New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet"

Fossils as a whole are evidence that changes occurred; we see the progression of species developing and adapting to changes in the environment, coinciding with the evidence of those environmental changes, in multiple lineages. One of the better examples of such a progression is humankind and its ancestry.
{I have a feeling you might try the old "no transitional fossils" claim. Please don't bother, just in case you were going to.}The fossils -- among other things -- also indicate that the same life processes used today were used in the past. We know that mutations are a fact of those life processes. Hence the fossils -- among other things -- are evidence that random mutation existed in the past.Secondly, natural selection is evidenced by fossils: the ones that aren't suitable get wiped out and produce few if any fossils, compared to the numbers we get for organisms that were well-adapted to that environment. And we see that the fossils have adaptations to the environmental conditions evidenced by the surroundings they were found in.Fossils are evidence for RM/NS. Not the only evidence, but they are part of it.

---

---

This is being used as a response to other people, since three posts to do the job of one seems excessive. Feel free to ignore it. You mean you don't call them that yet?
Wow, dude, get with the times; that's an old one L. O. L.
Ah, subbie, your scathing wit so often brightens my afternoon.

But calling evolution the "bacteria diet theory" does not relate to the abundance of bacteria and microbes on the earth, and thus commenting on those seems somewhat superfluous.

The nitrogen is; the oxygen actually comes from plants.

There are two ways to cut that: yes, a majority of the cells in a human body are bacteria, and if we were to count up how much total DNA is human and how much is bacterial in that body, you would be right. BUt if we examine only the human DNA, we see it is much more viral in origin (retroviruses inserting code, etc.) and this is still nowhere near a majority of it. To that also, if it is in the human genome it is necessarily human DNA: 100% of human DNA is human, regardless of where it initially came from.

I would not say it has that freedom. It certainly goes quite often, but modern man does its damnedest to ensure things like E. coli do NOT enter the body with every meal, for obvious reasons.

They are not waiting per se for us; if an opportunity arises they will merely take it, and if such a compromise is that opportunity then it is simply unfortunate for us.

​

---

BD's reasoning is that supposedly our only direct evidence of evolution is in bacteria and how their ability to metabolise certain chemicals changes over time; for example, the nylon-eating bacteria and the oil-eating bacteria. He then postulates that the theory should be renamed to more accurately label what it is based on.

​

What he has not accounted for is the direct evidence in other organisms (humankind being one of them) nor the indirect evidence from genetics, the fossil record, the chain of development, etc.

​

Hence, the new title is not appropriate, as it fails to reflect the whole body of science in support of the theory to focus on one part of that evidence, and one which is horribly misrepresented at that. In short, BD wishes to rename the theory based not on what the theory would actually describe, but on what his misconceptions about evolution allow him to concede that it does describe.

Yes, as a matter of fact this thread is about you saying that our only evidence for evolution is the changing of bacterial metabolic abilities, and that the theory should be renamed to reflect that fact.So, people presented evidence. Large amounts of it in fact, both here and in multiple other threads -- and then there's most scientific journals too -- to demonstrate that bacteria are not the only evidence used to support evolution.Thus the onus is yours to demonstrate that all of that evidence is either fabricated, incorrect or otherwise invalid. And we're talking millions of data in thousands of papers here. Which you have not done.Therefore, your proposed renaming of the theory of evolution should be considered rejected, as it is far less appropriate than the current. Unless you are in the middle of writing the post in which you conclusively demonstrate all that evidence to be wrong or bad or not applicable. We're waiting...