Talk:Devolution (biology)

Progress in evolution

This article in its current state seems to fail to grasp one of the main propositions of evolution. That is that there is no such thing as progress in evolution. Organisms adapt via natural selection to suit their environment. This is not progression but adaption. Therefore to argue that regression is a contrary view is nonsensical. Majts 04:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I have completed some edits to correct the articles inaccuracies. However now it really looks ridiculous as it now consists of tenuous arguments followed by rebuttals. I can't see how this article can survive but would be prepared to work with any suggestions Majts 04:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I reverted your edits for being redundant and at times erroneous (man is not an ape), but I reinserted part of your opening paragraph back in, as it was somewhat useful. The first thing the article said was that there is no such thing as "progress", so I don't see how the article failed to grasp that. I'm still looking for a better title by the way (the "(biology)" really should go) but I haven't thought of a good one yet. Any suggestions? -R. fiend 11:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest "Devolution (fallacy)" If it is agreed that progress and regression are nothing to do with evolution then how exactly does "devolution" differ from evolution. Surely that means devolution=evolution and there is nothing more to say. I suggest that you also have a look at the article ape as it will give you some more info on the fact that man is in fact by definition a member of its great family. Arguing against this is like contending that we are also not mammals Majts 14:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I like your suggestion and have moved the article. As for the human/ape question, I have to look into it a bit more. This seems to be a newer classification. Though scientifically humans should be classified as apes, I don't think it means that they are universally accepted to be so. Since "ape" is not a scientific term as Hominoidea is, it is defined by laymen as much as by scientists. If people have used the word "ape" for hundreds of years to mean tailless simians excluding humans, scientific taxonomy cannot change that overnight and have it universally accepted. The OED (1991), for instance, defines ape as "A member of the Simiadae, having no tail or cheek pouches; including the gorilla, chimpanzee, orang-utan, and gibbons." No mention of humans. Certainly when most people talk about apes, they do not mean to include humans. It is a question of language as much of as science, as far as I can tell (and I think the ape article should address that better). As such I think that debate should be kept out of this article, though a slight rephrasing of the paragraph in question might be in order, as it contradicts the statement that humans are apes. I'll look into it a bit more. -R. fiend 20:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow - I never realised it was a point of contention nowadays that mankind is a member of the ape family. Oh well maybe it will take a few more years for the language to catch up with the science ;) Your move prompted me to be bold and rewrite the article. I have also removed the Vonnegut reference because I couldn't see the relevance as Vonnegut didn't even use the term. Majts 21:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem regarding humans to be great apes, apes, primates, mammals, tetrapods, animals, organic life forms, &c.  allixpeeke (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

effects of persecution

The effects of systematic and methodological persecution are factors which might cause devolution in any organism; that is why "Methodological operations (m. o.)" are considered to be criminological study material with regard to human beings.

Persecution causes mental retardation, mental illness, and atrophy of muscles and bones even when diet is optimum. Beadtot 10/19/2005 00:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure the effects of persecution do cause physical and mental effects, but that would not qualify as "devolution", however it maybe defined, as it has no bearing on biological inheritance --Majts 01:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the "royal birthmark" examples show devolution of skin replication among specific families. The strawberry-like birthmarks are found on the necks of those families' members, as if a disabling grip might become necessary. Beadtot 10:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC) 10/22/2005 10:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing the article and not for original research. If you can cite sources that birthmarks are somehow related to misconceptions of evolutionary theory, then please add to the article. --Majts 11:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Really, I'm not talking about "misconceptions of evolutionary theory". I'm talking about structural degeneration of the human organism. Just because some appendices are surgically removed, and many books claim that the definition of 'vestigial' means 'lacking any function', do women quit forming them when they conceive children? Certainly not, and foreskins continue to protect penises. But most people see no reason to perpetuate strawberry-shaped "royal birthmarks". Beadtot 03:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC) 10/22/2005 03:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

As the article is solely about "misconceptions of evolutionary theory", which you are seemingly not referring to, then you are surely on the wrong talk page. If you have evidence that birthmarks pose some difficulty to evolutionary theory, then maybe you should address these concerns within the evolution article. Incidently vestigal organs are also mentioned in that article. Majts 06:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Central organizing principle

This section of the article is fascinating:

As with other modern sciences, biology is based on a methodological assumption of philosophical naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. In contrast, Creationism and Intelligent design are based on Teleology in seeking to prove the existence of an organizing principle behind natural laws and phenomena. Proponents use the Teleological argument for the existence of God, and seek to displace evolution as the central organizing concept in biology.

I think the text quoted above should be given a more prominent position at Wikipedia, perhaps in the creation-evolution controversy article. Uncle Ed 17:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Go for it: should be "Some proponents" to allow for the evolutionary creationists....dave souza 19:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with User:Apostrophe--Devolution (fallacy) doesn't need disamb hdr to Devolution

Un-disambiguated titles need a disamb hdr; EG United States. Disambiguated titled DO NOT need a disamb hdr; EG note that all articles (at least that I checked) at United States (disambiguation) DO NOT have disamb hdrs, because they are hard to reach if you are looking for the content at the un-disambiguated title (I don't see any reason for The United States of America (band) to have a disamb hdr to The Presidents of the United States of America--people ending up at the former are highly unlikely to be looking for the latter)(I believe a review of the links at Sarah (disambiguation) will show the same results). 24.17.48.241 08:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. My feeling was that some people would come to this and wonder what the correct meaning is, which is better dealt with by a link in the text. ....dave souza: talk 11:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed from article: Entartung

I removed this newly added section from the article, as it doesn't deal with the devolution fallacy.

