jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (19 posts)

Why not evolution?

  1. aka-dj profile image77
    aka-djposted 7 years ago

    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?
    Any thoughts?

    1. profile image61
      (Q)posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    2. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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. sad

      1. pisean282311 profile image54
        pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this


      2. aka-dj profile image77
        aka-djposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        NO MORALS???

        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). big_smile

    3. getitrite profile image79
      getitriteposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Another absurd attempt at trying to set the world back 2000 years.  This thread displays a lack of, and hatred for intelligence.

    4. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. aka-dj profile image77
        aka-djposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks guys.
        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???

        1. mrpopo profile image86
          mrpopoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. aka-dj profile image77
            aka-djposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Two headed fish, just ans isolated case (to the best of by knowledge)

            The "dent" is accross several species, (though they are similar types of fish).

        2. profile image61
          (Q)posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Hence, the problem with why you haven't seen evolution as an answer. It is understood by those who didn't put it forth.

    5. profile image0
      Will Bensonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  2. watchya profile image58
    watchyaposted 7 years ago

    experiments with bio weapons

  3. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 7 years ago

    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.

  4. mrpopo profile image86
    mrpopoposted 7 years ago

    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.

  5. Randy Godwin profile image95
    Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

    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!

  6. profile image0
    china manposted 7 years ago

    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.

  7. Rafini profile image87
    Rafiniposted 7 years ago

    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.

  8. optimus grimlock profile image53
    optimus grimlockposted 7 years ago

    that happend on the simpsons lol. its probably a genetic defect but u never no.