Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Devolution

question4u
Posts: 492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 10:47:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Are there anyone that believe in devolution? Can you explain to me your theory and how did you come to this point...Just curious about everything.
question4u
Posts: 492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 10:48:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 10:47:09 PM, question4u wrote:
Are there anyone that believe in devolution? Can you explain to me your theory and how did you come to this point...Just curious about everything.

I mean De evolution for all the educated people not like myself
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 10:54:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to.

There is "de-evolution" in the sense of negative selection pressures from biological tradeoffs.

For instance, species of lizards were discovered who migrated deep in caves and whose offspring never were in a place to experience sunlight. They lacked skin pigmentation and although they had "eyes" these appendages were useless when it came to any kind of sight. The lizards evolved to local conditions (wasting metabolic resources on sight where you can't see does nothing but waste energy that could be contributed towards other senses), but compared to the outside world, their sight had "de-evolved."
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 1:38:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 10:54:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
Well, I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to.

There is "de-evolution" in the sense of negative selection pressures from biological tradeoffs.

For instance, species of lizards were discovered who migrated deep in caves and whose offspring never were in a place to experience sunlight. They lacked skin pigmentation and although they had "eyes" these appendages were useless when it came to any kind of sight. The lizards evolved to local conditions (wasting metabolic resources on sight where you can't see does nothing but waste energy that could be contributed towards other senses), but compared to the outside world, their sight had "de-evolved."

But even that's a misnomer, though it's a convenient and immediately descriptive one; it's still evolution.

We all "get it" when someone says it because we have a general sense of evolution as a progression in a single direction (and I know you know this Wnope, this is more OP directed), but the concept we're all thinking of when we think of "de-evolution" isn't really separate from evolution. What would the definition of "de-evolution" be, and how would it differ from "evolution"?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2013 11:49:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 10:47:09 PM, question4u wrote:
Are there anyone that believe in devolution? Can you explain to me your theory and how did you come to this point...Just curious about everything.

Well, the observable evidence is of species going extinct and genetic defects accumulating in extant genomes. There is no observable evolution, Darwinism is based solely on circumstantial evidence.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2013 11:55:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 10:54:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
Well, I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to.

There is "de-evolution" in the sense of negative selection pressures from biological tradeoffs.

For instance, species of lizards were discovered who migrated deep in caves and whose offspring never were in a place to experience sunlight. They lacked skin pigmentation and although they had "eyes" these appendages were useless when it came to any kind of sight. The lizards evolved to local conditions (wasting metabolic resources on sight where you can't see does nothing but waste energy that could be contributed towards other senses), but compared to the outside world, their sight had "de-evolved."

And what has been observed that is labelled 'speciation' is really another example like this. Isolated populations lose the ability to interbreed. You can call that speciation, but of course no new species has been introduced, just two subsets of an original species. No actual 'origin of species' has even been observed in the wild or synthesized in the lab. So while it's obvious that nature loves 'variation on a theme' it remains pure speculation that new species can emerge on their own.
This space for rent.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2013 12:27:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/6/2013 11:49:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/1/2013 10:47:09 PM, question4u wrote:
Are there anyone that believe in devolution? Can you explain to me your theory and how did you come to this point...Just curious about everything.

Well, the observable evidence is of species going extinct and genetic defects accumulating in extant genomes. There is no observable evolution, Darwinism is based solely on circumstantial evidence.

And of course, that's what we'd call a "lie", in that it's an untrue statement that the speaker knows, or should know, to be untrue. Thanks for playing, and here's your home copy of "The Lenski affair".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2013 12:29:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/6/2013 11:55:29 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/1/2013 10:54:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
Well, I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to.

There is "de-evolution" in the sense of negative selection pressures from biological tradeoffs.

For instance, species of lizards were discovered who migrated deep in caves and whose offspring never were in a place to experience sunlight. They lacked skin pigmentation and although they had "eyes" these appendages were useless when it came to any kind of sight. The lizards evolved to local conditions (wasting metabolic resources on sight where you can't see does nothing but waste energy that could be contributed towards other senses), but compared to the outside world, their sight had "de-evolved."

And what has been observed that is labelled 'speciation' is really another example like this. Isolated populations lose the ability to interbreed.

That would be the generally accepted definition of speciation, yes.

You can call that speciation, but of course no new species has been introduced, just two subsets of an original species.

Which, following the ideas of UCD, means that every species is just "subsets of the original species".

