Bacteria No Longer Considered A Simple Lower Life Form

Once thought of as these simple life forms that was linked to the earliest life forms which supposedly evolved into more complex animals that excited researchers who wanted to reveal the origins of life but as the years went by scientists have been uncovering astounding amount of complex features with these one-cell animals.

New “bacterial complexity” has been recently discovered! Once thought of to be a rarity or an exception to the rule but this process found not only in more complex animals like the eukaryotes but it’s common in bacteria as well!

Science Daily calls this discovery a dawning of a new age in bacteria research…

“Protein acetylation is a molecular reaction inside the cell. It modifies and thus affects the function of proteins, including the molecular machinery responsible for turning genes on or off. Bacteria make up one of the three domains of life. The other two domains are archaea (single-cell organisms distinct from bacteria) and eukaryotes (which include plants and animals). Bacteria evolved before eukaryotes, but they are not as primitive as once thought.

“Bacteria have long been considered simple relatives of eukaryotes,” Wolfe and colleagues wrote. “Obviously, this misperception must be modified.” For example, protein acetylation historically had been considered mostly a eukaryotic phenomenon. But recent research indicates that acetylation also has a broad impact on bacterial physiology.”

“There is a whole process going on that we have been blind to,” Wolfe said.”

Patrick Forterre and Simonetta Gribaldo of the Pasteur Institute was quoted in PNAS as saying, “we should definitely stop thinking of bacteria in terms of simple ‘lower’ organisms.” So what does this new modification consist of that explains “simple” prokaryotes and their supposedly more-evolved superiors, the eukaryotes?

“For example, they imply a specific association between a bacterium and an archaeon for which there are no examples in nature, and assume a very unlikely process where all of the genes of the bacterial  host coding for informational proteins would have been replaced by those of the archaeal symbiont.”

Here is a classic case of storytelling, they make this assumption that evolution is true, observe a fact, then with no examples in nature force the data into the framework by inventing a story on how it evolved which becomes irrelevant in the future with new discoveries. When one makes predictions blindly (especially complex ones) in the dark about nature, it eventually ends up falsified. It’s a disservice to the public who gives their hard earned money in terms of billions of dollars for research. Now learning how things work is good science and this is what the focus should be on rather than science fiction stories. I love reading the latest discoveries which verifies God’s Word!

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “Bacteria No Longer Considered A Simple Lower Life Form

  1. Questions still to be considered:

    (1) Blog readership numbers ?

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

    (4) outstanding question from Upson Downes on mitochondrial Eve

  2. “Bacteria have long been considered simple relatives of eukaryotes,” Wolfe and colleagues wrote. “Obviously, this misperception must be modified.”

    Another Darwinian prediction falsified.

    they make this assumption that evolution is true, observe a fact, then with no examples in nature force the data into the framework by inventing a story on how it evolved which becomes irrelevant in the future with new discoveries.

    Exactly. When the speculations become irrelevant with new discoveries, nothing changes. Nobody gets fired or discredited for making false predictions. Evolutionary theory is not questioned.

  3. Michael,

    The tittle of your post alone shows your ignorance of evolutionary theory. There is no such thing as lower life-forms!!!! Your title presumes an “evolutionary ladder” which Darwin did not endorse. Darwin’s tree of life actually refutes the idea that some life forms are lower than others.

    You are confusing Darwin’s theory of evolution with the theories of Lamark (who Darwin thought was full of it).

    Oh well, by they way . . . .

    On your attempt to answer my challenge,

    . . . the flagellum IS NOT EVEN IRREDUCIBLE. — G. Kuwajima was able to remove ONE-THIRD of the 497 amino acids from the flagellum, AND IT STILL WORKED PERFECTLY!!!!! . . . Also, we know that the L and the P-rings can be taken away from the flagellum, and it will STILL work. . . .

    You completely failed. You said,

    There is a difference between reducible complexity and irreducible. The Bacterial Flagellum has a universal joint, bushing, stator, rotor, drive shaft, propeller which of course resembles an intelligently designed electric motor made by man.

    The fact that it resembles a man-made motor means absolutely nothing. The person that Michael Behe quote mined even said (in NOVA’s Judgement Day) that the impression Behe gave of that quote was incorrect. He even pointed out that the flagellum still has the features of an organism that evolved.

    I notice that you cite the propellor as part of the so-called essential pieces. . . Are you aware that the propellor of the Eubacterial flagellum itself can be taken apart without harming the function? — You fail.

