If evolution doesn't exist, why do some insects become resistent to certain pesticides over time?

Answer 1

only idiot think eveolution doesnt exist.. its proven by scientists.. oh wait i mean GOD put us all here.. yah freakikng right.. jesus christ u guys r ridiculous

Answer 2

Assuming you are really asking and not just wanting to point out that you feel people of faith are stupid:

Even scientifically the two phenomena do not have anything to do with each other. What you are describing is Natural Selection. Natural Selection was believed by Darwin to be one of the ways species evolved, but Natural Selection is no longer believed to be the engine of evolution.

Why not? It explains the survival and extinction of species, but not the developement of new ones. What causes evolution is not known, and there are no widely accepted theories to explain yet.

Use and Disuse was a holdover from midievil thought, and does not exist. Acquired traits are not passed to offspring in sexually reproductive animals and plants. Random, gradual mutation has been dismissed as a cause due to statistical problems, and lack of evidence in the fossil record.

One theory gaining acceptance, is that certain breeding populations become isolated from each other and inter breed themselves into incompatability with each other.

Now, as to what is going on when certain insects become resistent to pesticides, that is not the creation of a new veriety, but the extinction of an old one. In the original population of insects there was a large group of normal insects and a tiny minority of highly resistent ones. With the introduction of the pesticide, the larger group of normal insects would die, leaving only the minority to breed. Being that both parents are from the resistent group, the offspring are also resistent.

What was witnessed was not the developement of a new more resistent insect variety, but the extinction of the non-resistent one in a population that previously held both.

This is the same mechanism that made the famous moths in England turn brown. They didn't turn brown. There were already brown moths in a generally white population, the white ones underwent a population stress that the brown ones didn't. In fact, this is the mechanism in all micro-evolution.

(In other words, outside of viruses, we have never witnessed what most people think of as micro-evolution.)

Answer 3

This is not evolution. When God created the insects, He created them with certain genes, some of which were bred out of different groups through selective breeding. When the insects came into contact with pesticides, those with the genes to fight the pesticide lived, the others died. Those that lived, interbred, and produced insects resistant to the pesticide.

This is not evolution, but a lose if information in the insects that died out.

Answer 4

Ok the people above me are wrong. The insects resistant to DDT for example is inborn. This only shows the properties of natural selection. The insects with the resistant will live to produce thus making a population with that particular gene. Evolution happens when there's been many gene changes. And a note to who ever said that theres no proof of a fish to a mammal is because you skipped a couple of rungs on the ladder, its fish --> amphibians --> reptiles ---> birds ---> mammals. One example of an half bird half mammal is the duck bill platypus, it lays eggs AND breast feeds its young AND has a beak

Answer 5

One might call that adaptation and not evolution. It is non natural the elements forcing the change but man made pesticides forcing these insects to adapt or die. Humans are much the same way. This is not evolution, that is when things change and occur in a species naturally over time without out side interference.

Answer 6

in all equity, that on my own would not quite tutor evolution, even though it is hardly the suited evidence for evolution with the aid of a lengthy-shot. Genetic evaluation between many various species produces a hierarchy of species that is structurally such as a genealogy. That proves evolution in so a procedures as something might want to be shown (previous useful doubt).

Answer 7

It's not "evolution" dude.

It's REVOLUTION! Insects are just fighting back against The Man.

Answer 8

Pesticides are unnatural. They are chemicals introduced to the insects by man. FORCED Evolution. Same with chickens eating hormones, and cows eating meat...lots of changes happening. Is it evolution? would it happen without our hand in it? Or are we really actually playing god, and that said... CREATING our own NATURAL EVOLUTION in animals! What is a clone anyways?

Are you arguing for or against evolution?

I believe there is no argument. Things change. That is nature... natural... normal... real.

Answer 9

Actually this is proof of evolution. Evolution is known as fact. The theory is how it happens. Just like the theory of gravity.

Answer 10

Yes and then they turn into donkeys. Why don't you learn the difference between micro and macro. Conditions can and will always bring about changes in kinds of creatures for purposes of survival. This is what Darwin witnessed with finches on Galapagos. But we have never seen or have produced evidence of one kind of creature becoming another kind of animal. Dogs make more dogs,cows make more cows, and finches make more finches. Adding the magical "billions of years" ingredient doesn't change that.

Answer 11

That's ADAPTATION. Creationists have no issue with adaptation. It is observable, and demonstrable, but it has limits, and is not evolution. For example, you start with a cockroach. He becomes resistant to Raid. What did you start with? A cockroach. What did you end up with? A cockroach. That's adaptaion, not evolution. And it has definite LIMITS. The cockroach will never become resistant to a sledge-hammer.

http://www.needGod.com