Oh alright, I did not know you meant chaotic in that meaning of the word. On the subject of mutations, I offer this example:
In a common experiment, flies in a controlled environment were put in contact with a pesticide. 90% of those flies died. After the flies breeded, and the next generation of flies came about, the same pesticide was placed in that controlled environment again. This time, a great deal less flies died from that same pesticide; after many generations of flies, they became almost immune to that particular pesticide. However, there was no real mutation, as the flies had not changed IN ANY WAY, except they had gained minor antibody/bacterial/whatever resistance to that pesticide. There are many other experiments, including one that involves color change with a certain type of moth, that show these same results. In all cases, no mutations really ever occured - they were still the exact same animal they were generations ago, before the experiment was conducted.
Those are still the result of mutations. The flies that lived in the first experiment lived only because they had a random fluke in their genes that made them immune to that sort of pesticide. That was then passed down to the following generations until only the ones that were alive and producing were ones that were immune to the pesticide.
Call it what you wish, the flies did not encounter any changes in their genetics at all, except for that one little area protecting them from the pesticide. If we continued the experiment, we would not wake up one day and find beetles inside that containment area.
And I would like someone to explain to me how it is that amphibians evolved into reptiles, which is logically impossible. Reptile eggs are greatly different than amphibian eggs, and reptile eggs could not survive if they were missing one structure of their egg; therefore, how could an amphibian egg slowly evolve into a reptile egg? The amphibian would have to produce a fully reptile egg, complete with all of its features, in order for that egg to survive.
No, you really have no idea what you are talking about do you. I am sorry, but I just have to point that out.
For the first discussion: Really, what are you talking about. You argue that the flies had no genetic mutations, but then agree that there was one. The one that protects them from the pesticide. Which happens all the time and is not visible seeing as it all happens on the genetic level. And what are you talking about beetles for? That makes no sense.
For the second discussion: It is called evolution. You know, where very small changes take places over millenia? The changes in egg structure would of been small ones over thousands upon thousands of generations. Your argument is more or less a new version of "Which came first? The chicken or the egg?"
I did not say that what happened to the flies was a mutation, I merely said "call it what you wish". For the record, it is not a mutation, despite what you may try and put forth. It is what we call an 'immunity'.
Case and point - when one goes to the hospital for an immunization, the doctor is not injecting you with a 'mutation'. He is giving you an immunity to that disease, by giving you contact with a very small portion of that virus/disease/bacteria/etc, and your own human body does the rest. When you come in contact with that disease again, your body already has encountered it before, so it knows what to do. If you know anything about human anatomy, antibodies are what help you in this process. The same thing happens with flies. They may not have as sophisticated a body as we do, but they still can gain immunites.
I think I show my point. As far as the beetle-thing goes, that was just a smack at evolution, not being serious in that comment. And for your explanation for the second discussion, that was pathetic. It was like giving the definition of a word, but including the very word you are trying to describe in that same definition.
So do not try and act all 'high and mighty' over me, Devoidless. Obviously we disagree in this area, but try not to take the words out of my mouth.
Haha Devoidless you did not answer homegrove's question at all, you merely helped out his point XP
What homegrove was saying is that it would be impossible for the amphibian egg to slowly evolve into the reptile egg, since the reptile egg needs every single one of its features in order to survive. So in order for amphibians to 'evolve' into reptiles, the amphibian eggs would have had to mutate from complete amphibian, to complete reptile, with no small or minor changes.
I was looking over this amphibian problem a bit. I think it's another example of people trying to refute evolution by offering a certain counterexample and then people just latching onto it. Why do we have to assume that reptile eggs and amphibian eggs have always had to look and function like they do today? Certainly reptiles evolved from amphibians, but the changes that took place in the intermediate steps cannot be ignored. Why couldn't early reptiles have laid their eggs in the water? There are even some early ancestors between the amphibian and reptile that gave live birth! The refutation of egg structure just doesn't seem very clear or distinct to me. Of course everything in the reptile egg has to be the way it is for it to function like it does today, but aren't we forgetting the entire premise of evolution, that nothing was like it is today?
Do not worry about me taking words out of your mouth, there are none worth me taking as of yet.
...are you serious. That is your agrument. That has nothing to do with flies. Insects (whicg flies are inculded) have been known to be immune to pesticides that they have never been exposed to before as a species. Why is that? Because a few of the affected group live and make offspring, some of which get the immunity. And yes, that immunity was caused by a genetic mutation, which is the base for all of evolution. Small gentic mutations that help the species as a whole.
How else am I going to explain the slow changes of evolution? You previous statement made just as much sense as mine so far as the amphibian-reptile eggs go. A amphibian just would not go about laying a full-blown reptile egg. That is just crazy talk.
Reptile eggs as we know them today need all the traits of modern day reptile eggs. Back when there was something between an ampibian and reptile so were the eggs. Which worked perfectly for them, and had to be exactly as they had to be for them to work.
Interesting point, Moegreche, I can kindof see it from that perspective now. If Devoidless have explained it somewhat like that, maybe we would not have this little feud.
Anyways, I see I cannot get through my point to you Devoidless. I never wanted to convert you from evolution, I just wanted to state a simple fact. But, I suppose we had better drop that subject, as we are not going anywhere (you can agree on that, right?) We would probably end up being something like this:
Me: Immunities aren't mutations You: Yes they are Me: NO! You: YES!
Well, I just can not see how someone can't in the very least concede to that point. Even if you do not go along with the whole evolution thing which explains a lot of the 'immunity' idea. I mean, how else can you explain it? That an insect was just, by the grace of god, immune to some poison the species has never been exposed to before? Insects do not have immune systems like people or mammals do. They are more or less not going to get killed by something or they all die. Even more so since pesticides are not like diseases. More like little buggy neurotoxins.
God could have created every animal on earth with the ability to evolve, to keep the species in existence. Maybe we are being tested with what limited things and knowledge we have, on our moral values and faith, to gain access to heaven. Maybe Its an experiment, maybe he created the world with certain traits and rules, and is just watching to see what happens. Or God was actually and alien species that created humans, and plants and animals (as our food) so that we may grow and multiply and within the next couple hundred years, before we outgrow our planet, they will come down and harvest us as armies for the coming intergalactic war against a different alien species. heh, what do you guys think about these ideas? There are tons and tons of possibilities for our creation/evolution and for what reason we are here on earth.
We know that animals evolve, it is scientific proven. But what we consider scientific proof could just be our primitive understanding of gods workings. We see a pattern, we find an equation for it. God could be controlling all of this from behind the curtains.
In regards to this argument over flies and pesticides/diseases/etc, here's what i have to say
essentially, one of three things can happen:
1. the fly has not accumulated enough of the disease, survives, body develops the antibodies, antibodies get passed down to its offspring
2. the fly has a genetic mutation that enables it to withstand greater quantities of a lethal substance (for an example, a higher concentration of hemoglobin allows for survival in lower-oxygen conditions), which it then also passes down the its offspring
3. the fly possesses neither of these qualities and dies, being unable to pass along its "inferior" genes
anyway it's evolution in all cases so stop arguing
oh and so i can fit an attack on religion in here religion was essentially "developed", so to say, as to explain the phenomena that were otherwise inexplicable you'd think that in today's age with our modernized technology we would have moved away from that
