Yes. This is just one of the ways variation is introduced into a population alone with mutations and recombination.
Mutations and HGT are both random. That meant they may, or may not, be useful at the time and that they may or may not be useful in future. That is the nature of random changes, their usefulness is also random. You will also find that some bacterial have increased vulnerability to those same natural and manmade antibacterials.
Sorry Ed, I can’t agree with you. “Endless” requires an infinite amount of time to test. There is however a great deal of supporting evidence. Enough to make science accept the theory, provisionally, unless and until a better theory is found.
I mean nothing as in a barren earth.Techno2000:
So, according to you, there was a time when God did not exist, since God is not “NOTHING”. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that contrary to Catholic theology?
rossum
In other words you start with chemicals; the earth is made of chemicals. Animals are made of chemicals. Our bodies are made of chemicals. Whatever you are starting with, it is not nothing: you are starting with the ingredients of material bodies.
ratio1:
It’s a theory, but it’s the best we’ve got scientifically. But there are some problems I can’t understand. evolution (by this I mean one species evolve into another species, so bacterial resistance doesn’t count) has never been demonstrated in the laboratory (please correct me if i’m wrong on this) …
I sincerely doubt it.
It will never be demonstrated that inanimate matter can naturally give rise to a living organism and that humans evolved from a microbe, so it is impossible to “look foolish” by not accepting these materialistic beliefs.
Naturalistic evolutionary explanations work fine as atheist folklore, but their reliance on a non-stop stream of baseless assumptions means that, as science, they are laughable. Theistic evolution can resort to divine intervention to account for the seemingly impossible, but that isn’t science either. So whichever way one approaches evolution, it isn’t scientific. This is why, even though I’m generally interested in scientific explanations for things, I’m not at all interested in evolutionary explanations, as they represent junk science.
I don’t know what you mean by “fundamentalist”. Is it sinful to be a “fundamentalist” or is it virtuous? Is a “fundamentalist” a good Catholic or a bad Catholic? Can a “fundamentalist” Catholic make it to Heaven?
Sounds scientific, but it’s just a story, as it’s all untestable conjecture. It’s not science, in other words.
I heard that the Tooth Fairy actually evolved from a butterfly, but I don’t think this theory has been been confirmed in any experiment. Sounds feasible, though.
Ye of little faith. If you end up being burnt at the stake as a an evo-heretic, you will have only yourself to blame. May the Lord have pity on your sorry soul.
The theory that all life on earth evolved from microbes doesn’t need evidence to be accepted. It’s an a priori position taken by the scientific community, which is a free-for-all for athesits.
That’s right … in much the same way that sand castles are made of sand. No one denies that sand castles are the result of a fluke of nature.
The fact that bacteria have memory and communicate means that they can survive better. The fact that their genetic material changes and that gives them opportunity to fit in environment better means that they evolve.
No, it means that genetic material changes always and this sometimes allow a better fit in environment.