5 ms·

I like "descent with modification" when explaining what evolution is to layman. What, then, would devolution be?

• deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
• kaens 18y ago
  Devolution is a nonsense concept.
  • gravitycop 18y ago
    So, then, are higher mammals and higher animals misnamed? http://www.google.com/search?q=%22higher+mammals%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22higher+mammals%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22higher+animals%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22higher+animals%22 The Encyclopedia Britannica mentions plants that are more highly evolved than others: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22highly+evolved+plants%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22highly+evolved+plants%22 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/463192/plant http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/463192/plant for example, the most highly evolved plants reproduce by means of seeds, and, in the most advanced of all plants (angiosperms), a reproductive organ called a flower is formed.
    • kaens 18y ago
      I'm confused as to what you think the term higher mammals or higher animals has to do with the term devolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biological_fallacy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biological_fallacy)
      • gravitycop 18y ago
        The existence of higher mammals and higher animals implies the existence of lower mammals and lower animals, and therefore possible devolutionary directions.
        • kaens 18y ago
          I suggest you read the wikipedia link? The terms higher and lower are, as far as I understand, mostly just there for classifying the amount of complexity present in an organism - there's not some "these organisms are better than these other ones" thing going on. Unless you mean something entirely different than what most people mean when they say "devolution", what you are referring to is just evolution. The same way that "reverse racism" is just racism.
          • gravitycop 18y ago
            >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biological_fallacy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biological_fallacy) I suggest you read the wikipedia link I read it before you gave the link. The discussion page conflicts with the current state of the main page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Devolution_(biological_fallacy)#Supposed_non-existence_of_de-evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Devolution_(biological_fal... evolution can be both 'progressive' and 'regressive'. [...] if a population deteriorates genetically it certainly is something like 'devolution', and this article completely ignores this issue. [...] deterioration, misconceptions aside, is a real thing, and we need to stop giving people the impression that it is only a 'fallacy'.
            • kaens 18y ago
              Alright. I said "Devolution is a nonsense concept" because, as I stated before, what is referred to by "devolution" is just evolution. The term, as used commonly, implies some sort of objective heirarchy to evolution, and although organisms may get labeled with terms describing their complexity, that does not mean that one has somehow "devolved" if it evolves into an organism with less complexity. It has just evolved. Edit: There's not much disagreeance on the page. There are people talking about using the term to describe something that actually happens, but they aren't talking about what most people mean when they say "devolution".
              • gravitycop 18y ago
                what is referred to by "devolution" is just evolution. Dictionaries do not define devolution as just evolution. They define it as retrogade evolution. http://www.google.com/search?q=devolution+%22retrograde+evolution%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=devolution+%22retrograde+evol...