Design:All faith aside.

And how do you think some of them became "bad"? God made em? Giant space robots?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The bacteria that exist today are not the same as those in the past. The basic model is successful, I admit. All other animals evolved from something like bacteria. The nucleus of our cells are adapted bacteria that formed a symbiotic relationship with the cell. At least in that sense, we are evolved bacteria.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They are just bad because they kill living things instead of keep them alive like the 'good' ones.

http://www.google.com/search?q=good...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right....
Ok, do you know what Escherichia coli is? It's also known as E. coli. Great model organism, very well studied. It's a major symbiont of mammals and birds, us included. We have billions of them in our guts. We need them to keep out invading bacteria and help us digest our food. I bet you've also heard of people getting sick from E. coli.

Now, how do you reckon that happens? How does E. coli help one person and then suddenly kill a bunch of people?

I'll give you a hint. It starts with an "e".

 

But i dont know of any proof that bacteria evolved into something else.:shrug:

 

pwnd by google

 

Thanks for your insight. The bigger question at hand is: At what point does bacteria type organism turn into a fish for instance.

 

Roman,

I really dont know what that is supposed to show????? (pwnd by google)

Remember who it was that made this statement?

"And how do you think some of them became "bad"? God made em? Giant space robots?"

Wasnt me.

 

But you were talking about all of them, taken together.

That's like saying the fact that a mouse doesn't fly when you throw it off a cliff tells you that a mammal can't fly.

We have plenty of evidence of bacteria evolving "away from" their former identities, in such things as the mitochondria and nucleus of the eukaryotic cell for example.

My guess is that a fungus or two would pick up the slack after a while. Or an archeon. Evolution can be extremely rapid in the case of a large, empty niche and the right invader.

You seem to be arguing that something that hasn't happened in less than fifty years in a Western scientific lab can't happen, and all the evidence of it's having happened is bunk.

 

That sounds good but the evidence does not support it at all.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacterialh.html

 

But let me get your argument- you're saying that because things rely on other things, and you take some of those things away, and those things perish, the system must have been designed for it to work like that.

That's... that's really piss poor. Design may be sufficient, but it certainly isn't necessary.
Simple thought experiments will demonstrate why your logic sucks.

Say there is a pile of rocks, and the rock at the bottom is removed. The rock pile falls down. Was the system designed?

Likewise, while a creator could have designed the system so one thing relies on the other, evolution also explains how one thing can rely on another. Creation isn't required to explain something that relies upon another thing. You get trapped in a cave, and run out of food, and die. Due to your logic, the police should start looking for people to arrest, since someone must have set you up. Right? Right.

I hope you haven't bred.

 

They became "bad" due to mutations in their genome that made them virulent. AKA evolution. I was asking you to postulate how, or who, made them bad, since they weren't always bad to begin with.

 

So? They're still not very complex. Diverse, yes. Complex? Not... really.

 

Well, we've turned diptera into what look like hymenoptera in laboratories. We've got pigeons that are so round, you can roll them. We've got turkeys so fat, they can't breed. We've got chiuahuas and great danes....

Life's pretty mutable, if selection is strong enough.

 

Roman,

Do you realize that nothing in your post pertains to evolution?

 

You really don't know enough about biology to argue this stuff, but I'll try to help you out, anyway.

In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. This process causes populations of organisms to change over time. Inherited traits are the expression of genes that are passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms. Such new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

Well, they did. Some of them evolved the ability to swim. All life on Earth came from these first kinds of cells. That's the basic premise of evolution, that more complex beings came from simpler ones.

 

:shrug:

 

What is "it", and how does your link provide evidence against "it" ?

If you are claiming that removal of all bacteria would cause the end of life on earth, yoru link provides no evidence to support you. You need to show much more - such as why fungi and archaeons, for example, would not remain and flourish.

If you mean to conclude from that assertion that bacteria are a component of a designed system, you need a completely different approach. Lots of evolved systems - even chance systems - have necessary components.

 

It can't be backed up yet..or maybe ever.