The Idea of Existence

[Rob]

No, I have not heard of the grain Triticale.

[ArtDrake]

Then you would not be aware of the fact that it has six chromosomes.

You would also be unaware of where it acquired these six chromosomes: allopolyploidy, where an organism acquires a number of chromosomes that is the sum of those of its parents.

Triticale happens to be sterile, and cannot provide an explanation in an evolutionary context, but the Triangle of U also exhibits this behavior. Eukaryotes of different numbers of chromosomes that are closely related evolutionarily can produce fertile offspring, and this offspring can continue to evolve. This explains many instances of increase in chromosome count.

[Rob]

I am aware of allopolyploidy. However, as you said, the organism acquires a number of chromosomes that is the sum of those of its parents. The extra DNA is inherited. Since bacteria reproduce asexually via binary fission, this explanation wouldn't work.

[ArtDrake]

I already gave the bacterial explanation. This is for eukaryotes. Bacteria devloped into eubacteria and eukaryotes (most likely) by chance fusion.

[Rob]

My turn to admit I haven't done enough research. Bacteria eat things by emitting enzymes to break them down, then absorbs them via osmosis or active transport. So, how exactly would a bacteria fuse with another if its way of eating is to break down the food into small pieces that it can actually absorb. It would be one thing to absorb broken down nucleic acids, but absorbing an intact extra chromosome is pushing it a bit. And, I'm currently ignoring the fact that this would lead to aneuploidy which would almost certainly mean bad things for the cell.

[ArtDrake]

Okay, first, I'd like to say, "Thank you," for putting up with my improvised theorisation. You would appear to have had at least a high school education or perhaps even a college education on the matter, making me completely unqualified to be answering your questions; I just finished junior high. I must seem like an idiot.

So even if I sometimes phrase things eloquently, or get annoyed at improper grammar, I really haven't been taught much, and I'm making this up as I go. Oh, and your grammar is awesome. You seem to be the only person here able to put commas in the right place (I used to think that was the user formerly known as im2smart4u, but I was wrong).

That said, I'd like to pursue a different tack, utilizing your knowledge to make me more learned and hopefully come to a definite conclusion about bacterial evolution into eukaryotes. What do you know about symbiosis among bacteria? Is it possible that bacteria could develop such a mutual dependency that their life cycles become intertwined?

[Rob]

The theory behind eukaryote evolution states that 2 types of bacteria developed a mutualistic relationship, and gradually grew completely dependent on each other. However, this view is only held because scientists believe that mitochondria and other similar organelles (namely, chloroplasts) originated from bacteria, and they needed an explanation for this. I hate to say it that way, but if you looked up all the evidence and support for that theory, it would focus on the similarities between mitochondria and bacteria. The evidence doesn't really try to support the possibility of mutual dependency, it just assumes that it could happen. I would comment more, but I'm getting a bit tired. Maybe I'll finish up later.

[ArtDrake]

I'm skeptical.

So, even though the evidence provided isn't convincing, I would like to ask if you find the idea of symbionts forming eukaryotes plausible.

[Rob]

The current theory states that a larger prokaryote "swallowed" a smaller one, and the two formed a symbiotic relationship. The problem with this is that prokaryotes eat by breaking down their food and absorbing it in smaller parts. Prokaryotes have cell walls; I do not think a prokaryote would have been able to take in another small prokaryote like the current theory describes without breaking it down. I find the current theory problematic at best.
The problem about many of the current biological theories is that it is just about impossilbe to prove that one theory definetly happened (which is probably why they are referred to as theories). With only some indirect evidence that may support existing theories, it should be impossible to teach the theories as facts, yet they very often are. For example, it is probably impossible to know with absolute certainty that evolution happened. What we do know is that life exists in a certain way today, and that certain creatures were alive in the past that are not alive now, and that creatures that survive to reproduce often pass their traits down to their offspring (and a bunch of other stuf that I'm leaving out to keep this short). Science's best explanation for all of this is evolution. Though it may be correct, it will always remain a theory because it is impossible to tell exactly what happened that led to life on this planet. If another theoy was proposed, ir would be no better and probably not much worse, as it could not be proved to have definetly happened either. The bottom line is, it is impossible to know. There isn't enough avaliable evidence to prove that something must have happened. In the end, you just have to trust that someone has the right answer and just go with it.

[ArtDrake]

Okay, so you're saying that scientific evidence is sketchy at best in this area, and that you're a skeptic.

Honestly, I can sympathize, but I think that even the large prokaryote eats little prokaryote theory works better than,
"God did everything 6000 years ago. And then he didn't like it, so he flooded the world, and had a guy take two of each species on a boat, all the way down to microorganisms, accounting for every species except for dinosaurs."

Religion's explanations just don't seem logical to me.

[Deagonx]

Okay, so you're saying that scientific evidence is sketchy at best in this area, and that you're a skeptic.

Honestly, I can sympathize, but I think that even the large prokaryote eats little prokaryote theory works better than,
"God did everything 6000 years ago. And then he didn't like it, so he flooded the world, and had a guy take two of each species on a boat, all the way down to microorganisms, accounting for every species except for dinosaurs."

Religion's explanations just don't seem logical to me.

The flood was regional. It didn't cover the entire world.

[ArtDrake]

So why did he even need to take animals in the first place? I'm sure that there were some animals of a similar species elsewhere in the world.

And, since you're so willing to have this conversation, what do you think about carbon dating?

[Deagonx]

So why did he even need to take animals in the first place? I'm sure that there were some animals of a similar species elsewhere in the world.

And, since you're so willing to have this conversation, what do you think about carbon dating?

He took animals to repopulate that region.

What is carbon dating?

[bugfartboy]

Okay, so you're saying that scientific evidence is sketchy at best in this area, and that you're a skeptic.

Honestly, I can sympathize, but I think that even the large prokaryote eats little prokaryote theory works better than,
"God did everything 6000 years ago. And then he didn't like it, so he flooded the world, and had a guy take two of each species on a boat, all the way down to microorganisms, accounting for every species except for dinosaurs."

Religion's explanations just don't seem logical to me.

The flood was regional. It didn't cover the entire world.

*facepalm*

[Deagonx]

Okay, so you're saying that scientific evidence is sketchy at best in this area, and that you're a skeptic.

Honestly, I can sympathize, but I think that even the large prokaryote eats little prokaryote theory works better than,
"God did everything 6000 years ago. And then he didn't like it, so he flooded the world, and had a guy take two of each species on a boat, all the way down to microorganisms, accounting for every species except for dinosaurs."

Religion's explanations just don't seem logical to me.

The flood was regional. It didn't cover the entire world.

*facepalm*

Hey, you, yeah you. The idiot. If the flood wasn't regional every species on earth would be based on incest. And how are there so many different species of dogs?

Dude. Read it again and tell me where it says planet or earth.