In 1892, the Austrian Jew and zionist Max Nordau published his book Entartung, or Degeneration, which became an instant hit in the western world. Nordau describes the human body and civilization as very fulnerable, always threatened by decay. According to him, society is constantly atacked by decadents, who try destroy the complicated whole by claiming independence. This independence is used to quell (self)discipline, organization and responsibility. He compares the decadence of experimental artists, hedonists and others with viruses and disfunction in the human body and the decay of the human body after death, being eaten by small insects. This book influenced notorious lawsuits against Oscar Wilde and Alfred Dreyfus and the Nazi policy of outlawing Entartete Kunst (Degenerated art).

-- Ec5618 13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

'The term "devolution", which normally means a delegation of powers, is sometimes erroneously used to refer to the evolution of a species into more "primitive" forms.' This is the introduction of this article. The idea of the evolution of a species into more primitive forms was the main theme of the book of Max Nordau. Perhaps, i haven't used the right quotes from his book.--Daanschr 13:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Allthough i am a socialist, i am an advocate of the liberal ideal of freedom of speech. I have the impression that an attempt of censoreship is being performed here. Wikipedia is not about deleting undesirable information, but about presenting all information to all the people in the world. I want to note the peculiarity of the nazis taking over a term Entartung introduced by one of the founders of zionism. Not being able to represent this knowledge will mean that only nazis and their allies will discuss and present information dealing on degeneration. I protest against the word 'erroneously'. My experience tells me that enemies of a certain expression can become one of the defenders. It is better to keep a neutral point of view.--Daanschr 13:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Copied from the talk page of User:Ec5618: 'I want to make you acquainted with the WP:NPOV policy. Sentence one of this policy states: 'The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted.' I have the impression that we are dealing with conflicting views at the moment. The article Devolution (fallacy) is dealing with the theme started by Max Nordau. I am a socialist and don't agree with the devolution theory, still i think that the history of the thought on devolution should be included into this article.--Daanschr 13:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Devolution refers to a fallacy, in which biological evolution is seen as progresssion to an ultimately superior form. Degeneration, as used by Max Nordau, refers to decaying moral standards and decadence. This is not an issue of neutral poin of view, this is an issue of irrelevance. Max Nordau's views on civilisation are irrelevant when discussing biological evolution. -- Ec5618 13:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)'

Nordau refers to the decadent forces as primitive. He is an advocate of higher forms of life (humans) and civilization (western civilization). So the book of Nordau belongs to the heart of the issue described in this article.--Daanschr 14:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be wildly jumping to conclusions here. There is no censorship. Max Nordau's views deal with society, not biology, and as such, they are irrelevant. Freedom of speech is not the issue. And biologically speaking, there is no such thing was a higher form of life.

For your information, the term Entartung was not introduced by Nordau himself. Nordau objected to what he felt was the degeneration of society. He felt that society should fiercly defend against immorality, to ward off the societal degeration of which he speaks. He knew nothing of biology. And if you'll look at the article again, you'll find it deals with a fallacy concerning biology. -- Ec5618 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

'The term Entartung was not introduced by Nordau himself'. I am not an expert on this subject. Perhaps you want to contribute on the history of the use of the term 'degeneration'.

Nordau uses the terms evolution and devolution. He may not be a biologist, but he uses knowledge attained from biology. I agree that there are no higher forms in life, but lifeforms can't be made equal as well. It is an ethical issue, a matter of opinion. Dealing with the questions 'what to do' or 'what is right' instead of the question 'how does it work'. The term 'erroniously' is not neutral and not scientifical. It has nothing to do with biology either.--Daanschr 14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Many people use the terms evolution, and even devolution. This article seeks to point out that biologically there is no such thing as devolution. Hence, 'Devolution (fallacy). That is the only point of this article. Biologically there is no such thing as devolution. Any other points should be made in pther articles, if at all.

Perhaps you should take this up at the article on Max Nordau himself. -- Ec5618 14:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If a term exists, then it exists. If people use this term, then it probably has a certain meaning. Why can't the history of the meaning of this term not be included in this article? I still think it is a breach of the WP:NPOV policy. It is not the meaning of Wikipedia to let article have such a narrow vision as you try to give to it. Wikipedia is not about teaching people right and wrong, but about given all the information there is according to the methodology of the encyclopedias in bookform.--Daanschr 17:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would ask that you reread the section you added to this article. It doesn't mention the word devolution, and doesn't deal with the issues in this article. This section does not belong in the article. -- Ec5618 18:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You got a point there. I will rewrite the segment and publish it here on the talk page.--Daanschr 19:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What about: The idea of devolution started in the 19th century. Max Nordau's book Entartung (1892, english: Degeneration) was influential in the western world as an advocator of this idea. Nordau was afraid that complex organisms, like a human or a civilization came into existence out of pure chance and could fall apart. The falling apart of civilizations could be prevented by trying to stop 'decadence' and 'anarchy'. He wanted society to stop devolving by punishing people who claim independence, lose (self)discipline or try to become primitive.--Daanschr 21:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't see how this content would fit into this article. This article is about the fallacy of devolution, as a biological concept. It is about the biological fact that evolution is not a process that can be reversed.

Your paragraph is about the term 'devolution' as it was used in a wholly different context. Perhaps you should bring this up at devolution, the article on hierarchy of power. I'm honestly not sure what to advise you, but this content does not belong in this article. Perhaps a disambiguation link to Max Nordau would suffice. -- Ec5618 21:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what 'devolution in science fiction' and 'devolution as a metaphor' are doing in this article. It has nothing to do with the fallacy of devolution, as a biological concept as well. The WP:NPOV says about point of views: 'As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.' You are kidnapping this article at the moment.--Daanschr 07:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course. However, we are not dealing with a divergent viewpoint here. We are dealing with a completely different definition of the word devolution. Again, this article has a rather limited scope, as it deals with a fallacy. (Hence the title.) I sympathise, but please understand this. In cases like this, we tend to include Wikipedia:Disambiguation links. The best we can do is refer readers to the article of Max Nordau, with text along the lines of:

This article deals with a misunderstanding about evolution. For Max Nordau's views on societal degeneration, please see Max Nordau. -- Ec5618 09:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposition for a split of this article

I think that the deleted parts of this article could become part of a new article, which could be called 'Devolution (pseudoscience)'. I will inform the editors of whom information has been deleted in the last edit by User:Ec5618.--Daanschr 13:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a disambiguation link to the band Devo. Interested readers may go there to find the content removed here. All that was really removed was the following block of text, none of which I was able to decode. This is supposedly about the devolution fallacy, yet it makes no mention of the word devolution, nor does it expound on a fallacy.

