From: "Gary Britt" 

Bacteria mutate so fast that in a 100,000 years it would have to be the
case that a new mutation would come along more fit to survive even in the
otherwise unchanging system, and as a result the new mutation would take
over all available space from and in effect kill off the original bacteria.
As a result evolution would continue even in a closed unchanging system. 
So I think my point is valid.

Gary

"Robert Comer"  wrote in message
news:43071173$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> I don't really agree, a 100,000 years isn't enough of a span of time for
> that to be proof.  heck, a hundred billion wouldn't be if the environment
> that the bacteria in hasn't changed.  (that's the key here, the bacteria
are
> niche players and their niche hasn't changed for the last couple of
billion
> years.
>
> - Bob Comer
>
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:4306b164$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > Evolution is adaptation.  The only constant in the system called the
> > universe is change.  Therefore, evolution must be working always to
> > produce
> > adaptations.  If a life form existed over 100,000 years without further
> > evolution, I say that's a reason to question whether evolution exists at
> > all
> > or whether we have a proper understanding of what we call evolution.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > "Geo"  wrote in message
news:4306aae8$3{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> Why?
> >>
> >> Evolution exists, it doesn't have to be a rule that everything obeys,
> > that's
> >> is not required for existence.
> >>
> >> Geo.
> >>
> >> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> >> news:43069afe$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> > If they haven't evolved then evolution as a theory can't
be correct.
> >> > If
> >> > evolution means anything, it means that things must
evolve and must
> >> change.
> >> > Our conditions certainly aren't static for the last 100,000 years.
> >> 100,000
> >> > years is how many Billions of years to a bacteria??
> >> >
> >> > Gary
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5