    You then said,

    It’s these specialized parts that makes up irreducible complexity. Without one of those specialized parts it’s unable to survive. In other words, the system needs those components to exist before it can function and survive.

    This statement presupposes that the original function of the flagellum was ALWAYS the same. The parts of the flagellum have their own functions independent of the actual flagellum, and therefore there is no need to assume that the flagellum had the same function originally.

    In fact, Darwin himself in the 6th edition of Origin of Soecies predicted that there would be change of function as evolution took place. On page 177 of that edition, he said,

    This subject is intimately connected with that of the gradation of characters, often accompanied by a change of function…

    Of course the flagellum could not work in THE SAME WAY if one of those major parts was taken away, BUT it would have had a chance of function as it evolved. The fact that Behe didn’t know that shows he doesn’t understand how evolution works.

    So, in the long hull, yout answer doesn’t work.

  4. Michael,

    in your post you say,

    Patrick Forterre and Simonetta Gribaldo of the Pasteur Institute was quoted in PNAS as saying, “we should definitely stop thinking of bacteria in terms of simple ‘lower’ organisms.” So what does this new modification consist of that explains “simple” prokaryotes and their supposedly more-evolved superiors, the eukaryotes?

    I agree that we shouldn’t think of bacteria as “lower” forms of life. I would have told you that also.

    But guess who else would agree with you? Charles Darwin himself!!

    He never proposed that any kind of creature was “more evolved” than another. In fact, his tree of life refutes that idea.

    You are confusing Darwin’s theory of Evolution with the theories of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck . . . Lamark proposed a ladder . . . Darwin thought Lamark was full of BS.

    So what predictions of Darwinian evolution does this debunk? Absolutely none.

    It would debunk Lamark’s theories, but that’s no big deal since scientists have disposed of him long ago.

  5. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091126173027.htm

    First-Ever Blueprint of ‘Minimal Cell’ Is More Complex Than Expected

    The study uncovers fascinating novelties relevant to bacterial biology and shows that even the simplest of cells is more complex than expected.

    Another surprise was the fact that, although it has a very small genome, this bacterium is incredibly flexible and readily adjusts its metabolism to drastic changes in environmental conditions. This adaptability and its underlying regulatory mechanisms mean M. pneumoniae has the potential to evolve quickly, and all the above are features it also shares with other, more evolved organisms.

    “At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected,” says Luis Serrano, co-initiator of the project at EMBL and now head of the Systems Biology Department at CRG.

    “The key lies in these shared features,” explains Anne-Claude Gavin, an EMBL group leader who headed the study of the bacterium’s proteome: “Those are the things that not even the simplest organism can do without and that have remained untouched by millions of years of evolution — the bare essentials of life”.

  6. “The study uncovers fascinating novelties relevant to bacterial biology and shows that even the simplest of cells is more complex than expected.

    Good quote of an article in science daily! It’s interesting to know how, “not even the simplest organism can do without.” Well if a simple life form can’t do without certain complexity (molecules being multifunctional, with metabolic enzymes catalyzing multiple reactions, and other proteins each taking part in more than one protein complex), how did it obtain it’s advantage and survive long enough before those specialized parts supposedly evolved in the first place?

  7. Science Daily is not peer-reviewed. And it is written by Science writters, not scientists themselves. They are journalists, and prone to journalistic sensationalism.

    That’s not to say that I am discounting what is said per se. But you need to keep in mind that Science Daily is simply dumbing down what the findings are so the lay people understand. . . and that requires oversimplifications right and left. The term “more evolved” has no place in actual science because the “evolutionary ladder” is nothing more than an oxymoron. It’s only used for the benefit of people who do not understand how evolution works.

    Fact remains: Charles Darwin himself said it was absurd to think of one animal as higher than another. Evolution is not a chain, it is not a ladder. It is a tree or (more accurately) a bush.

  8. And michael, I am still waiting for a real response to my flagellum challenge whish you have not adequetly met.

    And while you are at it, you can also meet Eelco’s questions:

    (1) Blog readership numbers ?

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

    (4) outstanding question from Upson Downes on mitochondrial Eve

    Since you can engage in “love-fests” with fellow Junk-science proponents, I know you also have the time to take us on.

  9. And in case any Creationist would try to argue that Darwin argued in favor of “more” and “less” evolved species . . . .