One type of the literary genre of science fiction (and some subsequent forms of humor) neither purports to predict the future whatsoever nor serves as a springboard for an adventure story, but provides affronts to the intelligence of the reader as a form of entertainment (e.g., Firesign Theatre's comedy album "Everything you know is wrong!" and Slack). The classic examples of this are the stories first by Philip José Farmer but more better known by Terry Pratchett in which the world is described as flat. Similarly there have been stories which tickle the concept of progress by inverting it. One short story describes protoplasm as the ideal form of life and that everything subsequent was a disaster brought about by an error of judgement. Such notions are not meant to be taken seriously after one has read them, but while one is reading them one is supposed to be captivated by the notion.

-- Ec5618 13:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't mention the word devolution, but it could be rewritten. I think that the sense of humour of postmodernists and science-fiction writers has made the idea of devolution ridiculous. It could become a nice article: first a serious history reporting about the meaning and the use of the term devolution throughout history and then Terry Pratchett, who makes lots of fun about it. Perhaps Monty Python could be mentioned as well. Or what about the remark of Bertrand Russel, saying that humans are one among the apes.--Daanschr 14:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure on what the section is trying to convey. You seem to get it. Could you briefly explain please? -- Ec5618 14:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What the section conveys at present is a lack of understanding of SF or of the author's sense of humour, It may be turtles all the way down, but unless it specifically uses the word "devolution" it's off topic for any article with that in the title. ...dave souza, talk 14:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

My edit of 14:09, 18 August 2006 was too unclear i see. I meant that a possible article 'Devolution (pseudoscience)' could become: first a serious history reporting about the meaning and the use of the term devolution throughout history and then postmodernists like Terry Pratchett or Monty Python who make lots of fun about modernist concepts. Or what about the remark of Bertrand Russel, saying that humans are one among the animals.--Daanschr 16:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide citations from a reliable source of Terry Pratchett or Monty Python or Bertrand Russell using the term devolution, or of a notable reviewer using the term devolution about their work. If it's your own opinion, that's original research and hence unsuitable for Wikipedia. ...dave souza, talk 17:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not planning to write the entire article. I just want to give it a start with the ideas of Max Nordau.--Daanschr 11:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

By a strange coincidence, the ideas of Max Nordau are covered in his biography, in Degenerate art and in Degeneration. Why are you so desperate to shoehorn these ideas into an article with a title which Nordau doesn't use? Have you a reliable source for this term being used of his ideas? ..dave souza, talk 18:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It will be a start for a much broader article dealing with the history of the use of the term devolution. Nordau is only a part of it. Also it is a defense of the freedom of speech.--Daanschr 14:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Name change

I suggest the name be changed. Other older theories that are not supported anymore aren't labeled fallacy, such as Geocentric model. I suggest Devolution (genetics) or Backward evolution, the term used by Uner Tan. While heliocentrism isn't argued for anymore Backward evolution is, whether they are right or wrong, its POV to label it a fallacy. It would be like labeling religions as fallacies. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

support (genetics) is more descriptive of what is meant with the term. The fallacy is but a minor technicality that is currently over emphasized. --Zero g 17:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Support—I would prefer devolution (biology) over devolution (fallacy) for the reasons described by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) on 29 November.  allixpeeke (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Devolution?

Funny, I always heard the term "involution" for this kind of concept... when something (mostly a situation) goes back to a previous state which had already been passed and is generally thought to be unwanted. "Going back to square one", as it were.

Is that the same as Involution (philosophy)?

AHEM?

" Opponents of evolution use the teleological argument for the existence of God, and seek to displace evolution as the central organizing concept in biology. " -- Ok... where in all that is reasonable and historically accurate is someone getting this? Creation has been believed for 6,000 years. The concept of Evolution isn't even a century old yet. Evolution is trying to diprove Creation, not the other way around. In fact, even after Evolution was established, Creation was still taught in the public schools as fact until the 1960's. Geez, Mankind IS devolving. Colonel Marksman 04:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do spontaneous generation and geocentricity ring a bell? Both of those were beleived for a long time, yet next to nobody beleives them now. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING HAS BEEN BELEIVED FOR A LONG TIME DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE, PLEASE CHECK YOUR LOGIC COLONEL!!!!!! And besides, Creationism is trying to disprove evolution!!!!!!!!!!

I do not know who wrote the above comment, but I wish to point out to her or him that Colonel Marksman isn’t saying that creationism is real.  Whether Colonel Marksman believes in creationism cannot be ascertained from the above comments.  Rather, it would appear that Colonel Marksman is simply making the point that, since evolutionary theory came after the conjecture of theological creationism, it might be more appropriate to say that the theory of evolution aims to dismantle faith in creationism, as opposed to the other way around.  I am not saying I agree with Colonel Marksman’s point, only that this is what Colonel Marksman’s position seems to be.  In contrast to Colonel Marksman, I’d say that both evolutionary theory and the conjecture of creationism jostle to position themselves as the standard understanding of how complex creatures came to be, and my subjective POV is that evolutionary theory is correct.  In any event, it can be objectively said that, regardless of whether it or correct or not, there is nothing scientific about theological creationism; as far as science goes, our only options are the theory of evolution (which is agnostic on matters of theology) and the hypothesis of intelligent design (which, unlike creationism, holds that evolution is real, but like theological creationism, asserts a positive theistic reality).  The unsigned commentator above asserts that creationism is trying to disprove evolution, and while I agree with her or him that creationism is, unlike intelligent design, in strict opposition to the theory of evolution, I believe she or he gives creationism too much credit when she or he writes “is trying to disprove.”  Creationism, unlike the theory of evolution and the hypothesis of intelligent design, is built entirely upon faith, upon fideism, and therefore has no capacity to even attempt to “prove” or “disprove” anything; all a creationist can do is assert her or his worldview and hope others will concur.  allixpeeke (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Pop culture references

I know the "science fiction" and "as a metaphor" sections were disputed as irrelevant, but is there anything wrong with having a section where examples are seen of "devolution" (as in, backwards evolution) being specifically referenced in pop culture?

I know of two already:

• The movie adaptation of Super Mario Bros., in which devolution is used as a means of punishment by King Koopa, turning the humanoid creatures of his world back into their primitive states (Goombas). In another part of the movie, he uses a "Devo gun" to turn a human into a monkey.

• The American band Devo, which is named after the concept of devolution.

There could be others, so why not make a general section for this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stapler 9 42 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

There's also the episode Genesis of Star Trek, in which devolution is caused by a virus. Mindmatrix 01:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above that a ==Devolution in popular culture== section would be appropriate.  allixpeeke (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The references above still weren't on the main page, though some less notable ones were, so I went ahead and copied them over more or less intact. I wouldn't be surprised if that section needs some pruning now though. Maybe there should be an entry for Idiocracy too, though I didn't add it yet. DKEdwards (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Regressive evolution

I assume we here are talking about regressive evolution, the reduction or total loss of a trait (a non-functional character), within a lineage over time? Or more than one trait for that matter. Like the eyes in cave species or the wings on the kiwi. Must not be confused with pedomorphosis, where traits from the embryonic or juvenile stage (who often but not always reflects an organism's evolutionary history) is kept in the mature individual as well, even if this phenomena can cause some characteristics to degenerate over time, which is what regressive evolution is really about. Personally, I think the article could be a little clearer. 193.217.195.160 12:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the Great_chain_of_being be added to the "See also" section, as this model of the universe underlies devolution (albeit via a misconception of TGCOB). I'd normally just add it myself, but as this article appears to be rather controversial, I'll leave it to the regulars. Asat 02:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Chain

I suggest that the Great_chain_of_being be added to the "See also" section, as this model of the universe underlies devolution (albeit via a misconception of TGCOB). I'd normally just add it myself, but as this article appears to be rather controversial, I'll leave it to the regulars. Asat 02:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I'm not a regular on this particular article, but I'll add it. Richard001 22:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Supposed non-existence of de-evolution

Cancer and gross birth defects combined with viable reproduction such as by exposure to high levels of radiation and environmental toxins seem to me prime examples of meaningful use of the term. Devolution can just mean degradation, or decrease in quality, not necessarily retrogade evolution which of course would be much less likely. Basically, anything that disrupts genetic code in a non-biological manner is an existent devolution. Any references on this topic would be appreciated. - Steve3849 ^talk 18:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a point that the article grossly glosses over. Biological devolution is not a fallacy and does exist. Let's clarify some points first though. "Devolution" is still evolution - evolution can be both 'progressive' and 'regressive'. For example if a species adapts to changes in its environment that would be good for its continued existence. We also need to be clear about what we mean here. An organism that loses properties that are no longer useful to it is not 'devolution' in this sense, in fact it is a 'progress', since they are a waste of energy. However, if a population deteriorates genetically it certainly is something like 'devolution', and this article completely ignores this issue.

Let's imagine I breed some Drosophila and select the weakest, least alert, malformed individuals there are. I pick the ones with legs for antennae, 'vestigial' wings, and so fourth. Now I can validly say that this is 'devolution' (albeit artificially induced), not simply because by my subjective value judgement they have 'deteriorated', but I can test this by releasing these sad mutants into a wild population and see how well they fare - which would presumably be very poorly. It need not be done artificially though. In a natural setting a few flies could chance across a huge source of food and have large numbers of offspring, then inbreed for many generations with very little selective pressure. There would be very little selection against mutants with properties that would make them inferior competitors, as there would be no shortage of food. Let's assume there were also no predators or similar selection pressures at work either. Now, let's sat these inbred mutants then have their food source washed away in a flood and all fly off to a nearby one, where they have to compete with other population. Here there are predators, disease, and great shortages of food. The fact is they simply wouldn't be up to scratch, having 'devolved' or deteriorated to the point that only a few would be able to survive in a tooth and claw situation.

To sum up, deterioration, misconceptions aside, is a real thing, and we need to stop giving people the impression that it is only a 'fallacy'. If we wish to keep the terms 'genetic deterioration' and 'devolution' separate, we should clearly state what each is, and lead the reader to a suitable page for the former term. By the way, I think the Scientific American article completely sidesteps the real question that was being asked. Richard001 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither of these situations describes an event of "regressive" evolution. By preventing the breeding of all flies except those with vestigial wings and leg-antennae, the population of flies is under selective pressure no different that the selection on the ancestors of modern giraffes for "freaky" long necks, or on the ancestors of modern whales for "grotesquely" huge bodies. Your deliberate selection of the "malformed" flies is not more "artificial" than the selection of "grotesque" whales by marine predators. The fact that your new breed of flies would have very poor fitness in another environment with different selective pressures is no more relevant than the fact that a modern large whale or long-necked giraffe would have very poor fitness in other environments with different selective pressures. The population of "freaky" flies has successfully adapted for survival under the selective pressures of your lab. They may not be aesthetically pleasing, but neither are nematodes.

