bigbang
Unregistered
|
From Lenski gives Conservapædia a lesson:
Trrll says:
Bacteria evolve so fast that they are expected to be pretty much at an evolutionary optimum for their ecological niche. After all, in view of numbers, they are perhaps the most successful organisms on earth. There is not really much selective advantage for evolving into other types of creatures, such as multicellular organisms, because those ecological niches are already occupied. So one would not expect to see much evolutionary change in bacteria unless they have to deal with some sort of environmental perturbation.
.
Good points. Thanks.
Bacteria certainly do seem to be the most successful organisms on earth, and I agree that there seems to be little selective advantage for evolving into other types of creatures, e.g. multicellular organisms. Which begs the question of why eukaryotes and/or multicellulatr creatures evolved at all, via RM+NS, especially we rather fragile and comparatively unfit multicellular sentient beings (fragile and unfit compared to bacteria and other creatures like cockroaches anyway; especially considering that well be extinct long b/f they will).
I think the standard answer is, as you note, to fill available ecological niches that happen to be available; and raven might add the circular notion that we know that thats what evolution via RM+NS did since were here, filling the ecological niche that we seem to be filling; at least until our extinction when bacteria and cockroaches will again rule the earth.
Alas, ultimately it all seems so utterly pointless, doesnt it? No wonder the emotionally fragile among us, like PvM, feels a need to invent a god to have faith in, in his case an unreal, non-existent god that is hidden in a permanent gap of ignorance. I apologize to PvM that I made fun of his faith.
|
|
|
