Cell biology Intelligent Design speciation

Researchers: How two bacteria of different species become one

Spread the love

Well, this isn’t your old Darwin teacher’s evolution either, is it?:

Understanding how bacteria interact is critical to solving growing problems such as antibiotic resistance, in which infectious bacteria form defenses to thwart the medicines used to fight them.

Now, researchers at the University of Delaware have discovered that bacteria do more than just work together. Bacterial cells from different species can combine into unique hybrid cells by fusing their cell walls and membranes and sharing cellular contents, including proteins and ribonucleic acid (RNA), the molecules which regulate gene expression and control cell metabolism. In other words, the organisms exchange material and lose part of their own identity in the process…

“They mix their machinery to survive or do metabolism, and that’s kind of extraordinary, because we always assumed that each and every organism has its own independent identity and machinery,” said Papoutsakis.

Julie Stewart, “ When two bacteria become one” at UDaily

Paper. (open access)

See also: Paper: Paradigm shift needed in understanding evolution of complex animals Paper: “Horizontal gene transfer and mating between diverged lineages blur species boundaries and challenge the reconstruction of evolutionary histories of species and their genomes.” A friend writes to ask, “If we don’t have common descent, and we don’t have natural selection, why do we still call it evolution?”

4 Replies to “Researchers: How two bacteria of different species become one

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Well, it’s not all that extraordinary. Many parasites, both insect and fungus, become “organs” inside other animals, participating in the metabolism and commanding the animal to do horrible things. At least one male fish obeys the New Testament definition of marriage, merging his flesh with the female’s flesh.

  2. 2
    BobRyan says:

    Once again, there is something witnessed that does not fit with speciation, but adaptation. Why would any organism exchange material at the cost of identity? Darwinists tell us that there is a selfish gene to prohibit such a loss, yet it happens.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    As to:

    “Bacterial cells from different species can combine into unique hybrid cells,,,
    They mix their machinery to survive or do metabolism, and that’s kind of extraordinary, because we always assumed that each and every organism has its own independent identity and machinery,

    The assumption that ‘every organism has its own independent identity’, and belongs to a specific species, is not an assumption that arises from Darwinian evolution.

    Darwinists, within their reductive materialistic framework, simply have no way to rigidly classify exactly what a species is.

    You don’t have to take my word for it. Last year a Darwinist admitted that “The most important concept in all of biology, (i.e. species), is a complete mystery”

    What is a species? The most important concept in all of biology is a complete mystery – July 16, 2019
    Excerpt: Enough of species?
    This is only the tip of a deep and confusing iceberg. There is absolutely no agreement among biologists about how we should understand the species. One 2006 article on the subject listed 26 separate definitions of species, all with their advocates and detractors. Even this list is incomplete.
    The mystery surrounding species is well-known in biology, and commonly referred to as “the species problem”. Frustration with the idea of a species goes back at least as far as Darwin.,,,
    some contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology have,,, suggested that biology would be much better off if it didn’t think about life in terms of species at all.,,,
    https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-species-the-most-important-concept-in-all-of-biology-is-a-complete-mystery-119200

    In fact, Charles Darwin himself admitted that he did not have a rigid definition for what the term ‘species’ actually meant when he stated that, “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience.,,,”

    “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.”
    – Charles Darwin

    As should be needless to say, the inability for a supposedly scientific theory, a supposedly scientific theory that seeks to explain the “Origin of Species” in the first place, to clearly define what a species actually is is a clear indication that that supposedly scientific theory cannot possibly be the proper ‘scientific’ explanation for the “Origin of Species” in the first place!

    The reason why Darwinists can never provide a rigid definition for what a species actually is is because, for the Darwinian materialist, “there is no immaterial, immutable form” only “changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow.”

    Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas
    The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage
    Excerpt:,,, In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms.
    Denial of True Species
    Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes:
    “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.”
    Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,,
    The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow.
    What About Man?
    Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,,
    https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f

    More specifically, the term ‘species’ is an abstract concept and/or definition of the immaterial mind that is not reducible to any possible materialistic explanation.. i.e. How much does the concept of species weigh? Does the concept ‘species’ weigh more in English or in Chinese? How long is the concept of species in millimeters? How fast does the concept go? Is the concept of species faster or slower than the speed of light? Is the concept of species positively or negatively charged? Or etc.. etc.. ?..

    There simply is no way to reduce the abstract immaterial concept of species to materialistic explanations.

    As such, any purported ‘scientific’ theory that seeks to explain the ‘Origin of Species’ within the framework of reductive materialism, as Darwinian evolution seeks to do, will forever by stymied in its efforts. As the old joke goes, ‘You can’t get there from here’

    Vermont farmer: Well, now, what you want to do is, you want to head right on up to that stop sign and… No, that ant right. You got to turn yourself around and go on through town and past the creek to the next intersection and… No, that ant right, neither. [Scratches his head and thinks.] Come to think of it, you can’t get there from here!

  4. 4
    PaV says:

    I believe this is the paper.

Leave a Reply