[tarhil7]

According to my hypothesis, bacteria that lived millions of years ago communicated by their body language. In scientific terms, the main problem with my hypothesis is that?

[Curlyben]

Errm Bacteria don't have bodies with which to communicate with !

[J_9]

Is this homework? I agree with Curlyben.

[tarhil7]

It study question for a future Exam

[J_9]

Well, is that the way the question is actually worded? I just finished a round of microbiology in college and bacteria do not have bodies to communicate with.

There is giardia, which looks like a ghost under a microscope, but bacteria do not communicate with one another.

[tarhil7]

Yes, that's the way the question is worded on the study sheet.

[J_9]

Okay, I don't know about you, but in my school study sheets were meant to look for more info in the text or lecture notes. Rarely was the exam worded the same as the study sheet.

Bacteria for the most part multipy and divide, no communication is necessary. So, without being in your class, I would have to say that the problem with your hypothesis is:

Bacteria do not have the ability to communicate.

[tarhil7]

Thank You for your help

[worthbeads]

Bacteria aren't really the social type. They are more self-centered. They consume and then split into two forever and ever and ever and ever and ever.

[kp2171]

I suspect the question has nothing to do really with the bacteria, but rather the bad construct of a hypothesis... being an idea or explanation that explains some phenomenon, with that explanation being supported by some scientific data, observations, or testable in some manner.

so... the problem here, in my mind, isn't the poor wording of "body" for a microbe, but perhaps the failure to have a hypothesis that can be tested, supported, or negated by measurements and data?

*** by the way folks, contrary to what has been said BACTERIA DO COMMUNICATE through contact... direct contact through receptors can change the expression of the genes and also there are soluble "messages" sent from microbe to microbe. Technically, you CAN do some measurements on these or at least know the structures that are present and infer the usefullness... there is additional research in how diseases can develop when a sufficient number of microbes are present and can alter their "behavior", leading to disease states. Just because you didn't learn about bacterial communication in your class Doesn't MEAN it doesn't happen!! ***

i just think people need to be a little more careful with what they are saying.

but this hypothesis can fail somewhat... depending on the level of knowledge the class has been given (or the teacher has)...

this might fail based on the description of the behavior of microbes millions of years ago. Kind of hard to study that directly... though scientists DO make hypothesis and theories about events long past all the time. But how do you prove there was communication when you cannot observe this event that has happened in the past.

well, if you were looking at bacteria today you could plate some out on agar and see how they spread until they form a uniform layer, but no further. You could look at how bacteria in the body spread or restrict themselves to certain regions and look at the physical makeup of their receptors or chemical "messages"... so you could record data in the present for microbes today... and then maybe if there is evidence that ancient microbes had similar receptors, well then you might have an argument for the statement. no... microbes don't text message. But there still is some level of "communication" between organisms that is studied...

personally, I think that hypothesis might be reasonable... if you find similar physical receptors in bacteria today as ancient bacteria. But I don't know how much knowledge they can extract about ancient microbes. Or I could just be making too much of this question.

tarhil7

it would help to know the level of study this is for. Is it high school, college, etc...

have you studied bacterial structure in class? Have you recently studied the ideas behind what a hypothesis is versus a theory?

a little more info might help.

Bacteria aren't really the social type. They are more self-centered. They consume and then split into two forever and ever and ever and ever and ever.

no. bacteria can be in environments that limit growth and cause the exponential growth phase to move toward stationary "growth" then death with loss of cell viability.

Well, is that the way the question is actually worded? I just finished a round of microbiology in college and bacteria do not have bodies to communicate with.

There is giardia, which looks like a ghost under a microscope, but bacteria do not communicate with one another.

giardia does look funky. But bacteria do communicate.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl...m-sensing.html

(note the cystic fibrosis research and the classical "grape smell" pseudomonas burn-victim reference)

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/99/q1/0325-bassler.htm

(here note the speculation that bacteria in the body might "wait" until they have sufficient numbers to cause disease while being strong enough in numbers to resist the hosts immune system)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...%20autoinducer

to list a few