No actual 'origin of species' has even been observed in the wild or synthesized in the lab.

So you want a wholly new lifeform to develop out of the blue based on nothing? That's both absurd, and not predicted by evolution.

So while it's obvious that nature loves 'variation on a theme' it remains pure speculation that new species can emerge on their own.

"On their own", so not based on a change from another species? It may be pure speculation, but it's not the speculation by people who understand science, that's for sure.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2013 12:47:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/6/2013 12:29:34 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
...

Which, following the ideas of UCD, means that every species is just "subsets of the original species".

Heh, I thought somebody might say that. But with what I would consider an unbiased way of thinking, humans are not just a subset of T-Rex. Humans are something new and different. The speculation is about the wholesale addition of information to the ecosystem, not finding a way to justify using the word 'species'


No actual 'origin of species' has even been observed in the wild or synthesized in the lab.

So you want a wholly new lifeform to develop out of the blue based on nothing? That's both absurd, and not predicted by evolution.


No, nice try - Just a species originating by any means.

So while it's obvious that nature loves 'variation on a theme' it remains pure speculation that new species can emerge on their own.

"On their own", so not based on a change from another species? It may be pure speculation, but it's not the speculation by people who understand science, that's for sure.

You can stick your pinky in your ear and say it backwards, it doesn't change the fact that the spontaneous appearance of new species has not been observed nor synthesized. You need to find some way to deal with this simple fact.

Isn't having a scientific mindset all about trying to set aside your emotions and deal with facts? You can't ever get your ducks in a row if you refuse to work with ducks.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2013 12:55:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/6/2013 12:27:09 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/6/2013 11:49:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/1/2013 10:47:09 PM, question4u wrote:
Are there anyone that believe in devolution? Can you explain to me your theory and how did you come to this point...Just curious about everything.

Well, the observable evidence is of species going extinct and genetic defects accumulating in extant genomes. There is no observable evolution, Darwinism is based solely on circumstantial evidence.

And of course, that's what we'd call a "lie", in that it's an untrue statement that the speaker knows, or should know, to be untrue. Thanks for playing, and here's your home copy of "The Lenski affair".

First, I note that you ignore my first two ducks, the fact that we DO observe species going extinct, lots of them, and do observe the accumulation of genetic flaws in the genome, most notably the human one.

Second, what does Lenski have to do with anything I said? I'm curious if you actually have a thought in mind, or just threw that up as a generic smoke screen.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2013 1:02:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/6/2013 12:55:31 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/6/2013 12:27:09 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/6/2013 11:49:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/1/2013 10:47:09 PM, question4u wrote:
Are there anyone that believe in devolution? Can you explain to me your theory and how did you come to this point...Just curious about everything.

Well, the observable evidence is of species going extinct and genetic defects accumulating in extant genomes. There is no observable evolution, Darwinism is based solely on circumstantial evidence.

And of course, that's what we'd call a "lie", in that it's an untrue statement that the speaker knows, or should know, to be untrue. Thanks for playing, and here's your home copy of "The Lenski affair".

First, I note that you ignore my first two ducks, the fact that we DO observe species going extinct, lots of them, and do observe the accumulation of genetic flaws in the genome, most notably the human one.

Second, what does Lenski have to do with anything I said? I'm curious if you actually have a thought in mind, or just threw that up as a generic smoke screen.

Ah, never mind, I'm sure I know the answer to my question. You are responding to "no observable evolution". So yeah, the problem always is that evolutionists have multiple definitions of the word "evolution" and regularly change definitions without warning. I thought it would be clear from context that I was talking about the "origin of species" word, not the fact that reproduction is observed to show inheritable modifications.
This space for rent.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2013 1:12:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/6/2013 1:02:14 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/6/2013 12:55:31 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/6/2013 12:27:09 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/6/2013 11:49:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/1/2013 10:47:09 PM, question4u wrote:
Are there anyone that believe in devolution? Can you explain to me your theory and how did you come to this point...Just curious about everything.

Well, the observable evidence is of species going extinct and genetic defects accumulating in extant genomes. There is no observable evolution, Darwinism is based solely on circumstantial evidence.

And of course, that's what we'd call a "lie", in that it's an untrue statement that the speaker knows, or should know, to be untrue. Thanks for playing, and here's your home copy of "The Lenski affair".

First, I note that you ignore my first two ducks, the fact that we DO observe species going extinct, lots of them, and do observe the accumulation of genetic flaws in the genome, most notably the human one.