As for the flies that come upon the inexhaustible food supply, I'll assume that this population is under the idealized condition of being under no selective pressure at all. Each individual has unlimited food and other survival necessities, faces no threat of predation or environmental hazard, and faces no discrimination for potential mates. However, even this population is under inescapable selection pressure. Genetic variations that cause an individual to be unable to grow, eat, or breed will always be selected against. With unlimited food, individuals who can consume the most the quickest may grow faster and be able to breed earlier, producing more and larger generations off offspring than others. Flies in this population that retain genes for devoting attention and energy for detecting potential predators will be selected against, as this is a waste of energy in the new environment, and flies with rapid and focused feeding and metabolism will be selected for. Yes, these flies will probably have poor fitness in other environments, but they are perfectly fit for THEIR environment. They have not "regressed." Vestigial-winged flies in your lab are not regressed because they have poor fitness for the garbage heap, giraffes are not regressed because they have poor fitness for scrub forest thickets, whales are not regressed because they have poor fitness for the Mississippi River, and humans are not regressed because they have poor fitness for the jungle canopy. --70.156.95.137 (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

regarding section: Use of the term by opponents of evolution AND propose popular section

Are Devo (the music group) really opponents of evolution theory? They certainly are pop-lyricists... and having seen their videos they also promote the idea that irresponsible handling of radioactive materials contributes to devolution (ie. pouring nuclear waste into water near a town and saluting a nuclear blast). They are evolutionists coming to pop-terms with some of the terrors of civilization.

I also suggest a pop section; Devo would be more appropriate there. This article uses the term as describing an absolute end, or direction and as if the term is specifically a battle term between Biologists and Creationists. However, the term can be used synonymously with degeneration, which is not so ludicrous. Not to be terribly redundant, but references from sources other than Creationists would be appreciated. Perhaps such references are difficult to come by because the term is most used by Creationists. My point is that Devo's popular use of the term is not relevant to the bulk of this article. Therefore it might be good to include such additional uses of the term. - Steve3849 ^talk 01:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is an egregious mendacity

It is neither a scientific term, nor should be masqueraded as such. the term you mean to serch for is dysgenics. devolution is a socio-political term for the regionalization and de-federalization of a government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.145.173 (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If you had bothered to actually read the article before vandalising it, you'd have seen this in the header:

"From a biological perspective, devolution does not exist."

Moreover, the article explicitly deals with the biological fallacies with which the term is often associated. There is no "masquerade" here. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 11:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

All caps is shouting, please don't do it, you'll get a better reaction, I promise. ornis (t) 11:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow I can't believe I'm responding to this 15 years later, but the original response to this contention is inadequate. Many, perhaps most, people searching for "devolution" may have no interest or even awareness in the creationist beliefs about the term, and may actually be interested in dysgenics, and simply don't know what the proper term for that is. Even the disclaimer that "from a biological perspective, devolution does not exist" doesn't address that problem, it doesn't help those people who are actually interested in researching dysgenics and found themselves on this page by accident. I'll thus be adding a reference to the wikipedia dysgenics entry. Davea0511 (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Time for a rewrite, revert & rename ?

First some history Here's the original before a vfd: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_devolution&oldid=25019380

Here's my re-write all of two years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_devolution&oldid=25226082

This article was imo rightly up for a vfd over two years ago. However I spent a small amount of time rewriting it, and with consensus renaming it. However two years later the article is renamed back to the original - this is why it got vfd'd in the first place. There is no such thing as "biological devolution". Wikipedia is currently calling it "biological" and then in the opening paragraph saying from a biological perspective - it doesn't exist! It would be like me creating an article called "Chemical Alchemy", i.e. turning stuff into gold (by the way it doesn't exist)

So therefore I suggest renaming the article back to "Devolution (fallacy)" (any better suggestions will be welcome) and because of this reverting back 2 years. So options are

1. rename or not rename?

2. revert article to 2yr old version?

3. Incorporate changes of the last 2 years with consensus & rename?

4. Leave it as it is? = option 5 (see below)

5. vfd

I would prefer option 1 & 3, but as this isn't a hot topic (hell, I haven't even been here for two years and I rewrote the bloody thing :-) I'll give it a month before making major changes. Any comments will be welcome before then. (Majts 21:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

A bit late getting back to you here, but I agree with moving it. I'm not sure if there was a discussion about moving it to this title, but I couldn't find one. Moving it back might be best. I'll have to look at content changes over the past few years to see if anything needs to be addressed, but the title seems to be the issue here, no? I'm open to better title suggestions as well, but "biological" was the initial problem and should be removed. -R. fiend (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and move it. -R. fiend (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Bio-Underclass

This term was originally coined by Douglas Besharove, of the American Enterprise Institute, to describe an effect of the crack baby epidemic. However, I think this term, although it is made-up and has virtually no scientific basis, describes a broader notion. This could encompass any number of phenomena, some of which really do exist. So I think it deserves to be mentioned, regardless of its actual truth value, and it seems to relate to this subject. I could be very wrong, but please give me your thoughts on this. Thomasiscool (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If I may correct...

It seems this entire article is written on the premise that devolution assumes evolution, in general, means progress. From all sources I've seen (and even in my own discussions) devolution is used more to describe the lack of (or opposite of) /positive/ adaptation. Devolution doesn't include the loss of wisdom teeth, for example, as that's a positive adaptation (we don't need wisdom teeth) with no harmful impact on the species.

The main thing devolution is used in argument for is our ever decreasing intelligence. Idiocracy and "Korn - Evolution" both cover this concept quite clearly. In this case, the loss of intelligence is harmful adaptation (hence devolution). Of course one can argue whether or not the loss of intelligence is harmful, but I'd like to know how it isn't.

