[1010101111001]

Great example of an idea that was initially widely rejected only to be later widely accepted. How many times does that happen in science?

Seems to me that the biological reality is that bacteria rule the Earth. They always have and always will, before we were here and after we're gone. And it seems at present there is _relatively_ little biotech we can do without the help of bacteria and their amazing junk-free genome. But I could be wrong. Corrections from the experts are welcome.

[jballanc]

This is reminiscent of a classic trope used to introduce students to some of the more advanced concepts in evolution.

Which is more evolved: a bacterium or a human?

To answer, you have to consider what it means to be "more evolved". A human has been subject to more branchings on the tree of life, but why does the tree of life branch? Usually because there is a new niche to occupy. And what is evolution? It's the process of exploring new niches and becoming "best fit" for a niche. So, humans have explored more niches in biological evolution, but all the while bacteria have instead continually adapted to become better and better fit for their niche.

Ultimately, the consequence of this is that it would be much easier for humans to be evicted from their niche, or for that niche to move just far enough for humans to no longer be able to cope. So, yes, bacteria will be here long, long after we are gone...

But if you really want to talk about ruling the Earth, well, viruses pretty much have that one in the bag. Go down to the sea with a teaspoon and scoop up some water. You'll have around 1 million bacteriophages (viruses that infect bacteria) in that one spoon.

[eru]

Aren't bacteria move evolved in a sense? Vertebrae are all almost the same. (Or even multicelled organisms.) Bacteria come with much more diversity in genetics and biochemistry.

[jey]

  Seems to me that the biological reality is that bacteria 
  rule the Earth. They always have and always will, before 
  we were here and after we're gone.

"Past performance is not an indicator of future results."

[1010101111001]

I'd still take the bet.

In the world of bacteria, there is no need for the SEC, lawyers or fear of liability. It's the fact that their needs are so few - they can seemingly live almost anywhere under almost any conditions - that makes them appear so resilient.

[1010101111001]

What is evolution?

Is it adding features? (to use the software lingo)

Or is it subtracting ones that have no real benefit, striving toward greater efficiency?

Like terse lines of code in a concise, well-written computer program, every bacterial gene seems to exist for one or more reasons. There is no bloat.

I'm biased, but to me bacteria, chloroplasts and mitochondria are life's most amazing machines and the tasks they perform are ultimately life's most important ones.

Thanks Dr. Margulis for the great thoughts.

[eru]

Stephen Jay Gould would probably argue that most changes in evolution are just neutral drifts.