    Here is a quote from The annotated Origin: a facsimile of the first edition of On the origin of Species on page 441:

    Charles Darwin’s own words:

    “It is absurd to talk of one animal being higher than another,” he wrote in the B notebook.

    So, no more of this “more” or “less” evolved. It is not what Evolution says.

  10. Peer-reviewed scientific journals …

    Here’s one that states that lizards are a “more evolved species” than snakes.

    Evolution of sex-chromosomes in lacertid lizards
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/m240twjt16461615/

    The occurrence and form of sex chromosomes were investigated with the aid of C-banding and 4-6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) staining in 13 species of lacertid lizards. The results obtained show the presence in five species of a female heterogamety in which the two sex chromosomes have the same shape and size, but the W differs from the Z in being almost entirely heterochromatic. This condition is clearly similar to that found in some snakes and considered to be an early stage of differentiation of sex chromosomes by Singh et al. (1976, 1980). A more evolved condition may be that found in three other species in which the W is distinctly smaller than the Z. A third situation is that found in all Podarcis species which, even though they are considered to be among the more evolved species in the family, possess two sex chromosomes that are indistinguishable.

    Here’s another one – peer reviewed – on the evolution of the Hydra:

    The radial-symmetric hydra and the evolution of the bilateral body plan: an old body became a young brain
    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/90011025/abstract

    Hans Meinhardt *
    Max-Planck-Institut für Entwicklungsbiologie, Spemannstrasse 35 D-76072 Tübingen, Germany

    The radial symmetric cnidarians are regarded as being close to the common metazoan ancestor before bilaterality evolved. It is proposed that a large fraction of the body of this gastrula-like organism gave rise to the head of more evolved organisms. The trunk was added later in evolution from an unfolding of a narrow zone between the tentacles and the blastoporus.

    Here’s one – peer reviewed – that claims that a bullfrog is less evolved than mammals:

    Cholecystokinin peptides in the brain and pituitary of the bullfrog Rana catesbiana: distribution and characterization

    Margery C. Beinfeld1, Janett R. Trubatch2 and Michael J. Brownstein3

    aDepartment of Pharmacology, St. Louis University Medical School, 1402 South Grand Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63104, USA

    bNeurological Diseases Program, N.I.N.C.D.S.,USA

    cLaboratory of Clinical Science, NIMH, Bethesda, MD 20205 U.S.A.

    Accepted 18 January 1983. Available online 7 March 2003

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6SYR-48360XY-TB&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F23%2F1983&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6389ecb8ad3bdc6a21dc066451190506

    These data suggest that though the chemical structure of CCK appears to be the same in the brains of frogs and mammals, the distribution of CCK in the brain appears to have shifted during the course of evolution, becoming a cortical, hippocampal, and olfactory system peptide only in more evolved organisms.

    From the Embryonic Encyclopedia of Life …, 1999
    Stuart Newman [a non-religious denier of Darwinism], GB Müller
    http://homepage.univie.ac.at/gerhard.mueller/pdfs/1999Encyclop.pdf

    Many of these contextual and generic determinants of
    development are rather distant from any programmatic
    influence by the genome. They include simple physical and
    geometric constraints exerted by growing cell masses, such
    as underlie the coiling of snail shells or the double spiral
    arrangement of sunflower florets. Others are the various
    forms of self-organization known to take place in cellular
    assemblies, which arise from differential adhesion, biochemical
    oscillations and reaction–diffusion coupling.
    These effects, highlighted above as sources of body plan
    diversity early in evolution, act at the tissue and organ level
    in the development of more evolved organisms, contributing
    to the formation of structures such as glands,
    respiratory organs, limbs and bristles.

    So, they predict that there is a scale from lower to higher. Less evolved to more evolved. This finding refuted that prediction since the earliest cells are highly complex and not simplistic.

    As for Darwin’s claim that evolution doesn’t talk about higher or lower evolution – either he’s wrong or the peer-reviewed papers are wrong.

  11. Creationbydesign,

    As for Darwin’s claim that evolution doesn’t talk about higher or lower evolution – either he’s wrong or the peer-reviewed papers are wrong.

    I’d have to say that the papers are wrong to use suce terminology since it flies in the face of Darwin’s “tree of life.”

    I don’t know what would posses a scientist to talk about “more” or “less” evolved except to simplify it for people who do not understand how evolution works (like people like you and Michael).