Second, what does Lenski have to do with anything I said? I'm curious if you actually have a thought in mind, or just threw that up as a generic smoke screen.

Ah, never mind, I'm sure I know the answer to my question. You are responding to "no observable evolution". So yeah, the problem always is that evolutionists have multiple definitions of the word "evolution" and regularly change definitions without warning. I thought it would be clear from context that I was talking about the "origin of species" word, not the fact that reproduction is observed to show inheritable modifications.

You are correct. I called you a liar because you said there was no observable evolution, when in point of fact there is.

It's not that "evolutionists" have multiple definitions of the word evolution, it's that evolution deniers want to pick and choose the parts that haven't been directly observed, even though they're direct extensions of the theory coming from what we have observed. They do that based on nothing, claiming that the theory only showing what it predicts to show is a problem of the theory.

It's like they're arguing that gravity doesn't work outside 11,000 kM, but instead there's an "orbit force". You point to the orbits, and even though gravity accounts for those orbits, you say "Well, we haven't seen things get attracted to each other from more than 11,000 km out. Therefore, it can't possibly happen." But what about what we see through our telescope? "You can't prove telescopes can look that far. Some telescopes are faulty, and some people have looked through them backwards, so therefore they're completely untrustworthy".

I mean, do you deny erosion as strongly as you deny evolution?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2013 1:16:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let's get a little feel for the numbers, speaking of Lenski. He observed some 20,000 generations, and most notably observed e coli surviving on citrate instead of oxygen. If we take the human reproduction cycle to be just 10 years, 20,000 generations of humans would be 200,000 years, longer than our alleged evolution from whatever, and we had to do a whole lot more than change foods.

There's just a need for some honesty, I think. Sure, Lenski is interesting and valuable, but the real lesson, which we already knew, is that a species stays the same species even after 20,000 generations. No 'origin of species' in that time. It doesn't happen. Darwin had a clever idea, but it doesn't happen, not in the real world. If you don't want to believe in God, then don't, but evolution cannot be the story of how we got here.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2013 1:28:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/6/2013 1:12:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
...

It's like they're arguing that gravity doesn't work outside 11,000 kM, but instead there's an "orbit force". You point to the orbits, and even though gravity accounts for those orbits, you say "Well, we haven't seen things get attracted to each other from more than 11,000 km out. Therefore, it can't possibly happen."

Well, close, not a bad analogy. But to make the analogy fit, we would have a situation where orbit was never observed. It would be more like we observed people lying on the ground and deduced gravity, though we had never seen anything fall.


I mean, do you deny erosion as strongly as you deny evolution?

Erosion is observable. Any kid with a water bucket can run his own erosion experiments. You really don't see that difference, that 'origin of species' is proposing something that has never actually been observed?

The idea that small changes can accumulate ad infinitum is just not true. On what other system can you inject random changes forever and not have the system fail? There's a mysticism to evolution, an unrecognized premise that life is somehow supposed to exist, rather than really thinking about the purely natural process that it is alleged to be. I'm reminded of Clarke's maxim: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." But life is, after all technology, and not magic. It's pretty close to a perpetual motion machine, but it's not - it's a machine, and it is slowly running down, not magically expanding.
This space for rent.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2013 6:44:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
V3nsel, please define 'species'. I love to watch non-biologists try, they always think it's so easy.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2013 7:24:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/6/2013 1:16:21 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Let's get a little feel for the numbers, speaking of Lenski. He observed some 20,000 generations, and most notably observed e coli surviving on citrate instead of oxygen. If we take the human reproduction cycle to be just 10 years, 20,000 generations of humans would be 200,000 years, longer than our alleged evolution from whatever, and we had to do a whole lot more than change foods.

There's just a need for some honesty, I think. Sure, Lenski is interesting and valuable, but the real lesson, which we already knew, is that a species stays the same species even after 20,000 generations. No 'origin of species' in that time. It doesn't happen. Darwin had a clever idea, but it doesn't happen, not in the real world. If you don't want to believe in God, then don't, but evolution cannot be the story of how we got here.

Lenski's experiment ignored a large portion of evolution by natural selection- the environment. Species often evolve due to a change in the environment, which exerts selective pressure on the population- not necessarily due to random mutations, which are harmful most of the time.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 5:43:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If evolution is genetic and physical change based on natural condition, then even if the species had lost of its trait through this process, it still fit in under scope of this definition, thus not devolution.

