macroevolution in bacteria?

I do not believe in macroeveloution , and i question scientists claims to actually observe macroevolution

Scientists have seen bacteria exchange genetic material. They have seen bacteria become antibiotic resistant. They have seen bacteria become bigger from mutations. But have they ever seen bacteria become anything other than bacteria? Or a virus evolve into a bacteria?--No

Have one type of bacteria, such as E.coli, become some other type of bacteria that is not (in this case) E.coli
--No

In fact, with over a hundred years of work with E.coli behind us, (at 20 minutes per generation time, that's over 2 1/5 MILLION generations of E.coli minimum that have been witnessed its still E.coli, and they have encouraged
or forced mutations and its still E.coli Is that macroevolution? Not to me.

If you think a bacteria can mutate into a whale in a few mutations, or that a virus can evolve into a bacteria (I laughed interiorly when reading that), your understandment of evolution must be close to nil...

I think a potential reason that bacteria may not have exhibited macroevolution is that they do not reproduce sexually. Asexual reproduction is a poor mechanism for promoting mutation, so this might be a major impediment for any potential macroevolution among bacteria. Protists, some of whom do reproduce sexually, might be a better subject for study, although I'm no biologist and am merely assuming protists have a rapid gestation cycle.

Whether or not evolution is true in the Darwinian presentation is not really that important to me, however, and I can live with either possibility.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by uberarcanist]

This sounds plausible..

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

Originally posted by DarkSide
If you think a bacteria can mutate into a whale in a few mutations, or that a virus can evolve into a bacteria (I laughed interiorly when reading that), your understandment of evolution must be close to nil...

this must be a Ebonics word only you understand---interiorly-





well i believe since your so ''smart'' THE WORD IS UNDERSTANDING

and you must be oblivious to2 1/5 MILLION generations of E.coli minimum that have been witnessed as i stated, as for a virus turning into a bacteria
or a fusing the claim scientifically has been made, you should go out their
and read something other than comic books

next time Read with your eyes open

[edit on 8-5-2007 by tom_roberts]

Originally posted by tom_roberts

Originally posted by DarkSide
If you think a bacteria can mutate into a whale in a few mutations, or that a virus can evolve into a bacteria (I laughed interiorly when reading that), your understandment of evolution must be close to nil...

this must be a Ebonics word only you understand---interiorly-





well i believe since your so ''smart'' THE WORD IS UNDERSTANDING

and you must be oblivious to2 1/5 MILLION generations of E.coli minimum that have been witnessed as i stated, as for a virus turning into a bacteria
or a fusing the claim scientifically has been made, you should go out their
and read something other than comic books

next time Read with your eyes open

[edit on 8-5-2007 by tom_roberts]

Tom, I don't think that was called for.

Tom apparently has very strong feelings but a lack of a grasp on the English language. That's why he sounded like such a moron. I don't blame him, really. A lot of people are like that. Some people just don't have the intellectual capacity for a real understanding of things, you shouldn't blame them.

Great, let's end a potentially good thread with intellectually stimulating questions with petty name-calling.

Yeah, that was fun. Either way, evolution is far from fact. You can't really test it, though we've seen mutations. The question is, can such mutations really turn a bacteria into something like a human if given enough time?

I think Darwin was a genius by developing an untestable hypothesis, that is, that bacteria could in fact turn into people.

Who the hell knows? It'd take millions of years if good old CD is correct.

i can not help but notice you -487 point rating
and i am a moron for flaming a flamer



[edit on 8-5-2007 by tom_roberts]

This issue has been brought back and forward to discredit the Darwin theory of evolution by the supporters of ID.

But I suggest that the author of the thread read the National Geographic issue of november 2004.

magma.nationalgeographic.com...

Actually the fact that disease-causing microbes are so dangerous to people is because of,

Natural selection they acquire resistance to drugs that should kill them. They evolve. There's no better or more immediate evidence supporting the Darwinian theory than this process of forced transformation among our inimical germs.

Another example the common bacterium Staphylococcus aureus, also has evolve into antibiotic-resistant strains represent an evolutionary series.

their DNA, which uses the same genetic code found in humans and horses and hagfish and honeysuckle, bacteria are part of the continuum of life, all shaped and diversified by evolutionary forces.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by marg6043]

Originally posted by tom_roberts
i can not help but notice you -487 point rating
and i am a moron for flaming a flamer

ok


As for marg's post, it's not certain that mutations, especially those that relate to antibiotic resistance, work in such large-scale evolution. It does, in theory, but it hasn't been observed, and there isn't enough evidence to call it a day...

I don't think it has much to do with discrediting as much as counting chickens before they hatch. Either way, evolution doesn't contradict intelligent design, it just makes it a little harder to explain.

Lets bring another example of viruses that evolve, HIV, for a virus like this to replicate the way it does . . . also shows a high rate of mutation.

Evolution may go slowly to the point that many scientist will have to spend a life time just to research them.

This is why the theory of evolution is attacked so often, because the skeptics of the theory of evolution wants to see evolution in action as a proof.

Evidence of evolutionary theory are coming out all the time as we discover species that used to live in earth millions and thousands of years ago.

But early earth believers will not look at the discoveries because after all the earth is no older than 6 thousand years, too short a time for evolution to actually take place, in some forms of organisms.

Another good example of macroevolution is rats. Over the years large populations of rats have been exterminated when they become an infestation. The survivors of the exterminations have been known to slowly (but surely) become resistant to the chemicals used by pest controllers. If evolution weren't true, that wouldn't happen.

