Evolution Versus Devolution

[Wiccan_Child]

The definition of "Devolution" is "Backwards Evolution."

"Devolution presumes that there is a preferred hierarchy of structure and function, and that evolution must mean "progress" to "more advanced" organisms. This may include the idea that some modern species that have lost functions or complexity accordingly must be degenerate forms of their ancestors. It should be noted though, that according to the definition of evolution, what is described as devolution is itself evolution."

Devolution is one type of evolution.

 

[Tiberius]

The definition of "Devolution" is "Backwards Evolution."

Animals developing traits that are harmful to them? Traits that cause a disadvantage being selected for while individuals with beneficial traits have fewer children?

Backwards evolution makes no sense.

 

[AECellini]

if what op means by devolution is humans reverting into an ancestral species of homo, that will never happen.

 

[JoeyArnold]

evolution must mean "progress" to "more advanced" organisms.

Evolution means progress to more advance organisms?

 

[Tomk80]

Evolution means progress to more advance organisms?

No. Because, as Wiccan Child posted in the part of his post you dishonestly did not quote:

"Devolution presumes that there is a preferred hierarchy of structure and function, and that evolution must mean "progress" to "more advanced" organisms. This may include the idea that some modern species that have lost functions or complexity accordingly must be degenerate forms of their ancestors. It should be noted though, that according to the definition of evolution, what is described as devolution is itself evolution."

Devolution is one type of evolution.

(Bolding mine)

Next time, read the whole response.

 

[Tiberius]

Evolution means progress to more advance organisms?

Evolution means that organisms will change to become better suited to the environment in which they live.

If they are very well adapted to their environment and that environment does not change, then we will see very little change in the organisms over many many generations. This is why sharks and crocodiles have remained very similar for a long time.

But if the environment is constantly changing, then the population will evolve more noticeable differences over relatively few generations.

Likewise, if a population is one that has come from some other environment and is making a living in a new way, then we are also more likely to see the evolution of more noticeable differences over relatively few generations.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Inbreeding + unchanging environment = what?

 

[Tiberius]

Inbreeding within a small population will lead to accumulated genetic defects. Eventually the animals will no longer be able to survive.

However, it needs to be a fairly small population for this to happen. Some of the world's most endangered species are at risk of this in captive breeding programs, which is why people struggle to save these species.

However, in a population where there are several thousand individuals, inbreeding generally isn't a problem.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Inbreeding exposes something that is already there.

 

[Tiberius]

No it doesn't.

As animals produce offspring, their genomes are mixed together. As the DNA is copied, small errors build up. If this animal has offspring, then this error may be passed to any offspring that it has.

In a small population you can get an animal breeding with its sibling. Since both of these animals can have the same genetic error that was passed on from the parent, then it is more likely that any future animals produced from the two siblings will have that same error.

Given that this is likely to happen for all individuals within the group, these small errors will accumulate.

However, in a large population, it is much more likely that any particular individual will mate with an animal that is not closely related, and thus not share this error. Since the error only has a fifty percent chance of being passed to the offspring (and a 25% chance of being passed to a grandchild, a 12.5% chance of being passed to a great grandchild, etc), the probability of the error being passed on very far rapidly diminishes.

The reason that this doesn't happen with small populations is that since the animals are much more closely related, the error will be re-introduced many times.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please don't learn about evolution from AV. He is woefully ignorant about it.

... Flattery will get you nowhere.

 

[AV1611VET]

Woefully or Willingly ?

Both ... in my opinion.

 

[mzungu]

Or when Green is square.

You can circle the square but you cannot square the circle!

 

[mzungu]

Inbreeding + unchanging environment = what?

Regarding inbreeding you should refer to the Bible; there are many references on incest!

 

[JoeyArnold]

Inbreeding exposes a problem with evolution.

 

[selfinflikted]

Inbreeding exposes a problem with evolution.

I just know I'm going to kick myself later for this, but... Please, tell us.

 

[JoeyArnold]

I just know I'm going to kick myself later for this, but... Please, tell us.

Inbreeding to evolution is like pulp to juice.

 

[HitchSlap]

Inbreeding to evolution is like pulp to juice.

Much like science is to cdesign proponentsists as bicycles are to fish.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Much like science is to cdesign proponentsists as bicycles are to fish.

Inbreeding to evolution is kind of like microscope is to telescope.

 

[HitchSlap]

Inbreeding to evolution is kind of like microscope is to telescope.

Religion to reality is kind of like an eggbeater to an ocean.