Is the theory of evolution really true and acceptable?

Question

If the bacteria are among the first living organism to inhabit earth, why are they still here? Aren't they suppose to have evolved and transformed into something more advanced? Hence, there should be no more bacteria living today...

Answer 1

Your question deserves a respectful answer (assuming it really is a question and you really want an answer).

First, you should distinguish between the *facts* of evolution and Darwin's *theory* of evolution. The facts are that there is overwhelming evidence that all species on the planet are related by common ancestry. The fossil record is just a small part of this evidence. There is also the *fact* that all life forms use the same mechanisms (DNA/RNA) for replicating, the amount of genes shared between related species, the molecular similarities between related species, distribution of species on the planet, morphology, homologous and vestigial organs (like leg bones in whales and snakes), etc., etc. These are all indisputable facts that together point to common descent that can be seen throughout all life on the planet.

This is separate from Darwin's *theory* for how this evolution all occurred. That is natural selection. That theory is bolstered by all this evidence, but it should never be considered *proven*, just as *no* scientific theory should ever be considered proven. There is just no other *scientific* theory that explains all these *facts*.

As for the existence of bacteria ... Darwin obviously did not believe that when creature A evolved into creature B, that A must then disappear. It if did, then, trivially, there would be only one species on the planet.

A metaphor is the way America was founded by Europeans. That does not mean that *all* Europeans crossed the oceans, and left Europe empty. It means that *some* Europeans crossed the oceans ... but Europe was and is still a good place to live. Similarly, if a single-celled organism evolved into a colony-based organism (like early sponges, for example), which evolved into multicellular organisms, that does not mean that *all* single-celled organisms did so. It means that *some* did so. Some continued on evolving into what we now call bacteria.

Answer 2

If god created people from dirt then why is there still dirt?
If people are born from their parents then why are there still parents?
The question is a silly as asking why an originating species is not necessarily wiped out by a daughter species.


Creation is not a "fall back" position if evolution can be discredited any more than the flat earth model is a viable alternative in case some adjustment to the spherical earth model is necessary. Remember, Genesis demonstrates that God had no clue at all how the universe, the sun, the earth or life originated, and most clearly presents only dis-information on how man originated. If you read Genesis, the "firmament" is very clearly based on an early flat earth model. Creationists simply ignore the evidence and go with silly mind games to trap children into belief in nonsense. The number of bright minds wasted in useless mind games is a sad loss of talent.
There is no other hypothesis that even begins to fit out observations of life the way the "scientific theory" of evolution does. This means that there is no alternative to be taught, but also it means that the evolutionary process has been observed to occur. Creationists pretend there is no "just separated" species and ignore the Horse zebra and donkey that are in the final stages of specialization into separated species. The evidence of this evolutionary change is so overwhelming as to be irrefutable. There is a pretext that new information cannot evolve yet bacteria evolve immunity to new never before available drugs. Are you supposed to believe God magically makes disease worse? Creationist silliness is totally outrageous.

Evolution connects all the biological evidence into a process that we can watch and use and understand.

Answer 3

Things dont evolve if they dont need to do so. Bacteria are still around because they are a perfectly good life form.

There is part of your question I'd like to address. Asking if the "Theory of Evolution" is true is like asking if the "Theory of Gravity" is true. There are many different varieties of each theory. Which one fits the observable facts and makes better predictions is the better theory. As for acceptable, that is up to you.

Finally, the basic point of the theory is that change happens. Simple forms will create more simple forms, and every so often, a more complex form. According to the best known chronology. bacteria ruled the earth from 4 billion years ago to 500 million years ago. We have little evidence from that 3.5 billion year history to tell us how they spread out and diversified, but what happened next is well documented in the fossil record. The "Cambrian explosion" is when multicellular life took off, and the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection took hold.

The ghastly premise of your question is that we would have to wipe out all other life, simply because we are the most highly evolved. This denies the sanctity of life, and if you are a Christian, the Stewardship obligation of the Old Testament. You are supposed to witness the beauty of the Universe as HE created it, not as some poor church elder mis-interpreted it.

