I just watched a riveting documentary by a seemingly intelligent church minister commenting on the rise of complexity of natural evolution. Which sounded quite cerebral. Compared to the crap he spewed out for morning mass at St Marys only 10 minutes prior!)

But he did get me thinking!
He said the oldest known multicellular life on fossil record is bacteria.
He wanted to know then why, if evolution is true and works the way they say it does, why is there still bacteria just as simple now as it was then!
He said that he understands that some life take a little longer to develop than others (he mentioned little Agatha, his village idiot), but 3.5 billion years of nothing simply means evolution is wrong! (and we'll just slip God right in when no-one's looking thank you very much)

I'm sold.
I'm starting to convert! someone help me! I'm losing focus .... I'm cold now ...

Why would evolution prevent bacteria from being bacteria? Every single specimen of a species doesn't have the random genetic change that results in evolution, it's just one individual. That individual is slightly better than the rest and has a better chance to pass on its genes. That's it.

There are still ecological niches in the environment for bacteria. As long as there are, we will have bacteria. And the bacteria will continue to evolve to adapt to changes in the bacterial environment.

(August 24, 2017 at 8:03 am)ignoramus Wrote: ......He said the oldest known multicellular life on fossil record is bacteria.

He wanted to know then why, if evolution is true and works the way they say it does, why is there still bacteria just as simple now as it was then!
He said that he understands that some life take a little longer to develop than others (he mentioned little Agatha, his village idiot), but 3.5 billion years of nothing simply means evolution is wrong! (and we'll just slip God right in when no-one's looking thank you very losing focus .... I'm cold now ...

Multicellular?   Oldest multicellular live ain't no bacteria and ain't no 3.5 billion years old, father.

So he does believe the genesis date is bullshit at least?

Australians came from Britain, why are there still British people?

(August 24, 2017 at 9:18 am)zebo-the-fat Wrote: Australians came from Britain, why are there still British people?

Because some were acquitted?  

(August 24, 2017 at 9:18 am)zebo-the-fat Wrote: Australians came from Britain, why are there still British people?

Is your opinion of the British so low that becoming Australian seem to you like progress?

They left a few heteros in Britain ??

(August 24, 2017 at 9:20 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(August 24, 2017 at 9:18 am)zebo-the-fat Wrote: Australians came from Britain, why are there still British people?

Because some were acquitted?  

Or didn't have the guts to steal?

I could very well be wrong, but I would consider it similar to how cancer grows. The cells multiple at a normal slow rate plugging along doing their own thing until one new cell is created that has a different strength. The cell may create more acids, multiply faster, attack different organs at a higher rate, etc. The other cells stay the same, but they created a new cell that is stronger and in many cases helps the weaker/original cells. They continue on until they create another new cell with new/higher strengths. So on and so forth until they have nothing else to feed on and multiply.

Stands to reason that bacteria could work the same way. New cells created newer/stronger cells, that created newer/stronger cells, that created newer/stronger cells, that created newer/stronger cells, so an and so forth with the original cells remaining the same, continuing to multiply, and living on/from the new cells, eg. us.

May be wrong, but simple brain can rationalize it enough to believe that it makes sense.