Which only verifies my statement that bacteria are reputed to be the earliest life form. Why you post the above as a contradiction of what I said is beyond me.
where's the contradiction? Almost all forms of prokaryotic and eukaryotic bacteria reproduce by cellular fission (mitotic division) and do so very rapidly, their generations measured in minutes under ideal conditions, and continue until the bacterial consumption of biological resources equals or exceeds the supply, at which point the explosive reproduction rate plateaus, even falls back. The only thing bacteria can do is eat and replicate. That's all they do, and they do it well.
You are still agreeing with me.
3. the most prolific,-me-
Again, where's the contradiction? See above.
Still agreeing with me.
The most adaptable.-me-
Yet again, where's the contradiction?
If a species can adapt to almost any environmental condition then it does not need to transform itself into another species. Get it now? There is no need for evolution, species can adapt themselves to environmental conditions without transforming themselves into more complex species.
Evolution is supposed to be driven by environmental changes and necessities. The complete viability of bacteria shows very well that there is no need for species have transformed themselves into more complex creatures. In fact the large success of bacteria show quite well that transformation into greater complexity is detrimental to success. Many species have come and gone, but bacteria are stil around.
5. the most long lived species,-me-
Ah. Now that's a load of bull. Individual unicellular and multicellular bacteria are generally very short-lived.
Of course I did not mean it in the sense of their life span, I meant it in the sense of having been the longest inhabitants on Earth. Which shows quite well my point, you do not need to mutate to survive. Adaptability is an intrinsic part of species and this totally destroys the evolutionary argument that mutation is necessary for the survival of species.