Evolution by Epigenesis: Farewell to Darwinism, Neo and Otherwise

do bacterial colonies only contain bacteria ?

Are they allowed to have helpers, slaves, plasm donors, farmed flesh, sticks and stones, etc ?

I presumed so. We are speaking of the biological colony. Individual organisms of the same species living closely together.



There may be a bacterial colony in a stick or flesh, but we would not call the stick or the flesh bacterial colonies. We would say there is a bacterial colony (a grouping of baceria) within the stick or flesh.

Because all organisms within the colony descend from a single ancestor, they are genetically identical (except for mutations which occur at a low, unavoidable frequency, as well as the more likely possibility of contamination). Obtaining such genetically identical organisms (or pure strains) can be useful in many cases; this is done by spreading bacteria on a culture plate

I mean, when we discuss human colonies, we do not exclude houses, farming methods, tools, trades, land, and so on, so we ?

When we say human colonies, from a biological standpoint, we are referring exclusively to the life-form humans. Everything you mention would be a reason for a human colony to have formed at a specific location, or the result of a human colony, but none of those things are human colonies; only humans can be contained in human colonies - that is why we call them human colonies.

Take, for instance, ant colonies. A reason an ant colony may form in a certain location is that there is an abundance of food. A result could be those little holes in dirt. Just as a result of a human colony could be a house being built. But when we say ant colony, we are exclusively referring to the ants, I think. At least that is how I understand it.

I would probably agree with you if you just said colony, with no pre-descriptor (such as "human" or "ant"). The general, non-biological colony refers to a territorial piece of land which someone has political control over. If we were to say colony, in this sense, it would refer to everything on that land. The people, the buildings, perhaps even the "way of life". But there is a difference between the biological colony and the political colony. And, I think, here, we are speaking of the former.

What is our biosphere? Earth?

Yes, we probably WOULD say that.

but I wonder if our strictures are not leading to our conclusions ?

I mean, when we discuss human colonies, we do not exclude houses, farming methods, tools, trades, governments, land, and so on, do we ?

but when we talk of bacteria, we tend to strip them of everything, and then call that a colony if it actually survives on a dish or in a flask.

Nothing else is a colony by that standard: only "flaskers", "test tubers", and "petri dishers" make colonies of bacteria.

My biosphere is an area where I can respire, refuel, and maintain my blood pressure. I guess I could do that on Mars in a bubble. I'm thinking it would be smart to do what we always do when we set up an aquarium: add water that fish have been living in... it's got all the bacteria that are needed to create a biosphere.

Yes, I agree somewhat, that there is a diference beetween teh scientific term "colony" of bacteria, and the vulgar understanding, or the understanding of it in other fields.
and I think that in Science, we see non understanding of that difference even thought the rules are set by Science.

You are correct. Depending on the science, we may use the word differently. For instance, in the social science sociology, people may use the term how you initially spoke of it (maybe to refer to a social pattern, or something - X is present in human colonies in the East). And, of course, in political science we would see it used differently (In Western colonies, we see a prevalence of Y government).

Again, I was speaking specifically from a biological standpoint. And the reason why I thought that that was the way it should be used here, is because this thread has to do with evolution, and evolution is linked to biology.

Oxidation of nitrite to nitrate in aquaria is typically attributed to bacteria belonging to the genus Nitrobacter which are members of the subdivision of the class Proteobacteria. In order to identify bacteria responsible for nitrite oxidation in aquaria, clone libraries of rRNA genes were developed from biofilms of several freshwater aquaria. Analysis of the rDNA libraries, along with results from denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) on frequently sampled biofilms, indicated the presence of putative nitrite-oxidizing bacteria closely related to other members of the genus Nitrospira. Nucleic acid hybridization experiments with rRNA from biofilms of freshwater aquaria demonstrated that Nitrospira-like rRNA comprised nearly 5% of the rRNA extracted from the biofilms during the establishment of nitrification. Nitrite-oxidizing bacteria belonging to the subdivision of the class Proteobacteria (e.g., Nitrobacter spp.) were not detected in these samples. Aquaria which received a commercial preparation containing Nitrobacter species did not show evidence of Nitrobacter growth and development but did develop substantial populations of Nitrospira-like species.

I'm saying that the issue is confused, even within the biological sciences.

Nitrospira-Like Bacteria Associated with Nitrite Oxidation in Freshwater Aquaria -- Hovanec et al. 64 (1): 258 -- Applied and Environmental Microbiology

What does this have to do with the term "colony" being confused?

I'm saying that the issue is confused, even within the biological sciences.

Nitrospira-Like Bacteria Associated with Nitrite Oxidation in Freshwater Aquaria -- Hovanec et al. 64 (1): 258 -- Applied and Environmental Microbiology

This is because, as we talked about, when environment and interaction is stripped, Nitrobacter species can live in the usual lab vessel, but the true freshwater aquarium nitirification organisms do not do well.

What happened, and this is onging even decades later, is that the wrong organism was ID'd simply because of strictures set by scientists.

this cousin is telling that cousin to do mining, while other cousin is told to smelt, and another cousin is to blacksmith, and a neighbour builds houses for all of them.

Yea, we tend to assume that a bacterial colony contains only one set of genes. Maybe in the same way we assume the bacteria in our intestines is non-human when we couldn't live without it. Just shows how we start out with assumptions and run that trail. The initial assumptions filter what we see and don't see... one reason why science itself is an evolving thing, huh?

Well, I suppose, the biologist would have to add yet another descriptor if s/he wished to effectively communicate. X bacterial colony, Y bacterial colony, and Z bacterial colony (once again, perhaps referring to three different species of bacteria) working synergistically. This does not mean, however, that when s/he said bacterial colony, s/he was referring to anything but bacteria. I still don't see what is confused.

I would not say my telephone is part of my book collection. And it doesn't matter what kinds of books were in my book collection - the point is that my book collection can only contain books.

Well, I suppose, the biologist would have to add yet another descriptor if s/he wished to effectively communicate. X bacterial colony, Y bacterial colony, and Z bacterial colony (once again, perhaps referring to three different species of bacteria) working synergistically. This does not mean, however, that when s/he said bacterial colony, s/he was referring to anything but bacteria. I still don't see what is confused.

you do not have a higher purpose in drinking ? not even to ease that stated thirst ? why would you drink if you did not believe it would ease that thirst ? It was your intention. Fully purposeful purpose.

---------- Post added 12-11-2009 at 12:02 AM ----------

Have you not ever advised someone to drink water, for any reason ? I mean, we do not advise drinking water solely on the basis that it relieves thirsty feelings, eh ?

Your phone might well be considered a part of your book collection (verb).

You're sort of ignoring my point.

My point is that PURPOSE is self-defined by an intending agent.

Last night I was about to go to bed when I was posting about this, and I really did get a drink of water -- which meant tiptoeing by the baby's room and by the bedroom where my wife was asleep, going to the kitchen, etc. And I could have easily made it to morning without having a drink. I drank for a sensation, not for a higher purpose.

You do advise the dringkin of water for other than sensory appreciation, do ou not ? You would not allow someone under your care, to interpret what you are saying now, as meaning that his water intake may be replaced by some kind of spit replacement therapy, "glyco this or that" spray for dry mouth ?

"drinking water" - that action itself - carries deeper meaning that your thirst-quenching sensation on the mouth.

How about voluntary breathing ? Do you ever breathe just for the sensation ? "Sure", you might say. How is your will power ? Do without that sensation chasing, for 15 minutes.

Actually, yes I do under certain circumstances -- when people need to be fluid-restricted for various diseases, but their thirst needs to be alleviated by something other than drinking.