In fact, weaken itself can be hard to interpret, a blinded lizard live in place void of all light don't need an eyes, rather their sharpen ears make them more suitable to live in such condition. So i would argue that so long as the process is control by natural condition, it doesn't make one species weaker but rather more suitable in certain living condition than the other.

If I am to define devolution as an exact opposite to evolution I will think of its as a change process where species's change in genetic and physical trait is reverse in to its previous form through natural process. Should fit in the definition better.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 7:30:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/6/2013 6:44:09 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
V3nsel, please define 'species'. I love to watch non-biologists try, they always think it's so easy.

I dunno, was Darwin a 'non-biologist'? I'm using his definition, which was non-specific. He simply meant the 'origin of all the different sorts of animals'.

And you can't get around the fact that they could not have emerged spontaneously with semantics. (And please don't waste our time trying to argue against 'spontaneous'! Look the word up, people) Eh, I'll go ahead and paste the definition here, since I know exactly how the script goes in these discussions:

Spontaneous: Performed or occurring without premeditation or external stimulus
This space for rent.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 5:10:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is not just circumstantial evidence of evolution. Evolution at the macroscopic scale has been verified in labs, not just within the species either; brand new species who were unable to mate with their previous counterpart with a different number of chromosomes have been verified. Evolution cannot be denied rationally, there is simple way too much evidence.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 7:52:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2013 7:30:47 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/6/2013 6:44:09 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
V3nsel, please define 'species'. I love to watch non-biologists try, they always think it's so easy.

I dunno, was Darwin a 'non-biologist'? I'm using his definition, which was non-specific. He simply meant the 'origin of all the different sorts of animals'.

Darwin is outdated, and so is his definition.

And you can't get around the fact that they could not have emerged spontaneously with semantics. (And please don't waste our time trying to argue against 'spontaneous'! Look the word up, people) Eh, I'll go ahead and paste the definition here, since I know exactly how the script goes in these discussions:

They couldn't have emerged spontaneously because they never emerged at all. Species, as a distinct biological entity, do not exist. The idea of a 'species', as well as that of an order, division, class, family, subfamily, tribe, subtribe, or genus, is an imperfect idea invented by humans to help us understand a system which is obscenely complex, varied, and transigent. It is in light of this fact that serious biologists find the frantic creationist quibbling of whether 'macroevolution' could have occurred to be pitifully irrelevant and ill-informed. It reveals a complete and utter lack of understanding regarding how the natural world operates, and this lack of understanding is all too often the result of a complete inability to even grasp the concepts involved. Bladerunner's gravity example was perfect; it illustrates the absolute futility of engaging people who are clinging to mythology and attempting to justify an indefensible worldview by any means necessary.

Spontaneous: Performed or occurring without premeditation or external stimulus.

If this is your definition, then your argument is a straw man on top of everything else. No one is claiming that evolution occurs without 'external stimulus'.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 6:27:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/6/2013 11:55:29 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/1/2013 10:54:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
Well, I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to.

There is "de-evolution" in the sense of negative selection pressures from biological tradeoffs.

For instance, species of lizards were discovered who migrated deep in caves and whose offspring never were in a place to experience sunlight. They lacked skin pigmentation and although they had "eyes" these appendages were useless when it came to any kind of sight. The lizards evolved to local conditions (wasting metabolic resources on sight where you can't see does nothing but waste energy that could be contributed towards other senses), but compared to the outside world, their sight had "de-evolved."

And what has been observed that is labelled 'speciation' is really another example like this. Isolated populations lose the ability to interbreed. You can call that speciation, but of course no new species has been introduced, just two subsets of an original species. No actual 'origin of species' has even been observed in the wild or synthesized in the lab. So while it's obvious that nature loves 'variation on a theme' it remains pure speculation that new species can emerge on their own.

Exactly! I mean, when a species gains a specialised beak, they're obviously losing not-having-a-worse-off beak! Devolution!
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 5:14:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 10:47:09 PM, question4u wrote:
Are there anyone that believe in devolution? Can you explain to me your theory and how did you come to this point...Just curious about everything.

I don't know what you mean by devolution, evolution is change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, Over time it has lead from simpler to more complex organisms but the direction isn't always the same, and the evolutionary changes aren't always judged as necessarily better, worse, or even more adaptive, there have been a lot of evolutionary dead ends. Evolution is about change and diversity, how does one determine that a particular change or pattern of change is devolution?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater