If Evolution Were True

[Investocracy]

Why do primitive forms of life not evolve into higher forms of life constantly through-out history?

Example: Evolutionary mechanism for eukaryote cells is that two prokaryotic cells symbiotically combined to form a single cell that had a nuclei and a mitochondria. This theoretically occurred 2.1-1.6 Billion years ago. Eukaryote are the basic building blocks "evolutionary mechanism" of all life as we know it; animals, plants, fungi, protists etc...

So why is it we don't see animals whose ancestry goes back to a prokaryotic symbiosis that occurred just 1 billion years ago and are 1 billion years behind evolutionarily compared with some other critters who evolved from older eukaryote?

We simply don't see this...AT ALL.

Everything in evolution is linear except for grey areas that are difficult to define and constantly argued over.

If Evolution were true we should see less evolved organisms repeat similar evolutions over time...this is not observed in nature.

 

[Stellify]

Wait...So, are you basically asking why there are still some very un-evolved, basic critters out there?

(Sorry...It's after five in the morning and I haven't slept yet...and I'm on cold medicine. Just wanted to make sure I knew exactly what you're asking before giving you an answer )

 

[BucephalusBB]

Why do primitive forms of life not evolve into higher forms of life constantly through-out history?

Because there is no such thing as "higher" :sarcastic

Why should one adapt when there is no need?

 

[Investocracy]

The first post; no what I am saying is evolution is a mechanism the basics of which is as follows...

Proto-soup amino acids evolved into prokaryotes which evolved into eukaryotes the prokaryotes are "bacteria" and some other things and the eurkaryotes evolved into everything else imaginable (practically).

From these basic supposed "facts" we can argue some things that don't make sense.

1) Prokaryotes evolved into Eukaryotes only once; never to do it again.
2) Viruses do not return into prokaryotes, prokaryotes no longer regress into viruses, and free amino acids no longer evolve into prokaryotes and viruses.

This leads me to the other post to which I simply say... Why not? What has changed that a bacterium no longer regresses into a virophage? What happened that Bacterium no longer combine to form new Eukaryotic cells? And why can we not FORCE this to happen?

 

[rojse]

Everything in evolution is linear except for grey areas that are difficult to define and constantly argued over.

Not true. Evolution is not a tree. Horizontal Gene Transfer means that many genes are passed between species that are quite far apart on the tree that is often envisioned.

Certainly, the tree does explain a lot, but science has shown that HGT is particularly important for the eukaryotes, and plays an important role for bacteria.

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - life - 21 January 2009 - New Scientist

 

[Stellify]

The first post; no what I am saying is evolution is a mechanism the basics of which is as follows...

Proto-soup amino acids evolved into prokaryotes which evolved into eukaryotes the prokaryotes are "bacteria" and some other things and the eurkaryotes evolved into everything else imaginable (practically).

From these basic supposed "facts" we can argue some things that don't make sense.

1) Prokaryotes evolved into Eukaryotes only once; never to do it again.
2) Viruses do not return into prokaryotes, prokaryotes no longer regress into viruses, and free amino acids no longer evolve into prokaryotes and viruses.

This leads me to the other post to which I simply say... Why not? What has changed that a bacterium no longer regresses into a virophage? What happened that Bacterium no longer combine to form new Eukaryotic cells? And why can we not FORCE this to happen?

Well, as far as my understanding goes, basic building blocks are still necessary to life. For instance, amino acids.

As for other things, if something (even a single-celled organism) is thriving as it is, then it doesn't need to evolve, does it? Viruses and bacteria don't necessarily need to evolve into another life form, because they're fine the way they are. Although they do evolve to become more resistant to drugs, or to become infectious to new species.
With regression....why? What benefit would there be? Evolution is about benefiting whatever species you're talking about by slow changes over generations. If there is no benefit, then it shouldn't be taking place.

Why can't we force it to happen? Well, I would guess that it's simply because we don't know how yet.

 

[painted wolf]

Evolution is not a ladder of progression.

E.coli are just as evolved as you are to live their lives. How would being more complex help them with their life in your gut?

As for the prokaryote- eukaryote thing... Only one living linage exists today, that doesn't mean that other eukaryote like organisms didn't evolve and die out.
Also we eukaryotes are closer to Archaea than Prokaryotes.

Viruses are highly specalized "critters". The really interesting thing is how little difference there is between the size of the geneome of the largest virus and the smallest bacteria.

Evolution doesn't go backwards. If it did you would have a good argument against evoltuon.

wa:do

ps. HGT doesn't kill the tree, it just makes the roots more complex. And HGT is old news that was, I hate to say it, blown out of proportion. (plus the stuff at the end of the article is just a bit wacky)

 

[Troublemane]

I agree with everyone who has answered so far. We have such a wealth of knowledge here on RF!:foryou:

As far as I am concerned, "evolution" cant be a linear progression. Its not a heirarchy but a "holarchy", where each part contributes something to the whole. Thats why it survives. Its like asking, how come bees evloved in order to pollenate flowers?...they didnt. It was the mutually beneficial relationship bees and flowers had together which allowed them to take advantage of each other, thus joining into a larger system.

Archaeologists are now saying they think fruits developed not as a way to drop seeds to the ground, but as a way to lure large animals to eat them, because it was a defense against mass defoliation. And it was a way to get the animals to transport their seeds further away. Thus the animals and plants form a greater whole, each depending on each other, which is why it works.

The same is true for the bacteria and viruses. They survive because our bodies are convenient breeding grounds for them. And I think its been noted that, even when frozen for 10,000 years, bacteria will spring back to life when thawed.

