Revelation: All Life Evolved From Bacteria

Warning: I am not a biologist.


I read a story a couple of days on Yahoo News: "Gene Expert Says We Are Not Entirely Human", and in that article it goes on to say that "We are somehow like an amalgam, a mix of bacteria and human cells. There are some estimates that say 90 percent of the cells on our body are actually bacteria," Steven Gill, a molecular biologist formerly at TIGR and now at the State University of New York in Buffalo, said in a telephone interview.

This article got me wondering. It basically says that not only humans can not live without bacteria, but all life forms can't live without bacteria.

The wheels in my puny brain started to turn. If this is true and since bacteria can live without us, bacteria must have been the first life on our planet. Then I found out that lots of people know this most likely true. It is assumed in this 1996 article : "In the first two billion years of life on Earth, bacteria - the only inhabitants - continuously transformed the planet's surface and atmosphere and invented all life's essential, miniaturized chemical systems." Abiogenesis is explained here, but the explanation makes me feel intellectual inferior.

The fossil record for bacteria goes back at least 3.5 billion years. "The first inhabitants of Earth did not need oxygen to breath, in fact oxygen was toxic to them, and this gas was rare in the atmosphere in those days. However the cyanobacteria that inhabited Earth in the Precambrium produced oxygen as a waste gas and so helped establish an aerobic ecosystem."

And this is how evolution works: "bacteria routinely transfer their genes to bacteria very different from themselves. The receiving bacterium can use the visiting, accessory DNA (the cell's genetic material) to perform functions that its own genes cannot mandate. Bacteria can exchange genes quickly and reversibly. Unlike other life forms, all the world's bacteria have access to a single gene pool and hence to the chemical prowess of the entire bacterial kingdom." Here is more on this.

OK, I read all this stuff, some sunk in, and some concepts went whoosh over my head.

Then I read another piece of news this morning: "Ontario Rock Reveals Earth's Earliest Life Form."

This is another missing link discovery. A 2.45 billion year old fossil would expect to be of a primitive bacteria, but instead "higher-order organisms in which each cell has a brain-like nucleus directing its growth and reproduction" were found.

Just as I was finishing off my "research" for this piece, I found this article, to store in my "Wow I didn't know this" section of my brain. Many bacteria have evolved eyespots that allow them to distinguish between food and other stuff.


Now, this leads me to a theistic question. If God created us in his image, is God bacteria? I still can't get over the fact that believers think that man was created in God's image. What about the butt? Does God have a butt? Does he use it the same way we use it? He obviously couldn't come up with a way for humans to go around without defecating every once in a while. This must mean God too defecates. And this has to mean that heaven has toilets. I wonder if they are unisex or if there are long line ups. Maybe a Fundy can tackle these questions.

What Exactly Do Terrorists Like About Non Muslims?

So I wake this morning and find out about this huge terrorist sweep in the Toronto area. I must be completely brainwashed and prejudiced because my first thoughts were those arrested were probably Muslims. In Canada, the media really tries to avoid using the term Muslim or Islam when they discuss terror or terrorist suspects. In fact, as the day progressed the Canadian newscasters kept saying men and teenagers with Al Qaeda ties were arrested, they avoided uttering the M word at all costs.

Finally when they a Canadian Muslim spokesman, the news guy finally fessed up and said that they do go out of their way pointing out the obvious as if it will stop racial intolerance. The Muslim spokesman by the way did state that it is time for Muslims to get angry with terrorists and to quit scapegoating excuses. I thought that was great, but he is just one voice.

Getting back to what transpired. The bulk of the 17 arrested were homegrown Canadian Muslims. Where and how did they learn to hate the West, and especially a country that bends over backwards in being a cultural mosaic state? Maybe we'll find out more soon.

The excuses coming out right now though have to with the worldwide treatment of Muslims. Most of these Jihadists arrested today were from somewhat affluent homes. I guess they can't use the oppression excuse this time. WTF. What doesn't piss these guys off? Lets see, if it isn't Israel, it is Iraq, or maybe cartoons or Afghanistan or restricting Sharia Law. They for sure don't like what is written about them. Maybe my blog will be responible for making some homegrown Canadian Muslim snap and blow up some innocents in a crowded subway.

The lawyers and family who were interviewed pissed me off. They were saying things like this sweep was unwarranted and that lawsuits will probably spring up over this, and that this whole sweep happened because of fear. No, it was because CSIS discovered a major attack was imminent.

Thanks you Jihadists, now the borders with the USA will be even tighter. Canada now has a reputation that we can grow our own terrorists, so we don't have to worry so much who we let in. They are already here. And the USA doens't want them, and either do I. And so much for oppression, most of those arrested today were from pretty afluent homes.

Enough is enough. Shit or get off the pot. No more excuses for this from the Muslims or their Moonbat sympathisers. This time I will not accept anything but a never seen before major campaign denouncing terrorism. No silence, no yeah buts, I want to see marches with more than 25 people and I want to see it in writing too.

Response To Another Muslim Who Doesn't Get It

I must admit the writer of the Avari blog seems very literate and intelligent, at least on the surface, but sadly he is no different in the way he spins, deflects and cherry picks what is written as criticisms against Islam and Muslims.

He dedicated half a blog post to me and my question about Muslims using the term pigs and apes to describe Jews and possibly Christians.

