Last year, there was a news story about a juvenile fish with two heads that appeared in the Noosa waterways (here in Australia). It apparently captured international attention.
The authorities launched an investigation into the cause of the "deformity". It is supected that a chemical found in fertilizer may have been the cause, but, to the best of my knowledge, was inconclusive.
Then,just a few weeks ago, another deformity was reported, in a species of fish common in our waterways, as having a "dent" in the head. Much like as if another fish had taken a bite out, and it healed over.
There is a great level of concern from various groups about this situation.
The thing that I find inconsistent with all this, is that NOT ONE TIME, was evolution called upon, as an explanation. Yet, it is shoved down all our throats everywhere you turn as being the correct explanation for how we all came to be the way we are, (including fish, as mentioned here).
So why would that be?
Some people understand evolution while others believe it's being shoved down their throats.
So why would that be?
Religious indoctrination would be my guess.
Shoved down your throat? Oh - you mean facts being discussed and taught in schools? God forbid LOLOLOLOLOLO
I would answer your question - but - let's be honest here - you are not looking for an answer are you? Seeing as you ignored the last half dozen or so answers I provided on similar threads you have started in the past.
No morals. None.
Is this to replace "LIAR"??
Just 'cause I don't have your exceptionally high standard of "ethics and morals" does not equate not having any.
Thankyou for confirming, yet again why I do not subscribe to your ridiculous beliefs (Oh, I mean, NON belief).
Another absurd attempt at trying to set the world back 2000 years. This thread displays a lack of, and hatred for intelligence.
The explanation might be random mutation, nut not evolution per se which is mutation plus selection over long periods of time. but actually these are classic symptoms of chemical pollution--so it proabably was that.
To the above four responses, I can only say....IRRELEVANT to topic as usual with certain ones of you.
The main point (which you missed as usual) was WHY wasn't evolution put forth as an explanation? It is employed just about in every documentary I have ever seen SSSOOO, why not apply it here.
It matters not, really, that it was chemicals. They would simply be a trigger for change. Or else, what would have caused any previous "mutations"in the past. Would it NOT have been a response to something within the environment???
Has it become a dominant species? Are there enough numbers of them? Is there some reason that the two heads/dents are increasing survival rates?
If so, then yes it would be evolution. But from what you've written, it's implied that these are only two cases of fish having a mutation, not an entire population of them (clear that up if otherwise).
To be honest though, it really does sound like it was a chemical interference caused by us. I don't see how a dent or having two heads will make it better for survival.
Hence, the problem with why you haven't seen evolution as an answer. It is understood by those who didn't put it forth.
Hi AKA-DJ -
The most common cause of this type of mutation is when a fertilized egg starts to split but doesn't complete the process. Two headed calves have been born alive -- same thing.
Fish and amphibians usually lay eggs in water, so they are also subject to mechanical and chemical damage. It probably doesn't apply here.
The reason no biologist is calling it "Evolution" is because there is no sign that this will be genetically passed on as a beneficial trait to future generations. When a mutation is "one and done" it's just a mutation, not evolution.
It is fascinating stuff, isn't it. Hope this helps.
If I understand what you are reporting, the correct term is probably "mutation". The deformities may be caused by chemicals, radiation or other causes. At least the two headed fish is not likely to show a positive mutation that will be passed to it's offspring; indeed it will probably not reproduce at all.
It is not, therefore an example of "evolution". Should said fish reproduce to the point that either a new viable species comes into existence, or that the current one sees a permanent change in a particular characteristic then and only then would the correct term be evolution.
The strange fish could also be used as an indication of one of the tools of evolution; this is how a change in that fish might start. Note the word "might"; to verify a permanent change, come back if a few hundred generations and see if it was truly permanent.
Look up natural selection. That's a more appropriate definition of the evolutionary mechanism.
With that in mind, it doesn't matter what caused the mutation, only if it happens to be a favourable mutation to get passed on to other fish. Once it becomes dominant, then it is evolution at work.
Now if the fish had two tails which helped it swim faster than its fellows, it might be able to catch more food and in this case the mutation would be a plus.
If it could reproduce and its offspring carried the two-tail gene, then there is a chance the mutation would allow the new two-tailed fish to eventually become the dominant species. In this case, the theory of evolution would be applicable. Lots of ifs, though!
evolution would not be mentioned because it is a ridiculous suggestion.
It is already well known that chemicals cause these deformities all over the world, including gender changes.
The fact that you think like this is why you have the ancient ideas that you do - the time it takes to evolve is beyond your comprehension, it does not pop out one day like the answers from your book.
Perhaps evolution wasn't considered because it is clearly understood to be a theory and not a fact. Another thought would be because it was an obvious circumstance of mutation, not evolution.
that happend on the simpsons lol. its probably a genetic defect but u never no.
by janesix17 months ago
I have some questions about evolution.1. Random Mutation. Is it really random?"To determine how the bacteria had gained their tails, Dr. Xavier and his colleagues sequenced the DNA of 24 lines of hyperswarmers. In...
by aka-dj6 years ago
I just posted the below in another thread, but, because it can get lost within all the other posts, I decided to repeat it in it's own new thread.Here it is:I am so amazed!!I look at the human body, and with what little...
by A Troubled Man4 years ago
If Jesus were to read the book, "On The Origin of Species", do you think He would understand it and support it or reject it?If the mountains of evidence for evolution were presented to Him, would He accept the...
by Greatest I am4 years ago
Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?And if you cannot, why would God punish you?Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and...
by Disappearinghead4 years ago
Geneticists have seen their synthetic DNA evolve, but this would not have been possible without external input, that is, human intervention. So why do some consider it unreasonable (atheists and theists for different...
by janesix18 months ago
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?And for each...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.