    Now, if they mean “more advanced” then that is another story, because that would mean creatures that are not primitive. — Sponges would be considered “primitive” BUT that is only because they appeared before we did. They are not “less” evolved then we are, and we are not “more” evolved than sponges.

    From Fossilmuseum.net

    Misconceptions about evolution
    Unfortunately, misconceptions about evolution are ubiquitous. One prominent misconception is that evolution proceeds in a specific direction leading to the improvement of organisms – this is often stated as climbing an evolutionary ladder. This is simply not the case. Rather, organisms either adapt to environments that are always undergoing change, or they risk extinction.

    The concept of the ladder may comfort some, especially since it justifies assigning humans to the pinnacle of perfection. Natural selection does not work that way. Rather, nature uses what is available (i.e., in genomic diversity), keeps what works, and discards the rest; actually, the genetic material is not discarded, but is turned off — most of the human genome comprises unused sequences that are a legacy of evolution. Nature abounds with organisms that humans would never “design” as perfect. The “lowly” sponge and the jellyfish are two examples; these creatures with a few simple cell types have persisted from the Precambrian, and have changed very little. Other ancient creatures that survive because of specialized adaptation are fungi, mosses, sharks, and horseshoe crabs. Thus, in the context of natural selection, fitness is inextricably linked to the environment (and adaptation to changes), and NOT to progress or perfection. “Evolutionary ladder” is, in fact, an oxymoron.

    Link: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution.htm

    And also from CSI

    The word evolution is sometimes used to mean progress. People speak of moral evolution when discussing certain cultural changes that have been for the better, such as the increased recognition of the rights of women. Or they speak of technological evolution when comparing present-day technology with that of ancient hunter-gatherers. This sense of the word evolution implies a progressive development toward better or more advanced stages. It is this non-biological sense of evolution that influences people to think of biological evolution as involving ladder-like progress from lower to higher stages.

    The idea of an evolutionary ladder of progress has its roots in Classical Greek and Medieval European concepts about the nature of the universe. The most common manifestation is known as the Great Chain of Being, which was most influential in Europe from the fifteenth through the eighteenth centuries. The basic idea of the Great Chain of Being is that God and his creation form a hierarchy which is ordered from the least perfect things or beings at the bottom of the chain to the most perfect at the top, namely, God himself. Simply put, the ranking from bottom to top is as follows: rocks or minerals, plants, animals, man, angels, God.

    The Great Chain of Being scheme wasn’t designed with evolution in mind since the prevailing idea of the time was that God made all existing species, in their modern forms, long ago. The Great Chain of Being is best described as a method of classification. This idea began to lose support before the Darwinian revolution, but Darwin’s ideas and their refinement ultimately broke the links of the Great Chain of Being.

    The modern biological understanding of evolution does not involve progress in the sense of a natural upward goal toward which life is striving. [5] Genetic mutations arise randomly.

    A study of the DNA of Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos Islands (Petren et al. 1999) provides a good example of why the idea of progress makes no sense in evolution. The study’s findings suggest that the first finches to arrive on the islands were the Warbler finches (Certhidea olivacea), whose pointy beaks made them good insect eaters. A number of other finches evolved later from the Warbler finches. One of these is the Geospiza ground finch, whose broad beak is good for crushing seeds, and another is the Camarhynchus tree finch with its blunt beak which is well adapted for tearing vegetation.

    Even though the seed-eating and vegetation-eating finches evolved from insect-eating finches, the former are not “more evolved” than the latter, or “higher” on some evolutionary ladder. Since finch evolution on the Galapagos Islands was driven primarily by diet, the ground finches simply became better adapted at making a living on seeds, the tree finches on vegetation, and the Warbler finches on insects.

    If seeds were to become scarce on the Galapagos Islands, it’s conceivable that the seed-eating finches-which are a more recent species-could become extinct, while the insect-eating finches-which have been around much longer-would continue to thrive. The concepts of “higher” and “lower” do not apply to the Galapagos finches or anywhere else in evolution. It is fitness or adaptability relative to the environment that matters. Species cannot foretell the future in order to adapt themselves deliberately to environmental changes, and if the environment changes drastically, those adaptations that were once favorable may turn out to be unfavorable.

