Bacteria -------> Human - In One Step - What would this provide support/evidence for/against?

[Druidus]

The evidence for evolution's factual nature is vast, well-developed, perhaps even overwhelming. I certainly accept the idea's validity.

But, hypothetically, if a bacterial cell replicated and produced, for example, a human, would that be evidence against evolution? Would it be evidence for creationism? Would it be evidence against/for (respectively) both? Or would it be non-applicable to either evolution or creationism, but rather evidence of a newly discovered phenomenon/force/process/beings? I'm asking out of pure curiosity, because I've seen people say it would be evidence against evolution before. In fact, here are the two quotes from this forum that gave me the thread idea:

[...] A bacteria changing into a human being would DISprove evolution and prove Harry Potter.

It wouldn't disprove it, it just wouldn't be in accordance with it. It would just be considered a different thing entirely and not Evolution.

I don't think it would take anything away from the evidence in support of Evolution though, especially if we don't know what caused a bacteria to turn into a human.

As far as we would know, it could have been aliens tampering with a bacteria genome to program it to turn into a human later in it's life. After all, we're able to make goats produce spider silk in their milk.

So what do you think, folks? Imagine this astonishing event happens, and a human is "birthed" by a bacteria. What would this mean for the theory of evolution? What would it mean for the assertion/s of creationism?

 

[fantome profane]

It would be strong evidence against the theory of evolution.

It would be strong evidence that I need to clean my shower or my apartment is going to start getting very crowded.

 

[Skwim]

The evidence for evolution's factual nature is vast, well-developed, perhaps even overwhelming. I certainly accept the idea's validity.

But, hypothetically, if a bacterial cell replicated and produced, for example, a human, would that be evidence against evolution? Would it be evidence for creationism? Would it be evidence against/for (respectively) both? Or would it be non-applicable to either evolution or creationism, but rather evidence of a newly discovered phenomenon/force/process/beings? I'm asking out of pure curiosity, because I've seen people say it would be evidence against evolution before. In fact, here are the two quotes from this forum that gave me the thread idea:

So what do you think, folks? Imagine this astonishing event happens, and a human is "birthed" by a bacteria. What would this mean for the theory of evolution? What would it mean for the assertion/s of creationism?

Why bother with such a simple event? Why not suppose an invasion of wood nymphs, or a visit by the visages of the newly departed, or an attack by the Ghostbuster's slimer? These would serve as equally good challenges to science.

 

[Druidus]

Why bother with such a simple event? Why not suppose an invasion of wood nymphs, or a visit by the visages of the newly departed, or an attack by the Ghostbuster's slimer? These would serve as equally good challenges to science.

Because this is something I frequently see get said, both here and elsewhere, and I've never really thought too deeply about it. It's just a fun hypothetical based on the common idea that bacteria jumping to humans would disprove evolution.

I contend that it wouldn't necessarily disprove evolution. The evidence for evolution would not be destroyed or lessened by this event, though it would shake things up. It wouldn't automatically imply creationistic intervention, it could be some undiscovered phenomenon, or even an advanced alien race. At least, those possibilities seem more likely than an intervening deity/God. So it wouldn't have to prove evolution wrong, it could just be evidence of a different process, unrelated to evolution or natural selection. I thought it might be interesting to consider what that phenomenon/process could be, if it's not something "supernatural".

I'm just trying to explore a hypothetical, for fun, mainly. Maybe it's odd, I don't know, but I find I can have a lot of fun just exploring (or over-analyzing ) different hypothetical scenarios (is that the plural?).

 

[Valjean]

It would be a phenomenon unexplained by any currently known mechanisms.
I'm sure creationists would be quick to exploit it as evidence of their "theory" of magic, though.

 

[HonestJoe]

Out of context it wouldn't be evidence for anything. It would be an initial observation which would then require hypotheses developing as to how it came about and further observation, study and experiment to then provide evidence regarding those hypotheses.

That so many people seem to believe that everything must be evidence for or against evolution just goes to support my hypothesis that most people are idiots.

 

[Aman777]

The evidence for evolution's factual nature is vast, well-developed, perhaps even overwhelming. I certainly accept the idea's validity.

But, hypothetically, if a bacterial cell replicated and produced, for example, a human, would that be evidence against evolution? Would it be evidence for creationism? Would it be evidence against/for (respectively) both? Or would it be non-applicable to either evolution or creationism, but rather evidence of a newly discovered phenomenon/force/process/beings?

Dear Druidus, The sons of God (prehistoric people) evolved from the common ancestor of Apes, which evolved from the water EXACTLY as God tells us in Genesis 1:21.....BUT...the sons of God (prehistoric people) were NOT Humans since they did NOT descend from Adam, but from the water.

NO man of the time could have possibly known this and that's what I do. I show the AGREEMENT of the latest Science, History, and Scripture IF one reads Genesis for what it actually says, instead of what we have been told it says. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Druidus]

Dear Druidus, The sons of God (prehistoric people) evolved from the common ancestor of Apes, which evolved from the water EXACTLY as God tells us in Genesis 1:21.....BUT...the sons of God (prehistoric people) were NOT Humans since they did NOT descend from Adam, but from the water.

