Not really. Bacteria is actually very complex. Evolution cannot create one bacteria as they "claim." Claims are not facts. However, bacteria certainly creates other forms of bacteria. That is natural selection and it is part of creation science even though many are brainwashed into thinking it is evolution. Religious scientist Alfred Russel Wallace presented it, too. Just look at the evidence in this thread that states natural selection proves evolution. Even Darwin admitted he could not create life, so thought he was wrong about evolution. Actually, he was right. Maybe that and natural selection are the only things he got right. Plenty of evidence to show that atheist Darwin was usually wrong. Back to the bacteria reproducing very quickly. Rapid change is part of creation science. It does not take millions or billions of years.
I am not a biologist, and my biology knowledge in the classroom does not extend beyond year 9 high school science, because I went different route in my studies, choosing to study maths, physics and chemistry, because I was more interested in architecture and engineering at that time in high school and beyond. Year 9 science (like that of years 7 & 8) comprised more brief and general knowledge in different branches of science, that include biology, chemistry, physics, earth science, etc, and what they covered in biology didn't involved evolution. The only things they taught us at this level were human and animal anatomy, basic physiology and genetics, but not evolution. Perhaps I would have learn the basic of evolution, had I chosen to take biology subjects in years 10, 11 & 12, I don't know.
After high school, I chosen to do civil engineering (CE), which involved applied science, more specifically in the area of physics, less in chemistry and "almost" zilch in biology. I wrote "almost", there was a bit of biology, because we had to understand a bit about trees, as woods can be materials for building, so we had to know about their physical properties, their strengths and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages and comparing them against other materials, like steel, concrete, etc. There was a bit of biology in CE geology subject, because soil and clay were part of knowledge in foundation; geology in CE, was not just study of rocks.
Much of my knowledge about biology (including evolution) after high school, has been reading biology textbooks, in my free time, in the last 12 years or more.
My point in all this, about revealing my past education is that I don't have qualification in biology or related fields. Biology has spark my interests, mainly because of the forums I have joined (before RF), involved topics like evolution vs creationism.
Although I was versed in bible, including Genesis creation, I was not so versed in evolution. So before I could even discuss or debate anything for or against evolution, I had to understand evolution, so I did a fair amount of reading and research in biology. And though the books I read only give me more general idea of evolution and their mechanisms, they don't make me an expert in evolution or biology.
I can admit my limitations.
But what I do understand is that my quote of your reply, that your own knowledge is perhaps even more limited than mine.
Evolution is not about biologists "creating life", it is about observing and understanding the mechanisms of biological changes in a population(s) over period of time. Here the period of time is regarding to the number of generations, not years. Evolution is a study of biodiversity, not creation of first life.
Your reply to Iron Wizard, clearly demonstrated you are referring to abiogenesis, not evolution. Abiogenesis is study of biochemistry, the study of how life originated, and of how non-living matters can become living matters.
You are right, evolution doesn't create life, but you are misunderstanding and misrepresenting what evolution is all about. Evolution is about passing genes that will help the next generations, so they can thrive and evolve and survive. Meaning that life have to already exist, if genes need to be passed, from one generation to the next. There have to be ancestors as well descendents, to notice any change.
Evolution is not about life created from nothing.
Natural Selection is about how environmental factors in their habitat can affect changes in life, not only physical appearances, but at genetic or cellular levels. Environmental factors, meaning like their geographical location and terrains (eg Arctic region, temperate zone, jungle, desert, etc), climate, and on availability or scarcity of food, water or other natural resources.
That's what clearly you don't understand.
Charles Darwin was never interested in creating new life, so what you were arguing with Iron Wizard is straw man and wrong.
During Darwin's journey in HMS Beagle, in the 1830s, he wrote down and drew all that he was able to observe - plants, animals, humans, geology, etc, and taking samples with him, before returning to England.
Perhaps, the most interesting observation in his journey, was teaming life on the islands of Galápagos. What he noticed was that species on one island may differ considerably species in the next island. I think the most telling observation of animals are that of Galápagos tortoises.
Why is one species of tortoises are small, with domed shells, short legs and necks, exist in one island, but the neighbouring island have giant tortoises, with saddle-shape shells, and have longer legs, and longer and more flexible necks.
The answer is the islands themselves encourage changes to occur, or else they would die out.
On one island, the climate is more humid and soil are different, allowing growth of vegetation that are low enough for the smaller dome-shaped tortoises to feed on leaves. These tortoises don't need long necks and legs.
On the other island, the climate is drier, and the terrain more rocky. The leaves on vegetation on this island, is higher off the ground. The tortoises not only needs to grow larger, but they need genes which they can have longer legs and necks, that will allow them reach food that their smaller cousins could reach. The smaller tortoises must have died out on this island, leaving only the fitter tortoises - the giant tortoises - to thrive here.
And when biologists talk about "fitness", they are not about strength. Biologists are talking about how species can survive in one habitat, but die out in a different habitat.
This is what Natural Selection attempt to explain. These two species of tortoises, on two different islands, are just one example of Natural Selection, hence evidences for evolution.
Look up "Galápagos tortoises" in Wikipedia, and see pictures of different types of tortoises that lived on the islands.
No where does Darwin talk of creating life out of nothing, hence all you are doing is sprouting straw man nonsenses that have nothing to do with evolution.
Gene Flow (GF) is another mechanism in evolutionary biology, where environmental factors or forces are not involved in changes. GF occurred when another population of species are introduced to the existing population in that location, causing genes to be passed on the next generations, that belong to different species. Essentially, the descendants are hybrid of two different species.
Again, GF here is not about creating life from nothing.
Mutation, is yet another mechanism in evolution. This too don't involve creating life from nothing. It involved one to pass the mutated gene to the next generation.
Life have to already exist for genes to pass from one generation to the next, and that's true for all mechanisms of evolutionary biology.
My suggestion to you is to read and do little research of what evolution actually say than what it doesn't say. You are clearly get this straw man from creationist website, and not from credible peer review sources.