    Even though biologists reject the Great Chain of Being or any similar ladder-of-progress explanation of evolution, the idea still persists in popular culture. A more accurate analogy would be that of a bush that branches in many directions. If we think of evolution over time in this way, we’re less likely to be confused by notions of progress because the branches of a bush can grow in various directions in three dimensions, and new branches can sprout off of older branches without implying that those farther from the trunk are better or more advanced than those closer to the trunk. A more recent branch that has split off from an earlier branch-like a species that has evolved from an ancestral species-does not indicate greater progress or advancement. Rather, it is simply a new and different growth on the bush, or more specifically, a new species that is sufficiently adapted to its environment to survive.

    Link: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/getting_the_monkey_off_darwins_back/

  12. I’d have to say that the papers are wrong …

    Ok, I posted papers from peer-reviewed scientific journals. Those were not popular magazines so there shouldn’t be interest in dumbing it down for people like me who do not understand why peer-reviewed papers make false statements about evolution.

    I would have to conclude that these peer-reviewed journals are wrong and the non-peer reviewed websites you posted (Skeptical Inqiurer and the Fossil Museum) are correct. This also tells me that peer-review is useless and that evolutionary scientists publish false information about evolution in their papers.

  13. “Misconceptions about evolution
    Unfortunately, misconceptions about evolution are ubiquitous. One prominent misconception is that evolution proceeds in a specific direction leading to the improvement of organisms – this is often stated as climbing an evolutionary ladder. This is simply not the case. Rather, organisms either adapt to environments that are always undergoing change, or they risk extinction.”

    Isn’t survival of the fittest a particular direction? Since this quote addresses adaptation with experience, why would there be a need for change with more complexity in animals when bacteria can survive in extreme environments?

  14. Michael :“Misconceptions about evolutionUnfortunately, misconceptions about evolution are ubiquitous. One prominent misconception is that evolution proceeds in a specific direction leading to the improvement of organisms – this is often stated as climbing an evolutionary ladder. This is simply not the case. Rather, organisms either adapt to environments that are always undergoing change, or they risk extinction.”
    Isn’t survival of the fittest a particular direction? Since this quote addresses adaptation with experience, why would there be a need for change with more complexity in animals when bacteria can survive in extreme environments?

    No, “survival of the fittest” has nothing to do with a pre-determined direction. The “fittest” may be more complex in some enviorments, while the “fittest” may in fact be less complex in other enviorments.

    There isn’t a necessary “need” to become more complex, since evolution can incluse less complexity as well. The idea that evolution necessarily is supposed to develope MORE complexity is a major myth.

    Link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13617-evolution-myths-natural-selection-leads-to-ever-greater-complexity.html

  15. creationbydesign :I’d have to say that the papers are wrong …
    Ok, I posted papers from peer-reviewed scientific journals. Those were not popular magazines so there shouldn’t be interest in dumbing it down for people like me who do not understand why peer-reviewed papers make false statements about evolution.
    I would have to conclude that these peer-reviewed journals are wrong and the non-peer reviewed websites you posted (Skeptical Inqiurer and the Fossil Museum) are correct. This also tells me that peer-review is useless and that evolutionary scientists publish false information about evolution in their papers.

    You didn’t read my response well enough. I alswered that better than just that.

    I said:

    I don’t know what would posses a scientist to talk about “more” or “less” evolved except to simplify it for people who do not understand how evolution works (like people like you and Michael).

    Now, if they mean “more advanced” then that is another story, because that would mean creatures that are not primitive. — Sponges would be considered “primitive” BUT that is only because they appeared before we did. They are not “less” evolved then we are, and we are not “more” evolved than sponges.

    It depends on what they mean. If they simply mean “primitive,” then the story is different, since sponges are considered primitive because they are considered one of the first animals to appear. HOWEVER sponges are not “higher” or “lower”

    we are not “more” evolved than Homo habilis, or Australopithecines, . . even though they are “primitive” in the sence they existed before we did.

    I imagine they mean “primitive” when they use the terms, because no scientist that i know of thinks of evolution as a ladder. . . . Now, if they mean it in the sence you think it means, then yes, I would have to say the scientists who wrote the papers are wrong. But I don’t think that’s what they have in mind.

  16. I don’t know what would posses a scientist to talk about “more” or “less” evolved …

    Yes, I can see that you don’t know. I posted excerpts from 5 peer-reviewed scientific publications which used the terminology “more evolved”.

    You previously claimed: “The term “more evolved” has no place in actual science …

    So, you made the claim that the term itself is not found in actual science. When I refuted that, you now change your story.

