Darkyear's Waterfall
Why would the Bible mention bacteria?
Because they are by far the most numerous and successful forms of life on the planet. Because they are everywhere we go. Because they can kill us with ease. Because simple precautions concerning cleanliness and food preparation could have saved millions of lives, if not billions. I'd say that is a huge oversight.
Then God made creatures from the dirt of the ground.
Then God made man from the dirt of the ground.
Only in the first origin account. In the second version, man came first.
The thing is, I do not believe the Bible is factual. Very little of it can be supported by observable reality. Meanwhile, vast amounts data support and reaffirm evolution.
It isn't guesswork so much as life is extremely complicated. Every life form has at least the potential to somehow affect every other life form in the local environment. So does the chemistry of the soil, and the lay of the land. And the local climate and change of seasons. And the changing supply of water. And now, human activities, which can affect an ecosystem on the other side of the planet. With all of these variables, every "guess" has numerous hoops it has to jump through to be valid. And the more we know, the more complicated it gets.
All evidence shows that single-celled organisms similar to bacteria (which the Bible never mentions) were first. Then came the earliest autotrophs (the ancestors of plants), and their interaction with the environment made multicellular organisms possible. And keep in mind, this was all in the ocean. Earth is 4.6 billion years ago, but life didn't appear on land until around 530 million years ago. There is evidence that animals (almost certainly the predecessors to amphibians actual got on land before plants did. Modern humans appeared less than 500 thousand years ago. Basically everything concerning God's creation in life is incompatible with the evidence we have.
Again, the way you are using terms is confusing and it is difficult to answer you since I'm not sure what you are asking. However, I do understand that you are not a science person and respect that you are showing curiosity, so I will do my best.
Isn't dominance a selective process in mutations?
Dominance of what? At its heart, natural selection means that if you don't live long enough to survive, you don't propagate your DNA, and if enough of your species can't do it, you go extinct and play no role in further evolution. If your survival involves dominating something, then so be it. But any local environment is complex, so likely, you wouldn't be dominating any more of it than you need to survive. And there is no guarantee that you could "dominate" any other environment that you might wander into.
As mutations dominate the field of available resourses used to excell independent mutations, isn't there a conflict of growth, survival, and reproduction with competing mutations?
I'm not sure if I'm parsing this correctly, but...I think by "mutations", you are referring to populations of specific species. I will use the words "populations" or "species" from now on. A population may or may not dominate the resources that it needs, but not all populations require the same resources. And when they do, it is possible to establish an equilibrium where both populations can use the same resources without major problem. In fact, it often occurs that each species limits the growth of the other, which tends to be best for the overall local ecosystem. But mostly, different species have vastly different requirements, so they can coexist without any problem.
Cancelling out progress of the weakest mutations?
If a species is surviving just fine, I don't think it makes sense to call it weak. Its as strong as it needs to be at that point. If it is "weak" it will likely go extinct, which has happened to 99% of all life forms.
How then did the variety thrive in survival with some being super mutations and others being small in value.
It isn't about numeric value. It is simply a yes or no question. Can it survive in that place at that time? If yes it goes on and usually slowly evolves to make survival even easier. If no, they go extinct.
As they mutate to substance that is consumable, wouldn't they become prey, and then cancel out their progress thus far?
Being prey doesn't mean they die off. Let's say you have a predator who only eats one form of prey. If they killed all of the prey species, the predators would be dead very soon. But both predator and prey are simultaneously evolving and getting more in tune with all aspects of their environment. Predators never eat just one form of prey, and prey has multiple ways of protecting their population.
As cells reproduce and mutate, what probability exists that the same species of mutations are completing their mutations at the same rate, to then fully evolve as 1 male and 1 female of the same species, for then the continued multiplying of that species?
Sexual reproductions only had to evolve once. Ever since then it has been passed from one species to the next. No mutation needed anymore.
As far as how sexual reproduction may have developed:
http://www.the-scientist.com/
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, so I'll just respond to your main points.
the wouldn't selective mutations obey their genes for survival, reproduction, and dominance?
Well, the genes are what is being changed by the mutations. Also, dominance is not necessary. But the ability to survive long enough to reproduce is essential, yes.
And by doing so limit or eliminate exclusively for its own survival and progress?
Kind of? I'm not sure what you are asking, but if an individual can not survive long enough to reproduce, its DNA will not be propagated. That is the essence of natural selection, which itself is the essence of the Theory of Evolution.
But animals don't protect the survival of their prey, they just obey hunger.
Of course. I'm again uncertain about the point you are trying to make.
So in this rapidly multiplying field of evolving life forms, who defined the boundaries so the weaker life forms could survive and progress at an even rate to result in the full appreciation of all of nature, seemingly all at once?
Define weaker life forms. If they are still around, they are successful. There is no real boundary anywhere in the global ecosystem. And the life forms we have did not appear "seemingly at once" at all. ALL evidence shows them appearing at different points in time.
Ideological, self-imposed segregation? Doesn't seem wise. Could limit idealized potential of some areas. Popular regions could find their infrastructure overwhelmed. Plus, its note easy for everyone to just up and move, especially if they have families.
Well, as I said earlier, I'm not on the whole ORGANIC ORGASMS!!! kick, or opposed to GMOs. I'm kind of drawing a blank on anything else though. I used to be fairly centrist, sometimes even slightly on the right on economic issues. I was even a Libertarian for about an hour and a half. But once I got more educated, and especially learned how to think rationally and research effectively, and apply the scientific method to everything; once I got all that sorted out, I ended up becoming more liberal than ever. I may be the only person ever who became a confirmed liberal AFTER giving up my idealism.
Same here. As far as social issues go, I'm for letting people do what they want as long as nobody gets hurt. There are a lot of laws, A LOT, that aren't doing what they should and many are making things worse for everyone. I want them gone. In that respect, you could say I'm kind of a small government liberal. Economically, I'm somewhere on the right edge of Democratic Socialist, but that's a whole other topic. On social issues, we seem to have no grudge.
