Do you believe DE evolution is plausible?

Question

Anything relevant to the topic is welcome.

Thanks

Answer 1

Devolution was a misnomer created out of a misunderstanding of the evolutionary process.

"Devolution (biological fallacy)

(Redirected from Biological devolution)

In common parlance, "devolution", or backward evolution is the notion a species may evolve into more "primitive" forms. From a scientific perspective, devolution does not exist.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_...

Answer 2

Yes and No

if one assumes that forward evolution is building things to be 'better, faster, smarter, Stronger etc.' then yes, We (humans) for example could Plateau and eventually 'de-evolve' into dumber, slower, weaker, and lesser beings than modern Humans, but  we'd never actually regress to the monkey-like parent species of which Darwinians believe we originated as, rather we'd be a wholely different species on the same level.

Judging by pop culture one could argue that this is in fact already occuring.

Answer 3

Animals generally don't de-evolve, certainly not in the long run.  Occassionally, atavisms will occur that are recurrences of particular traits, such as tails in humans, due to a mutation shutting off particular genes.  Evolution occurs when a particular feature provides an advantage.  If the environment changes, then a more primitive feature might become advantages and be re-acquired.   This is not de-evolution.  It is simply natural selection progressing in a non-linear way.

Answer 4

Do you mean devolution?

Then yes, it's happening all the time.

There is a lot of confusion about the word evolution. Some people use it to mean simply Natural Selection, which is observed and not controversial (eg Darwin's finches in Galapagos). But is is also used to mean the hypothesis that one kind of animal has changed into another.

E (goo-to-you) is the hypothesis that animals can change into different kinds of animals by means of natural selection working on genetic mutations.

These alleged mutations need to have added vast amounts of genetic information. However no such genetic mutation has ever been observed. Mutations are information neutral or lossy.

'But E is too slow to see' protest the Eists. Well then it's not observable and not worthy of being even called a theory. In any case, time is the enemy - mutations are resulting in the degradation of the gene pool - that is observable.

So what we actually see is devolution.

This of course is exactly what we expect from the Biblical account. Adam and Eve had perfect genes. The defects have been accumulating ever since - for the last 6000 years or so.

Incidently, this is why it was not a problem for Cain to marry his sister (a common puzzle for some). The laws of incest were given by God much later in the time of Moses, by which time the accumulation of defects meant that there was a risk of serious defects in the children of close relatives.

Answer 5

While in a real sense, any change be it positive or negtive, must be considered evolution.  I suspect you mean regressive evolution & this is indeed possible.  Because those born with type 1 diabetes in the past would not live to reproduce & pass on these genes, today they do & one could call that regressive evolutiion. Many recessive archaic genes exist within the human genome but seldom are expressed because those born with 2 of these genes died in the past, but with today's medical care, they can live to reproduce. In the past those born with genes that handicapped them in some way either failed to reproduce or died before reproductive age.

People with diminished mental capacity in the distant past simply could not find a mate, but a growing number do today. Therefore, some regressive evolution can & does happen, given the proper circumstances.

Answer 6

Read "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr if you want to understand evolution. It is not a linear process, and can reverse direction in certain situations. It is not possible to give a detailed explanation here, but Mayr's book is in non technical language and explains this and other relevant concepts.

Answer 7

Evolution can also favor less complex organisms.  There are several examples like cave creatures that lose capabilities.  It isn't exactly de-evolution, just circumstances where a new niche doesn't require certain capabilities and they are lost over time to save energy and make the organism more efficient.

Answer 8

No - in order to DE-evolutate you would need all of the genes from your ancestors.  You only contain a small portion of these genes.  So you are not an ape plus something.  You have a few of the ape genes.