  17. creationbydesign :

    I don’t know what would posses a scientist to talk about “more” or “less” evolved …

    Yes, I can see that you don’t know. I posted excerpts from 5 peer-reviewed scientific publications which used the terminology “more evolved”.
    You previously claimed: “The term “more evolved” has no place in actual science …
    So, you made the claim that the term itself is not found in actual science. When I refuted that, you now change your story.

    No, i didn’t change my story. You selectively quoted me.

    Again, in the ORIGINAL comment that you selectively quoted, I said,

    Now, if they mean “more advanced” then that is another story, because that would mean creatures that are not primitive. — Sponges would be considered “primitive” BUT that is only because they appeared before we did. They are not “less” evolved then we are, and we are not “more” evolved than sponges.

    That was in the original comment you quote mined, HENCE I DID NOT CHANGE MY STORY!!!!

    Also, I said in a later comment,

    It depends on what they mean. If they simply mean “primitive,” then the story is different, since sponges are considered primitive because they are considered one of the first animals to appear. HOWEVER sponges are not “higher” or “lower”

    we are not “more” evolved than Homo habilis, or Australopithecines, . . even though they are “primitive” in the sence they existed before we did.

    Really, how hard is it for you to understand that? Why did you ignore this? This is perfectly consistent with what i said, and I clarified that in the ORIGINAL COMMENT ITSELF!!!!!!

    You are selectively quoting me. Either you have bad reading comprehension, or you are a liar. I’ll go with the first option. But I stand by my statement that the idea of “more evolved” has no place in actual science.

    Quoting Donald J. Prothero (one of the top evolutionary scientists todate) on page 125 of his book,

    But life is not a ladder, and there are no such things as “higher” or “lower” organisms. . . .The first time Biologists hear this question, they are puzzled because it seems to make no sense whatsoever — until they realize thist creationist is still using concepts that were abandoned pver 200 years ago. (Evolution: What the Fossils say, and why it matters, page 125)

    I have not changed my story. I stand by it. There is no such thing as “more” or “less” evolved. — It is a different matter if a scientist means “primitive” in which case ANYTHING that existed before us, whether simple OR EVEN MORE COMPLEX than WE HUMANS are would by definition be considered “primitive.”

  18. — Creationbydesign,

    Another thing, . . . if you are so confident that I am wrong, then why not e-mail the scientists that wrote the papers? You could do it, since their e-mail addresses should be avaliable (since i notice that some of their e-mails are on the pages you linked).

    Why don’t you e-mail them and ask them what they mean when they use the term “more evolved”

    Ask them this:

    1. Did they mean a “lower” organism that is low on the “ladder”?

    2. Or do they simply mean “primitive” in the sence that they are similar or identical to organsisms that existed before others?

    If they give answer 1, then I will admit I was wrong. But, I am confident they will dismiss you for arguing samantics.

  19. Creationbydesign,

    Also, in the quote you gave of me, you only quoted ONLY the first part of what I said. . . .

    The quote as YOU gave it was,

    I don’t know what would posses a scientist to talk about “more” or “less” evolved …

    And you responded by saying,

    Yes, I can see that you don’t know. I posted excerpts from 5 peer-reviewed scientific publications which used the terminology “more evolved”.

    Hmmmm, YOU ONLY QUOTED PART OF THE SENTENCE!!!!!!!!!! The rest of the sentence GIVES THE REASON WHY THEY WOULD!!!!!

    THE ENTIRE QUOTE IS:

    I don’t know what would posses a scientist to talk about “more” or “less” evolved except to simplify it for people who do not understand how evolution works (like people like you and Michael).

    And again, to give emphesise to the important part of my own words that you left out!!!! I will re-quote the part that you left out:

    . . . except to simplify it for people who do not understand how evolution works (like people like you and Michael).

    I gave the explanation as to why they would have done it. I WAS NOT SAYING I DIDN’T REALLY KNOW!!!!!!!!

    REALLY!!! As a Creationist, are you incapable of quoting someone correctly??

    Also, standing by everything i said in this comment here:

    https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/bacteria-no-longer-considered-a-simple-lower-life-form/#comment-3000

  20. The term “more evolved” has no place in actual science because the “evolutionary ladder” is nothing more than an oxymoron. It’s only used for the benefit of people who do not understand how evolution works.

    Your Claim: The term has no place in actual science.
    I refuted that by showing the term being used in peer-reviewed papers.
    You then stated you didn’t know why scientists did that.

