What is Life?

When? Today, it'd be either a virus (assuming they're included) or, if not, a prokaryote.You can read all about them here:Prokaryote - WikipediaIf you're talkin' "of all time", then its less clear, but I'd guess either a nanobacterium or a protobiont.You can read about those heres:Nanobacterium - WikipediaProtocell - WikipediaHappy learning!

Since the common idea is that all life evolved from one common ancestor, why are there still some life forms that "have not evolved very far?" You can read posts on this forum where people sound like they believe some life forms are "more evolved" than others, whereas every life form has actually been evolving for the same amount of time.

Huh?What makes you think some are less evolved?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Why are there still single cell organisms? Why haven't they evolved into more complex organisms?

Why are there still Irishmen?

LOLWhy would they?If they are successful, live long enough to reproduce, why would they evolve? What is the filter that would drive change?Do you really think evolution means directionality or something becoming more complex?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

True. If evolution is survival of the fitest (which requires you to reproduce more than others) then we should expect all life forms to evolve to smaller life forms that reproduce quicker. The evolution tree would be upside down. We should all end up bacteria (which currently makes up 80% of all living things).

Quite wrong. Humans have a long life expectancy as a result of being very good at investing resources in their offspring. Multiple cooperating generations are very good at looking after babies.What you are saying (whether or not you understand it or not is difficult to discern) is that the fitness of a specie is purely a function of an r strategy (as opposed to a K strategy).This is not true.Now, I learnt that interesting fact doing my A levels so I can only conclude that your knowledge of biology stops at GCSE level.I look forwards to you further contribution in this science thread, with baited breath.

"Humans have a long life expectancy as a result of being very good at investing resources in their offspring."Actually, humans are not "very good" at evolution. There are currently 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria living on earth (perhaps 80% of all living things) and only about 7,000,000,000 humans living on earth. And I predict that the percentage of bacteria will increase whereas the percentage of humans will decrease. Do you predict the opposite?

Evolution is not something you need to be good at.Look at sharks: they got to a point where they cope with selection pressures remarkably well and became very bad at evolving.Things evolve when there is a selection pressure: no selection pressure and evolution slows to a crawl.What you seem to be saying is that numbers of organism equals being better at evolution: as I hope you can see now, this is not the case. Who can say? But if your point is that for some reasons humans will die off in the next couple of years I see no evidence to support that assertion.What evidence can you bring to the table?I smell a game of 'gotcha' here.

Sorry but it seems you really have no idea what Evolution is. There is absolutely nothing in that post that is correct or anything more than a typical creationist misrepresentation.First, evolution is simply change over time.Second, it is NOT directed.Third there is no directionality.Fourth, what we see is simply what has succeeded.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

"First, evolution is simply change over time."Evolution is not "change over time" but "change by mutation" via Natural Selection.Natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become, and remain, more common in successive generations of a population.We should have expected that simple organisms alive today should have experienced some mutations to change and not remained the same for so long.

No.You are confusing the fact of Evolution which is simply change over time, with the Theory of Evolution that explains how it happens.Nor is there any evidence that anything has remained the same over time.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Granted, I assumed that the phrase "evolution" on this forum would mean "the theory of evolution".I will restate it...If the theory of evolution is correct, we should have expected that simple organisms alive today should have experienced some mutations to change and not remained the same for so long. 80% of all living things are still single cell organisms.

LOLBut those single cell critters are NOT the same single cell critters from billions of years ago.Remember there are two factors, change and the filter. If something passes through the filter it continues.It really is that simple.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!