a different way.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/23/2008 10:15:34 AM
|
|
|
Zuniceratops
Posts: 18
Joined: 3/16/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
Why? We don't expect history to repeat itself in other fields? Why should we expect the unique events of evolutionary history to be repeated. Remember, modern bacteria are descendants of those bacteria which were never involved in the development of eukaryotes in the first place. What makes it likely that they would be now?
quote:
Why would we see bacteria go against 3.5 billion years of evolution?
Because they apparently did it in the past. It’s said that a major indication of whether something is scientific is that it’s repeatable. You can do it again, or cause something like it to happen again. Evolution is a vital component of biological science, so it is claimed, so it must be repeatable in some form. Why shouldn’t bacteria develop some features that make them more like eukaryotes, especially in labs where scientists can remove eukaryote competition? And if they don’t need it today, why did they need it back then? And if bacteria absolutely cannot be expected to be able to form any eukaryote characteristics today, how do we know they could do it in the past?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors... - 5/23/2008 10:46:04 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1000
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
My irony meter is pegging.
Maybe you should have it checked. It appears to be broken.
quote:
Of course we wouldn't expect it to happen. One of the many things that makes evolution such a weak theory is that it does not produce such testable results.
Every time you sequence a genome you are testing the results of evolution. Every time a new fossil species is found the theory is being tested.
Do you expect the lottery results to be the same each week?
quote:
If it were properly scrutinized, one might ask why we would never expect a prokaryote to develop novel genetic information suitable for producing the wonders of eukaryotic life.
Why didn't burralillo's evolve? For every species that did evolve there are billions of possible species that did not.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