    Your Claim: Science Daily is simply dumbing down what the findings are so the lay people understand. . . Science Daily is not peer-reviewed. And it is written by Science writters, not scientists themselves. They are journalists, and prone to journalistic sensationalism.

    I showed you peer-reviewed papers that use the term.

    you repeat the claim in different words:

    It’s only used for the benefit of people who do not understand how evolution works. . . . except to simplify it for people who do not understand how evolution works (like people like you and Michael).

    So, apparently they dumb-down their peer-reviewed articles for people who do not understand evolution.

    As a Creationist, are you incapable of quoting someone correctly??

    We have already validated that you are a Creationist, although you fail to state whether God has created your soul or not. But you assert that “God just did it” when it comes to the natural laws.

    So, you should be able to answer any questions you have about Creationists, since you are one.

  21. creationbydesign,

    Your Claim: The term has no place in actual science.
    I refuted that by showing the term being used in peer-reviewed papers.
    You then stated you didn’t know why scientists did that.

    You have not refuted that it was not an example of using over-simplified language, thank you very much. . . and yes, they use that kind of languae in science papers too, since a lot of them are written by scientists for BOTH scientists AND laypeople as well.

    Your Claim: Science Daily is simply dumbing down what the findings are so the lay people understand. . . Science Daily is not peer-reviewed. And it is written by Science writters, not scientists themselves. They are journalists, and prone to journalistic sensationalism.

    I showed you peer-reviewed papers that use the term.

    -points to last response-

    you repeat the claim in different words:

    It’s only used for the benefit of people who do not understand how evolution works. . . . except to simplify it for people who do not understand how evolution works (like people like you and Michael).

    So, apparently they dumb-down their peer-reviewed articles for people who do not understand evolution.

    -applauds- I think you are getting it. A lot of them do, since many of them are NOT exclusively written JUST FOR SCIENTISTS.

    We have already validated that you are a Creationist, although you fail to state whether God has created your soul or not. But you assert that “God just did it” when it comes to the natural laws.

    So, you should be able to answer any questions you have about Creationists, since you are one.

    You are quoting my question (which is more important now) without even bothering to answer it. . . I said “As a Creationist, are you incapable of quoting someone correctly??” — I gave you an instance where you took a partial quote from me, and twisted it into something else that I wasn’t actually saying. — Again, what is with your misquoting? Is it because you have bad reading comprehension? Or is it because you trollishly enjoy misquoting?

  22. You said the term was not used in actual science.

    I showed that the term is used in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

  23. The personal insults are unnecessary, Kris. Feel free to have the last word – I am not going to reply further.
    Thanks.

  24. creationbydesign,

    You said the term was not used in actual science.

    I showed that the term is used in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

    AAnd I showed you that it is a case of over-simplified terminoligy, a point you have yet to answer.

    The personal insults are unnecessary, Kris. Feel free to have the last word – I am not going to reply further.
    Thanks.

    I only told the truth, in that you misquoted me, something you seem to have a habbit of doing since this isn’t the first occasion you did it. That is not a “personal attack.” It’s the truth. — I even showed you where you misquoted me and distorted my actual meaning. So my point still stands.

    So, go ahead and hide from that fact.

  25. WHAT A CROCK!

    Arguing whether evolution stands or falls on how the public, or scientists themselves, use a particular term to describe it.

    This is, however, typical of creationist arguments. The reason is—I am absolutely convinced by this time—that creationists truly believe that a thing is what you call it. That the name someone gives to a thing determines its nature, its very reality.

    This is, of course, an artifact of their fundamentally theological worldview, where everything derives from authority. They have not—and probably will never—accept that truth in science is determined by the evidence of the natural world, rather than by theological revelations or the pronouncements of authorities. Creationists imagine—although they may deny it—that scientists believe the opinion of an authority is true because the person speaking is a proph—an authority.

    The argument over who said what about evolution is bootless. Scientists may say an organism is “higher” or “lower,” “more evolved” or “less evolved.” These statements have no weight whatsoever as to the truth of the matter. When a scientist speaks of his results, we accept his words because we think he has followed the scientific process. When a scientist offers his interpretation of data, we listen, if he has established his creds by having done good work in the past. Otherwise, authorities are just like the rest of us.

    Unlike as in theology, what scientists say is not “evidence.” Why is that such an impenetrable concept for creationists to grasp? It marks a fundamental gap in their understanding of science, without which everything else becomes distorted in their thinking.