Its possible bacteria still exist as a kind of "failsafe" device in case all life on earth is extinguished. Maybe? I mean, even if you boiled away the oceans, as long as there was still an atmosphere, life would still come back eventually. :angel2:

 

[3.14]

well evolutionary speaking a cockroach is much more evolved then us
evolutionary speaking were a fluke, no defencive or offencive measures, small teeth claws no speed not alot of agility needs constant food and water, needs help with giving birth etc

so from the cockraoch point of view we are the evolutionary lesser

 

[Zakolyev]

Why do primitive forms of life not evolve into higher forms of life constantly through-out history?

Example: Evolutionary mechanism for eukaryote cells is that two prokaryotic cells symbiotically combined to form a single cell that had a nuclei and a mitochondria. This theoretically occurred 2.1-1.6 Billion years ago. Eukaryote are the basic building blocks "evolutionary mechanism" of all life as we know it; animals, plants, fungi, protists etc...

So why is it we don't see animals whose ancestry goes back to a prokaryotic symbiosis that occurred just 1 billion years ago and are 1 billion years behind evolutionarily compared with some other critters who evolved from older eukaryote?

We simply don't see this...AT ALL.

Everything in evolution is linear except for grey areas that are difficult to define and constantly argued over.

If Evolution were true we should see less evolved organisms repeat similar evolutions over time...this is not observed in nature.

Life spreads to fill all available niches. Each type of organism has its place in the ecosystem, and each depends upon the other in some manner.

 

[Diederick]

Evolution is very much present in nature, it can be witnessed especially well in smaller organisms; viruses for example. Evolution takes time, the more complex an organism is, the more time it will take to see significant evolving.

Also note that new life will keep being produced from the environment of this planet. It is highly unlikely that the first forming of life was a singular, one time only event. Evolution is very much a fact, not just a 'theory' which you may have been told by people with a religious motivation. Besides, the intense and ever growing diversity of life on earth is testament to evolution, proof enough for me that there is no creator.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why do primitive forms of life not evolve into higher forms of life constantly through-out history?

Example: Evolutionary mechanism for eukaryote cells is that two prokaryotic cells symbiotically combined to form a single cell that had a nuclei and a mitochondria. This theoretically occurred 2.1-1.6 Billion years ago. Eukaryote are the basic building blocks "evolutionary mechanism" of all life as we know it; animals, plants, fungi, protists etc...

So why is it we don't see animals whose ancestry goes back to a prokaryotic symbiosis that occurred just 1 billion years ago and are 1 billion years behind evolutionarily compared with some other critters who evolved from older eukaryote?

We simply don't see this...AT ALL.

Everything in evolution is linear except for grey areas that are difficult to define and constantly argued over.

If Evolution were true we should see less evolved organisms repeat similar evolutions over time...this is not observed in nature.

Your understanding of evolution is incomplete. Go here: The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs. That is, if you are actually interested in educating yourself on evolutionary biology.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I see no one answered your question.

 

[Nepenthe]

I see no one answered your question.

His question was answered here several times, and over a century ago by Darwin. Do you think this question is new? Do you think Invest' suddenly stumped the biological world on some trivial religious forum? Do you think mouthbreather questions like this are actually anything worth dealing with when the answers are accessible at the flick of a mouse?

Of course not. They'd rather remain ignorant as it maintains their preconceived dogmatic worldview.

 

[Autodidact]

Your factual assumption is mistaken. Bacteria are constantly evolving. It does not follow that they evolve the same way today as the earliest bacteria did; neither the environment nor the modern organisms are the same as they were then. You can't wind the clock back and get the same result, because you can never wind the clock back.

An analogy: Say that the middle of last month was sunny and mild, and the following day was even warmer and drier. Today is sunny and mild. Does it follow that tomorrow will be even warmer and drier? No, because today is not the middle of last month.

And the Theory of Evolution is either true, or science doesn't work.

To the OP: Do you really think that you, with your limited understanding of Biology, are going to succeed in poking holes in a theory that has been prodded and questioned by thousands of the finest minds of the last century, all of whom knew more about it than you?

 

[Valjean]

Evolution is not a ladder of progression.

E.coli are just as evolved as you are to live their lives. How would being more complex help them with their life in your gut?

As for the prokaryote- eukaryote thing... Only one living linage exists today, that doesn't mean that other eukaryote like organisms didn't evolve and die out.
Also we eukaryotes are closer to Archaea than Prokaryotes.

Viruses are highly specalized "critters". The really interesting thing is how little difference there is between the size of the geneome of the largest virus and the smallest bacteria.

Evolution doesn't go backwards. If it did you would have a good argument against evoltuon.

What do you mean by this?
You start out with the assertion that evolution doesn't go foreward. This is true. Evolution doesn't "go" anywhere. It just adapts.
If by "backwards" you mean that organism's can't simplify or revert to previous forms, well, this is just wrong.

 

[Sunstone]

Investocracy is right! Of course evolution is not true! The aliens who built the pyramids put us here -- not evolution!

 

[J Bryson]

Investocracy is right! Of course evolution is not true! The aliens who built the pyramids put us here -- not evolution!

Exactly! The only true Darwinism is Social Darwinism!

 

[Greatest I am]

It is the environment that decides in what direction, if any, the entity need do to survive. It can go back and forth in shape if the environment forces it to.

Crocodiles, are dinosaurs and are still here because the environment has not given them another animal to compete with. No competition = no change.

Modern Man is basically unchanged from our beginnings because we do not have anything to force us to change.

Regards
DL

 

[Nepenthe]

Investocracy is right! Of course evolution is not true! The aliens who built the pyramids put us here -- not evolution!