NO man of the time could have possibly known this and that's what I do. I show the AGREEMENT of the latest Science, History, and Scripture IF one reads Genesis for what it actually says, instead of what we have been told it says. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Well, it's certainly all clear now...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It would be evidence for whatever unknown process caused such a phenomenon. Ostensibly, studying the phenomenon would provide insight into the mechanisms, processes, and causes of it. It would be nothing more than conjecture at this point to theorize what could cause such a phenomenon or what it would mean, if anything, for either evolution or creationism.

 

[LuisDantas]

Whatever it would be evidence of, it would not be the ToE. More like magic or a miracle of some sort.

 

[Aman777]

Well, it's certainly all clear now...

Dear Druidus, The PROOF is inside your blood for you have the DNA and ERVs of the common ancestor of Apes....AND....the Human intelligence of Adam, which is like God's intelligence. Gen 3:22 Can you tell us HOW you are a descendant of a man who never stepped foot on this Planet? God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[dust1n]

That doesn't make sense. How can 1 cell spontaneously divide into trillions? You'd have to divide some like a few ten thousand times to get those sort of numbers.

 

[dust1n]

"The human body, consisting of about 100 trillion cells, carries about ten times as many micro-organisms in the intestines."

How many cells are there in the human body? – Greg Laden's Blog

10^14 + (10^14[10]) = 2^x

I think that's right. If so, good luck finding x.

 

[Willamena]

Re the poll, "a miracle" isn't on the list.

 

[columbus]

The evidence for evolution's factual nature is vast, well-developed, perhaps even overwhelming. I certainly accept the idea's validity.

But, hypothetically, if a bacterial cell replicated and produced, for example, a human, would that be evidence against evolution? Would it be evidence for creationism? Would it be evidence against/for (respectively) both? Or would it be non-applicable to either evolution or creationism, but rather evidence of a newly discovered phenomenon/force/process/beings? I'm asking out of pure curiosity, because I've seen people say it would be evidence against evolution before. In fact, here are the two quotes from this forum that gave me the thread idea:





So what do you think, folks? Imagine this astonishing event happens, and a human is "birthed" by a bacteria. What would this mean for the theory of evolution? What would it mean for the assertion/s of creationism?

If this ever happened I wouldn't trust my bicycle.

Heck. If a one celled creature gave "birth" I wouldn't trust much of anything.


Yawn...
Let me know if I should be afraid of anything. So far..

Tom

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

As I said before in the quote, I don't think it would necessarily be evidence against Evolution. It wouldn't at all be for it either as that's not how Evolution works.

If we did observe bacteria spontaneously producing a human I'd look at it as a new unrelated phenomenon. In other words, just because evolution happens doesn't mean other things can't happen.

I don't see how it would take anything away from the evidence for Evolution, like ERVs or the fossil record or observed Evolution in laboratories. None of that evidence simply vanishes just because we've observed some strange unexplained biological phenomenon. Such a phenomenon doesn't mean Evolution hasn't happened.

 

[Aman777]

As I said before in the quote, I don't think it would necessarily be evidence against Evolution. It wouldn't at all be for it either as that's not how Evolution works.

If we did observe bacteria spontaneously producing a human I'd look at it as a new unrelated phenomenon. In other words, just because evolution happens doesn't mean other things can't happen.

I don't see how it would take anything away from the evidence for Evolution, like ERVs or the fossil record or observed Evolution in laboratories. None of that evidence simply vanishes just because we've observed some strange unexplained biological phenomenon. Such a phenomenon doesn't mean Evolution hasn't happened.

Der Andromeda, Evolution is a Satanic Lie since it falsely supposes that Humans had their origin on the present Earth. Evols CANNOT tell us of the true origin or Humans UNTIL they realize that God didn't make one Universe, but instead, a Multiverse with at least 3 Universes. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[idav]

Whatever it would be evidence of, it would not be the ToE. More like magic or a miracle of some sort.

Not only proof for magic but it would mean I couldn't have any grasp on reality whatsoever cause anything could just pop up or disappear. In effect people would lose faith in reality.

 

[Ouroboros]

But, hypothetically, if a bacterial cell replicated and produced, for example, a human, would that be evidence against evolution?

One cell can't "evolve" from a single cell to a multi-cellular organism that complex in one step.

First of all, we all come from one cell. The zygote starts from one cell that comes from the ova that's been fertilized by a sperm. That's one cell, right there. That's how all of us began. It's not a bacterial cell (since it's DNA isn't the same), but it's one cell nonetheless. What that proves is not evolution but biology and development.

So what do you think, folks? Imagine this astonishing event happens, and a human is "birthed" by a bacteria. What would this mean for the theory of evolution? What would it mean for the assertion/s of creationism?

A bacteria's DNA is so far different from human DNA that it can't mutate instantaneously like that. It would be evidence of some X-Men phenomenon rather. Considering that there's a somewhat consistent periodicity of how often a gene mutates (statistically), that if all the necessary mutations happened at once, it would probably disprove evolution and change over time. It would prove, instant evolution, which probably would be evidence for a divine influence (intent).

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

It would prove, instant evolution, which probably would be evidence for a divine influence (intent).

But does it have to be divine? Why can't it be the work of aliens or something? And if it were aliens, it still wouldn't take away from what life does without sentient intervention(whether it's aliens or a god), which would be Evolution as we currently know it.