I find this whole article insulting to the concept, and extremely biased. Comparing the devolution concept (which is improperly defined in this article) with Intelligent Design supporters seems to be more bashing of the concept than relevant. E.g. "This concept is so stupid even IDers believe in it". (71.215.218.220 (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the hand waving, do you have specific proposals for improvements, verifiable from reliable sources? .. dave souza, talk 22:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The current sources of this article do fit the wiki standards. However, my argument was that the current article works on an invalid definition of devolution (the same thing goes for source Num 1). I mentioned this in hopes other people would be made aware, and thus search for sources. I currently do not have the time or interest beyond informing you of the mistake made. You seem to insinuate that, because I'm not rewriting it myself, what I said was less valid. (71.215.218.220 (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

The "wisdom teeth" and "intelligence" examples do not demonstrate different types of events. A species' situation may cause the growth of wisdom teeth to be an unnecessary expenditure of resources, or the teeth may obstruct the chewing of a new type of food, and so the species may evolve to have smaller or no wisdom teeth. Likewise, a species' situation may cause the large metabolic, developmental, and nutritive costs of a certain type of intelligence to become an unnecessary expenditure of resources, or an environment's hazards may make the large amount of play/experimentation/mental occupation that is necessary to sustain an intelligent organism to be an unfavorable cost to pay for any benefits intelligence may bring, and so that species may evolve to have less intelligence. An individual organism may "like" its own wisdom teeth or the idea of wisdom teeth, but that doesn't mean that its species "devolves" by losing them. Likewise, an individual organism may "like" its own intelligence or the idea of an intelligent species, but that doesn't mean that its species "devolves" by losing intelligence. --Raphite1 (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A form of divergent evolution?

Hasn't anyone coined "devolution" in a more scientifically correct way as a form of 'successfully divergent evolution' i.e. a form of evolution divergent from success or overall well being of the said thing evolved, out of circumstance or outside influence to environment or such? 4.242.192.145 (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ludicrous?

Surely this is not the proper word to use in this instance: "To a biologist, describing the biological evolutionary process as goal-oriented would seem as ludicrous as a physicist claiming that the ultimate goal of gravity is to keep the Earth in its present orbit." "Unsubstantiated" is not the same thing as "ludicrous." Any biologist that believes the notion of evolution existing for some purpose is incongruous and/or ridiculous - or any physicist that believes that the notion of gravity existing to keep the Earth in orbit is incongruous and/or ridiculous - needs to consult a philosopher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.155.229 (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point, it's not sufficiently NPOV. I removed the sentence in question and cleaned up some of the other misconceptions. --Armchair info guy (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Title change

Two pages were changed: Devolution (biological fallacy) (1) and Biological devolution (2). Page (2) has been a redirect to the article at (1). 174.29.62.71 copy/pasted (1) into (2) and made (1) a redirect to (2). I have reverted that change because it contravenes WP:Copying within Wikipedia (which must be followed).

A discussion should occur before such a significant change. If consensus supports the change, (1) would have to be moved to (2) in order to comply with copyright requirements. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case, the page must be moved. How can this be done?

No one can disagree that calling a theory a "fallacy" in the TITLE is extreme and utterly complete bias. You can call a logical fallacy a "fallacy," because it applies. You cannot call a scientific theory a "fallacy" in the title. That is incredibly unprofessional, and goes against Wikipedia's guidelines. 174.29.62.71 (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved the page. There is no believable argument that the previous title did not violate Wikipedia's guidelines to maintain a neutral title.Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's no reason to do such a move without discussion. The move was wrong because

• it was potentially contentious but not extremely urgent; such moves should always be done via WP:RM;
• it doesn't follow our standards for disambiguation; see WP:NCDAB.

The proper title would be Devolution (biology). Since that title exists and has a history, we need an admin to do the move. I am now requesting that move properly, see next section.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Devolution (biological) → Devolution (biology) — Page was renamed from Devolution (biological fallacy) per valid NPOV concerns but without proper discussion. Should have a more standard disambiguator as described in WP:NCDAB, though. Hans Adler 09:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - seems fair enough.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reverse evolution

I don't think "Reverse evolution" should redirect to this page. The term "reverse evolution" is used in current scientific literature to say that the genotype of a population is returned to the ancestral state. This is most commonly used in experimental evolution, and it works thanks to the short and long term evolutionary memory which is stored in the population. It can be quite confusing for someone who just read a published paper on reverse evolution to end up in this page, and they could be misinformed. Maxorz (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Weekly World News

Please note that Weekly World News is not a rs, and Man Did Not Evolve From Chimpanzee-Like Apes is exactly what is expected from common descent. Not devolution. . . dave souza, talk 11:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Then why did he say in the link "Throw out all those posters and books that depict a living ape evolving into a human being" Liveintheforests (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You appear to have a misunderstanding about evolution. Both living humans and other living apes have evolved from a common ancestor, and so both differ from that ancestor. There was some interesting research about Australopithecus afarensis suggesting a common ancestor suited to upright walking, diverging into humans adapted to ground dwelling, and chimps adapted to tree climbing with knuckle walking as an adaptation for occasional ground movement.[1] Rather fun, eh? One of several competing hypotheses, it'll be interesting to see how research on this develops. . . dave souza, talk 19:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Having done a bit of searching, "Descent of Man -- Or Ascent of Ape?" clearly refers to common descent, putting it somewhat dramatically in lay terms as a rhetorical device. It makes no mention of devolution, so claiming it does is original research which policy prohibits. My assessment is backed up by a Science Frontiers summary. The preceding part seems to be a common creationist claim, and is similarly very dubious. Much better quality of sourcing is needed to include this sort of claim in the article, so I've removed them. . dave souza, talk 20:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the claims by some devolution supporters, is that primates such as apes and chimps came from man, it's complete opposite to what evolution teaches. George McCready Price supported it, Price was a creationist. But scientists have also supported this position. Geoffrey Bourne supported it. Now Bourne was a leading expert on primates. Funnily enough becuase of Bourne's position he became friends with the creationist Duane Gish, Gish was fascinated by him, the story of Geoffrey Bourne's devolution theory about primates can be read in the books of Gish, they can be found online. On a side note, you do realise the article you pasted in from the BBC about Lucy, Lucy never was found with any legs, they have never been found it's all just interpretation there is no real evidence that it is a common ancestor, it's just all ideas and theories. As Richard Milton pointed out there are scientists who interpretate the bones of Lucy as an ape and nothing more. Liveintheforests (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Scientists since Linnaeus have classified humans as apes, so what's your problem? Also note the article discusses A. afarensis in general as well as Lucy (Australopithecus), and contrary to your assertion, the Lucy find includes leg bones – not all the leg bones, but enough to be very informative. AL 333 include more limb bones and a foot bone. Anatomists from Cuvier onwards have been able to tell a lot from incomplete skeletons, or even a few bones. Gish isn't a reliable source, and it may surprise you to learn that theories are the aim of science aspires. Evolution as theory and fact may help explain. . . dave souza, talk 22:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dave, i am not a creationist, but when it comes to things like this, it's always best to keep an open mind. If there was enough evidence to prove to you that the ape did devolve or descend off humans would that change the way you see the world?