Essentially he is defending the Koran by stating it is foolish to interpret apes and swine in a literal way, and he implies I'm foolish and uneducated for even bringing up the literal translation as a possibility.

I wonder if he bothered opening any of the links I provided in my post. It is a fact that some Arab Muslims, at least, interpret apes and pigs in a literal way when pertaining to Jews and Christians. Whether it is the right or wrong interpretation, it is reality that this idea is being taught to Arab Muslims at a very young age. Sure it is foolish, I find all literal interpretation, of all bibles foolish, but it doesn't stop many Muslims, Jews, and Christians, etc. from believing fully in literal interpretations. It was very juvenile of him to shoot the messenger.

He goes on to relevant points to defend the Koran. But then calls me an idiot as if I'm interpretting the Koran in the most negative way. I am not. But many Muslims are. That was the point of my post.

He says that he disproved me in his post. I have no idea what he thinks my post said. Maybe he needs an interpreter. I know I won't get an apology.

He goes on about my the questions for Muslims. And he uses one Christians Palestinian terrorist as proof that Christian Palestinian terrorists exist. How lame.

And again, he allows me to lump all Muslims together by his unsubstantiated support of the Palestinians and his obsession with Israel. On his sidebar he has a section called "Palestein" with 13 links (including one on the USS Liberty). Of course not even one link that specifically is about Darfur. Does anyone else notice a pattern here? Why is a Pakistani Muslim so interested in Israel but hardly focuses on Darfur(at least he did write a couple of posts on Darfur to his credit).

He even admits why Darfur is hardly mentioned, and it makes total sense:

...I think that there is another reason at work, which is also predicated on the problems we Muslims have with dealing with crimes and wrongs committed by fellow Muslims. When it comes to Iraq vs. America, or Israel vs. Palestine, it is easier to put things down into black and white. It's not just Muslim racism then, but a Muslim cowardice, an inability to face up to our own acts. Believe you me, if America attacked a predominantly black Muslim country, there would be demonstrations everywhere. People would be, quite literally, up in arms. People would be angry. Because it would be a case of a Muslim people suffering a non-Muslim assault.

Notice the sympathies that are expressed throughout the Muslim world for causes that one would not otherwise expect the people to sympathize with, except that the perceived aggressors are not Muslim, and the perceived victims are. Hence, that Muslims are allegedly "silent" (or relatively silent) over Darfur may be attributed, in some measure, to racism, which is a real disease plaguing our society. More accurately, however, our silence is stupefaction, looking into the mirror and seeing ourselves responsible for evil and oppression. We, as humans, do not like to know that persons of our group, our type, our clan, tribe, family or nationality, whatever it may be, are capable of such acts. We are instead hopeful, always, that it is the outsider -- in this case, the non-Muslim -- who is the bad guy.

When the facts prove otherwise, we become embarrassingly silent....

He seems very reasonable, but something blocked him from understanding the point of my post. I would also like to see him write a piece on why he thinks Israel is on Arab and/or Muslim land.

Congradulations To Spelling Be Champ

I watched the Spelling Be Championships last night and I was ammazed at the perserverance and the abundence of knowlege the participance had. There grammer was impeccible to.
I read alot, but I found it incredably embarassing that these kids new how to spell word that I never even herd of. Does'nt anyone else think it is wierd that these words were so unrecognisable.
The winner, Katharine Close, must have a super computor brain. She was definately the the most noticabley confidant and fastest contestent. She staid away from any miniscule mispellings in the contest, which was remarkible.
Any ways, I'm glad spelling isn't my passtime, as I am some times criticised about my spelling on this blog. I'm still having problems with words like seperate and desparate. I think I'll just stick with things I no, like being an Athiest.

Question For The Muslim Blogging Community

OK, what is the real deal with the Koran and the expression Jews descended from apes and pigs?

I've done some reading up on the subject and I am a bit confused. It seems that at least some Saudis and Egyptians teach this to be a literal transformation. I've also seen where some Muslims state it metaphorically describes Jews, and I've seen some instances where Muslims have stated it was just a current day conflict at the time the Koran was written.

It also seems there is confusion as to whether Jews are descended by both apes and pigs or just apes while Christians are descended from swine. Something about non-believers in Islam but believers in the book get to be named descendents. How come Atheists don't get an animal to descend from too? I'm covered by also being a Jew, but I would feel left out if I was just a plain old Atheist.

I know that different interpretations exist all over the place. But nobody denies that the Koran actually at least compares Jews to apes and swine. But why are 3 year old Muslim girls being taught the literal translation? How sick is that?

I have no problem being a descendent of an ape from an evolutionary standpoint. In fact, man is classified by most biologists as a great ape. Even being descended from a pig isn't the worst thing to say about me. It is fact that pig and man share the same ancestor from a long, long time ago, as we do with all mammals.

But correct me if I'm wrong, most Muslims don't believe in evolution. I don't think Muslims are talking evolution when they say that Jews descended from pigs and apes. However, if they don't believe in evolution, how do they get around evolution on this issue? Is this like the Adam's rib turning into Eve kind of dealy? When did this transformation take place? Was it pre-Moses or post-Moses? So many questions, and so few answers.

And what percentage of Muslims are we talking about here, that literally believe Jews came from pig and/or apes? What percentage think it is a metaphoric term? And what percentage sluff it off as just something Mohammed said when he was having a bad hair day?

Anyways, until I get some reasonable answers I'll stick with the following club:


Join the Apes and Pigs Alliance