Answer 4

Nice question. The theory of evolution is not totally right(according to me). Yes, mutations do occur but a specie mutates only to transform into another form of its own. A bacteria does not mutate to become a virus,a protozoa or something else. DO THEY??????? They mutate only to become more advanced and fit among themselves (Here the survival of the fittest theory applies). Similar humans were Humans and how they were made, ONLY GOD CAN ANSWER, but they have transformed into a more intelligent and advanced species than their ancestors and the ancestors, don't say they are an ape or a monkey or a chimp. They are totally different from humans. Their genetic composition may be somewhat similar to that of humans but they are not the same. For example: A monkey can never think about these questions and never think about evolution. You may say, why didn't a human 2000 years back could invent a computer or a machine. The evolution happens here, for they thought about the basics(the numbers 1,0 etc.)so that's the reason why we have been able to invent a computer today. I think the theory of one organism evolving into a totally different organism is stupid. Its commonsense.........Its impossible.

The guy who gave the answer saying a influenza virus mutates into a more advanced one, do they mutate to become a bacteria or something else?????????

Answer 5

You have an incorrect assumption in your question. Evolution isn't about advancement, it's about the pressures of the environment and natural selection.

Natural selection works like this. As you know from genetics, when a species breeds, it produces individuals with genetic variation. This variation includes color of eyes, height, health, and more. And some genes are even mutated a little, causing either bad genetic differences (such as retardation) or even good ones.

So some of the individuals are able to cope with the pressures of the environment, others aren't. The ones that aren't die more often, so the less capable DNA is weeded out. This, for instance, is why Africans, living in a very sunny, hot environment, tend to have dark skin, which protects them against the sun.

Natural selection over time is the reason why evolution happens. With me so far?

Now, as I said, evolution isn't about advancement. The reason why there are bacteria today is that they are capable of surviving in thier environment. And they aren't exactly like their ancient ancestors. They have gone through billions of generations because they reproduce so fast, and are able to still make us sick, or live in dark, moldy places, etc. If they hadn't evolved, then why can they still make us sick? Why haven't we developed a full immunity?

And bacteria aren't the only ones to keep thier body plan for a long time. Sharks and alligators are called "living fossils" because they have kept a simliar shape. They didn't NEED to evolve that much based on the pressures of the environment.

Answer 6

The idea of evolution through mutation does not mean that the original organism dies out. It means, it changed and it spawned a whole new set of organisms.

Take for example influenza which is a virus. If you recal, once your body has been exposed to a virus, it develops anti-bodies to fight off that virus so you'll never get it again. That's how vaccines work, you're injected with the virus. So with that said, why is that every year people need a flu shot? The reason is because the flu has mutated hundreds of times over and over again so that there are hundreds of different flu strains out there. Each one you need the anti-bodies for because each one is different. The flu changes and new ones are created but the old ones stick around.

This is not a theory, this is fact. You can research the different flu strains and find this to be the case. This is the same for mutating organisms because they are no different.

Answer 7

.
Are you really are questioning that evolution is responsible for all the life that exists on the planet today? Life did start in the primeval soup!, It wasn't made in 7 days in the way some would have you believe

Just take A look at things around you!, Things evolve because they have too, if they don't then they die, To be replaced by something more successful . Its called survival of the fittest,. We have bacteria around today because life in general needs bacteria to be in everyday life. If it wasn't we'ed die,, and most likely everything else on the planet would too, everything has its place, whether good bad or useless..

Answer 8

Bacteria could also have undergone evolution for its own "species" which are yet to be discovered. Just like living organisms which some have evolved physically and mentally, while others extinct with their members of the same family species living on to take on a different name as a different kind of animal.

Answer 9

Bacteria have evolved, but remain little things because that "works" for them. Every mutation is beneficial, or it isn't passed on. Thus if a species is kind of okay how it is, then it won't mutate.

Evolution is simply the best theory we have so far. It has survived countless scientific attempts to disprove it. It does not have to be mutually exclusive with spirituality.

Answer 10

a theory is just that, a theory...

But as far as bacteria are concerned, they DID change : you will not be able to find today the same bacterias that you could find 3 million years ago : they evolved.

They still "look" approximately the same, but they are completely different.

also, darwin's theory of evolution never stated that ALL speicies absolutely had to evolve!
If a superspecies capable of doing everything appeared, it probably wouldn't disapear