I direct you to Aaron G. Filler MD, PhD and his book the The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species Upright ape

"Based on this updated biological information, Dr. Filler re-examines the latest fossil evidence to reveal that the human body form is far more ancient than has been widely accepted--emerging abruptly, apparently due to a Pax gene change--at the time of Morotopithecus 21.6 million years ago. As a consequence, Filler argues, there is now compelling evidence that apes descended from humans and not the other way around."

I won't say anymore, but here is how he ends the book:

Finally, in the very last paragraph of the book, he sums it up:

"The first upright ape was also human. In the millions of years that followed, new species branched off and abandoned their upright posture to descend to what we now call "ape." pg. 260

Fuller claims that apes descended from humans. He is a scientist, not a creationist. Liveintheforests (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Define human? Nothing there about "devolution", from the page you link he's arguing that the common ancestor had an upright human posture, which in his definition was human. Much the same thesis as above, but in Filler's case a rather saltationist approach to evo devo, with references to punk-eek. From the publisher's description, "Dr. Filler re-examines the latest fossil evidence to reveal that the human body form is far more ancient than has been widely accepted". Note the lack of reference to the human brain size, which has commonly been used as a way of defining humans vs. other apes. Evolution doesn't require progress, but we do rather tend to think of ourselves as more "advanced" than A. afarensis which had a fully upright posture but a small brain, and like us descended from a common ancestor. . . dave souza, talk 03:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, here we are:
"What defines a “human?” I have taken the position that it is a body plan (bauplan). Most of us have accepted that early Australopithecines whose brains and skulls were chimp-like, should be considered human and not ape. When you find a fossil such as Sahelanthropus that has a “chimp-like” skull from the point of view of its face and brain, but has the skull base of a human (and presumably upright bipedal post-cranial anatomy) – how can you tell from the fossil if it’s an ape or a human?", Aaron Filler, MD, PhD . . . dave souza, talk 07:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have asked Aaron Filler himself, to come here and talk about devolution, it may clear this up, he is a wikipedia editor. The thing is if you search online for the book the Upright Ape you get tonnes of alternative evolution and creationist websites and forums etc saying that Filler believed in devolution, and that the ape descended of the man. Theres no way that all these people have misunderstood Fuller's theories. Liveintheforests (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you've tonnes of good quality reliable sources verifying what you claim, then show them: all I've seen so far makes no mention of devolution, much quieter about it than the ScotNats. Asking an editor calling him or herself Aaron Filler doesn't work, we need reliable sources. Filler is explicit that he views the common ancestor of modern apes and humans as human: thus, he includes all the Hominidae including the hominini in the genus Homo. Not the usual phylogeny, but it's arguable that Chimps are about as human as, for example, Homo erectus. For a secondary source, try consulting afarensis. . . dave souza, talk 10:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Proponents of devolution don't always use the word devolution, Filler doesn't mention the word devolution, but the concept that the ape has come from man is a form of devolution, as it is going backwards, other devolution proponents use the words degenerate or backward evolution. Bolton Davidheiser a Christian zoologist in his book Evolution and Christian faith 1969, Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., page, 32, says:

"In 1947 CJ van der Horst published a paper in which he proposed that monkeys evolved from man instead of man from monkeys. The evidence for this was an abnormal embryo of a tree shrew which he had found."Link 1 - I really do think some of this stuff i have found should be put on the article. Creationists say the monkey came from man and it is aloud on wikipedia but as soon as a scientist says it, it is not aloud.

Here is another reference to the beliefs of Geoffrey Bourne and John Gribbin that monkeys came from humans Link 2 Liveintheforests (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources must use the word 'devolution', we are not allowed by policy to make this sort of interpretation. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Scientific evidence for backward evolution

"The idea that evolution can run backward isn’t new; some scientists say there have been confirmed cases of it in animals. Reverse evolution would happen when organisms lose genes that had fallen into disuse. Much like fish that take up living in dark caves can mostly lose their eyes, since they don’t need them. Human DNA can lose its vitality too by developing genetic disorders." Documented cases are as follows below:

Uner Tan of Cukurova University Medical School in Adana discovered a mutation in one Turkish family. He named the condition after himself: Unertan syndrome.

In a March issue of the International Journal of Neuroscience he said that this Turkish family represents “possible backward evolution,” and as such, it “can be considered a live model for human evolution”.

References:

• Link 1

Please see main article here: Uner Tan syndrome

Can any of this be merged onto the devolution article?