Penicillin is no longer used as a the cure-all because so many viruses or bacteria have evolved a resistance to it.

Evolution doesn't happen over the course of one, or even on thousand, lifetimes. It takes time. It begins with a simple mutation. If that mutation is beneficial the mutated specimen will survive and have more chances to mate, and when it does it will pass the mutation on. Over time the mutation mutates further until the 'mutants' are no longer the same as the progenitor race. We see examples of evolution in smaller animals because they're lifecycles are short, which means the changes are accelerated.

The concept of evolution is a fickle one, unfortunatley there really isnt any proof that it occurs. There is genetic variation within each species but there is no proof for or against to support evolutions existence. If we take a look at the fossil records there is no clear indication that a species gradually formed into another species. The differences are so wide and sporadic that if evolution was to occur, it would literally have to occur over night. The idea basically comes from the fact that humanity in itself still hasnt found "the missing link". Within our species we have developed vastly through leaps and bounds to attain the form we have now, and yet other ape species have changed very little. As for those who believe we developed from some form of ape, how is it that we are the only variation? Why was no other variation developed from a different species of ape? Any scientist can tell you that there is a major flaw in the darwinian theory of evolution, but there are merits as well, we do have a genetic code, and it does seem to have a structure that can be manipulated. Although it is almost impossible to prove either way that it is what it is, we observe our environment and give the different situations a title. Also remember, its a theory, it isnt religious dogma, so for those who say there is no other way your not thinking very scientifically. Just remember how long it took for people to realize that the earth wasnt just a pancake.

MODERATOR'S NOTE: PLEASE LIMIT YOUR DISCUSSION TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND AND NOT YOUR OPINION OF THE POSTER'S INTELLECTUAL CAPACITIES OR EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Yeah, that was fun. Either way, evolution is far from fact. You can't really test it, though we've seen mutations. The question is, can such mutations really turn a bacteria into something like a human if given enough time?

Actually, we CAN test evolution and we have, many times. One incident I know about directly involved two different species of the same genus of a type of fossil oysters (exogyra costata and exogyra ponderosa... I think.) Two were known -- costata and ponderosa and a third (the "missing link" was theorized in papers for awhile, with certain attributes predicted.

They later found the fossil of these "missing link" oysters (named cancellata), and the differences were what had been predicted by evolutionists.

That's just one I know about. There are other examples in paleontology... lots and lots of them.

We use knowledge of evolution to predict what dinosaur bones will look like. Not all dino bones are found as complete skeletons and we have to geuess at what some parts look like. This is done by comparing bones of related species. When the missing bones are finally found, we find that they really do look like the predictions.

(please note, I'm really simplifying things here because I didn't want to get into a long and technical discussion. Really REALLY simplifying.)

[edit on 9-5-2007 by Byrd]

Originally posted by newage2012
If we take a look at the fossil records there is no clear indication that a species gradually formed into another species.

The source of your information for that is wrong.

I work in a paleontology lab, and I prep fossils, so I can say without a doubt that your information source doesn't know a thing about what's been found and is hiding its head in the sand about the issue.

Why was no other variation developed from a different species of ape?

Your source apparently isn't familiar with hominid evolution. Throughout most of history (millions of years) there were 2-4 different species of hominids living at any given time. Our period of history is unusual (modern times) because there's only one living species of homindis around.

Any scientist can tell you that there is a major flaw in the darwinian theory of evolution, but there are merits as well, we do have a genetic code, and it does seem to have a structure that can be manipulated.

The scientists I work with wouldn't support your statement. They're paleontologists. In fact, I can't think of many scientists (biologists, paleontologists) who work in the field who would agree with you. There might be some physicists and others (who don't work directly with biology) who'd agree, but those who do work with living and dead species certainly don't agree.

if RM's definition of macroevolution is the one currently used, that means that any form of increased resistance to whatever may be considered macroevolution, including more resistant bacteria.

As for you tom, I suggest to not "correct" peoples posts if you do not make flawless posts yourself (which you do not).

And, is it just me, or would be any form of cross-breeding be considered evolution as well. (or artificial evolution, if you will)

Eg.: the horse and a donkey, or ''new bees''.

[edit on 9/5/07 by -0mega-]

I think that after reading and posting on these issues recently and learning so much from other members, I agree that there is a Law of Natural Selection which operates in viruses, bacteria and protoctists. However there seems to be selection for PRE_EXISTING resistance genes due to the sheer genetic variation of these organisms from genetic recombination (shuffling of genes).

So I have moved slightly uncomfortably, to sit on the fence. However, the fact that we select for pre-existing genes does not, to my limited mind, suggest evolution- ONLY selection of pre-existing genes.

If I remember correctly, in vitro cell cultures showed how drug resistance occurred in tumour cells by gene amplification (multicopies of the pre-existing resistance gene). Dihydrofolate reductase if I remember from many years back.

Humans may be different. They may be extremely resistant to genetic changes for several reasons:

The human genome is mostly non-coding. The probability of mutations would tend to hit non-coding DNA or pseudogenes

Humans tend to show polymorphisms in genes e.g. they can have two copies of certain genes and live quite happily

There are protective mechanisms inside humans to avoid or ameliorate the effects of mutated cells - T cells may play a surveilllance role in destroying tumour cells.

So humans seem to be protected from mutations. Bacteria and smaller organisms do not have this Grace of the Almighty. May His Blessings guide us all.
Amen.