    .

    I’m talking to you, CbD. Why does it matter that you can quote 5 scientists using a specific phrase to describe an organism? What possible difference does it make to any aspect of evolution? I’d like to hear why you think it makes any difference at all.

  26. Olorin :WHAT A CROCK!
    Arguing whether evolution stands or falls on how the public, or scientists themselves, use a particular term to describe it.

    I’m guilty here too ><

  27. krissmith777 :

    Olorin :WHAT A CROCK!Arguing whether evolution stands or falls on how the public, or scientists themselves, use a particular term to describe it.

    I’m guilty here too ><

    No wait, I was trying to correct a misunderstanding.

  28. krissmith777 :

    krissmith777 :

    Olorin :WHAT A CROCK!Arguing whether evolution stands or falls on how the public, or scientists themselves, use a particular term to describe it.

    I’m guilty here too ><

    No wait, I was trying to correct a misunderstanding.

    Naaa, I AM guilty. Kinda took it TOO seriously.

  29. krissmith777, the only way that creationists gain any traction at all is to stage diversions away from the fact that they themselves have no valid arguments for their position. We call this the “creationist shell game.”

    You have just encountered one of these staged diversions.

    Congratulations. (I think :-)

  30. “Bacteria No Longer Considered A Simple Lower Life Form”

    Except by creationists. Since the Bible never once mentions bacteria, they were apparently not created, and therefore must be lower than other life forms.

    But then, since evolution is a liberal myth, bacteria must not have arisen from inanimate matter, either.

    So, Michael, the question is: WHERE DID BACTERIA COME FROM in the creationist pleroma? Just one of the myriad unexplained gaps in creationist hermeneutics.

    This might even make an interesting research project –to investigate the origins of bacteria.

    As if creationists were interested in research of any kind. As if.

  31. Once thought of as these simple life forms that was [sic] linked to the earliest life forms which supposedly evolved into more complex animals that excited researchers who wanted to reveal the origins of life but as the years went by [sic] scientists have been uncovering astounding amount of complex features with these one-cell animals.

    Shall we cite this sentence3 as an exemplar of (a) atrocious grammar, (b) random unorganized thought processes, or (c) abysmal scientific ignorance?

    The first two are obvious to the casual reader, so let’s do the third.

    == “One celled animals”?? BACTERIA ARE NOT ANIMALS. Even eighth-grade students know this.

    == Bacteria “evolved into more complex animals.” No wonder Michael gets so many things wrong about evolution. He doesn’t even understand that NOBODY HAS EVER CLAIMED THAT BACTERIA EVOLVED INTO ANIMALS.

    == Bacteria are “the earliest life forms.” Uh, no. Who told you that? The earliest life forms no longer exist. THE EARLIEST SURVIVING LIFE FORMS ARE ARCHAEA, not bacteria.

    .

    So, once more, Michael: What are your qualifications for discussing any topic in science?

    If those qualifications include a degree from the Institute for Creation Research, we can certainly see why they flunked accreditation.

    Just one more reason that people laugh at creationists. Sheer ignorance of the subject matter.

  32. The first two are obvious to the casual reader, so let’s do the third.
    == “One celled animals”?? BACTERIA ARE NOT ANIMALS. Even eighth-grade students know this.
    == Bacteria “evolved into more complex animals.” No wonder Michael gets so many things wrong about evolution. He doesn’t even understand that NOBODY HAS EVER CLAIMED THAT BACTERIA EVOLVED INTO ANIMALS.
    == Bacteria are “the earliest life forms.” Uh, no. Who told you that? The earliest life forms no longer exist. THE EARLIEST SURVIVING LIFE FORMS ARE ARCHAEA, not bacteria.
    .
    So, once more, Michael: What are your qualifications for discussing any topic in science?
    If those qualifications include a degree from the Institute for Creation Research, we can certainly see why they flunked accreditation.
    Just one more reason that people laugh at creationists. Sheer ignorance of the subject matter.

    Michael needs a crash course in Taxonomy. — I guess many of us do because it can be a pretty complicated subject. I’m not even that good at it, but . . .

    Modern bacteria and animals aren’t even classified in the same “Kingdom.”

    — Modern bacteria are in the kingdom eubacteria. — The more ancient forms of bacteria are in a separate kingdom, the kingdom archaebacteria. —- Animals are in the kingdom anamalia.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s