Alfred Wallace himself explained as much in his original paper as follows, "that the same principle which produces this result in a state of nature will also explain why domestic varieties have a tendency to revert to the original type." "Progression in various directions" with the example of a domesticated animal to revert to the original wild type. It is clear that the originator of the theory himself elucidated a sense of direction and that natural selection can go in different directions. Uses of the word "progress" and "revert" is evident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.115.164 (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Liveintheforests (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No, because the source you cite doesn't look particularly reliable, and doesn't make any mention of "devolution". You may think there's some vague similarity, but that's your original research so unusable. On the available evidence, if it were merged or mentioned anywhere it would be the Atavism article. Please stop trying to introduce original research. . . dave souza, talk 17:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Start of the article reads "devolution", "de-evolution", or backward evolution is the notion that a species can change into a more "primitive" form. Please see references on the Uner Tan syndrome page, articles which were peer reviewed. All mention the word "Backward evolution". Backward evolution is devolution. Liveintheforests (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sez who? The article doesn't, and its description is consistent with atavism. Stop trying to impose your original research, . . dave souza, talk 17:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A new syndrome with quadrupedal gait, primitive speech, and severe mental retardation as a live model for human evolution |journal=Int. J. Neurosci. |volume=116 |issue=3 |pages=361–9 |year=2006 |month=March Link

"The genetic nature of this syndrome suggests a backward stage in human evolution, which is most probably caused by a genetic mutation" Liveintheforests (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A backwards stage may be atavism, no indication that it's "devolution". Stop trying to impose your original research, . . dave souza, talk 17:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• See here: Uner Tan - Tan is best known for his proposal of the Uner Tan syndrome, a condition in which subjects walk quadrupedal gait and primitive cognition including speech and intelligence with no conscious experience. He proposed the syndrome after his discovery of the Ulas family of rural southern Turkey, five of whom have these symptoms. He also put forward the theory of "backward evolution" as a reflection of the qaudrupedal gait, which was used by our ancestors before Homo erectus. Since his study of the Ulas family, Tan has studied the Uner Tan syndrome in several other families.Liveintheforests (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WP's not a rs, and oddly enough you seem to have left out the piped link: "He also put forward the theory of "backward evolution" as a reflection of the qaudrupedal gait". . .dave souza, talk 17:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dave you do not understand devolution and you are not authority on what it is and isn't. I don't always go with the mainstream scientists but as i see it on this matter I would rather speak to professionals such as Aaron Filler with scientific credentials, i have requested for his input already, if i am completey wrong about this then i accept that, maybe Filler does not believe that the ape came from man but why did he write a book that did? Uner Tan is also contactable, i will ask him, you see i would rather be told by a professional in the field than a random wikipedia editor. If these scientists tell me that i am misrepresenting their views then i can accept that. Liveintheforests (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Get them to publish a statement as to whether or not they mean "devolution", then we can consider that published statement. Aaron Filler makes it clear that apes have descended from man if their common ancestor walked upright and we take that as the characteristic defining man: thus Hominidae = man, descendants of upright walking apes. Belief is the wrong word in science, it's an interesting hypothesis worth testing. Similarly with Uher Tan, we must take care not to tarnish the reputation of this living person by associating him with this controversial idea of "devolution" when it seems likely that he is referring to atavism. Reliable sourcing essential. . . dave souza, talk 18:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to weigh in with a few thoughts on this subject - To be absolutely clear, I'm an evolutionist and don't accept the devolution framework - that being said, I can see where those interested in this topic would be interested in what I cover in Upright Ape. Of course, I'd recommend reading the book to get a full explanation, but a few clarifications might be helpful to those on either side of this debate. As I like to point out, I studied under Steven Gould and Ernst Mayr two of our foremost evolutionary biologists and the foreword of the book is by David Pilbeam -recently Dean of Harvard College, so although what I say is not necessarily mainstream, it is well within the broad framework of scientific evolutionary biology.

The first important point is that macroevolutionary events in body form innovation - major changes in body structure - can arise abruptly in a single generation particularly when mutations affect the homeotic genes and their related elements that control the assembly of the body during embryogenesis. These are mutations that can have dramatic effects on body plan and 1) when captured in a speciation event, and 2) when not completely lethal - as most are, they can lead to foundation of new groups that have strikingly different appearance than their parent species. In Upright Ape, I argue that the human body form emerged suddenly in this way 21 million years ago in Morotopithecus as a result of a change in the vertebral body embryogenesis.

Secondly, natural selection can then play a role in optimizing the new type of organism so that it tends to be more successful in the environment. In a strict Darwinian sense, natural selection is meant to work among individuals within a species, but Gould supported the idea of selection at higher levels between differing species competing for the same class of resources. This was a fundamental issue that Darwin struggled with and that Gould has a great deal to say about - can we count on natural selection - a process involving only competition among individuals of a species - to gradually produce all of the different species and forms that we see, or are there jumps (saltations) that produce suddenly different types of animals which then very slowly adapt and optimize under natural selection until some other group, evolving quite independently - happens to "eat their lunch" leading to the first group's extinction. Ernst Mayr's opposing position is that classic, Darwinian natural selection alone - acting entirely among competing individuals within a species - can account for every biological entity and account for every aspect of each organism's biology. Gould believed that the saltations were probably due to natural selection, but that it sometimes moved at widely varying rates. In Upright Ape, I assert that a full consideration of homeotic genetics leads to the certain conclusion that some saltations are due to homeotic mutation without drive from selection rather than due to natural selection and population genetics.

There is clear and unambiguous evidence (covered in Upright Ape) that some phyla of animals originated by the loss of groups of homeotic genes. Some of these phyla have more simplified body forms - relative to their parent groups - that are nonetheless very successful in that they have persisted for hundreds of millions of years. I can see where Devolutionists would find encouragement in this fact.

With regard to human evolution, I have pointed out that there is evidence - now increasingly overwhelming evidence - that the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans walked upright more like a human would do, and that chimpanzee knuckle walking lineages and before that, gorilla lineages (with a different form of knuckle walking) arose from bipedal ancestors. I have further pointed out - in some detail in Upright Ape - that our definition of "human" involves a hominoid that is an upright biped whether or not the brain is bigger than the brain of a chimpanzee. For this reason, I say that the common ancestor of the chimpanzees and the modern humans would be classified as an early human.

Ernst Mayr - disliked the position of the cladists who asserted that each time a new species buds off from a parent group - the parent group should be considered extinct and the two descendants species should be considered equivalent daughter species. He reasoned that if a large parent species was virtually identical before and after a new species budded off, it didn't make sense to consider the parent group extinct and the unchanged descendant group to be an entirely different species. This is a point I have relied on in my view of the events at the time of the chimp/human split. We have been happy to call the immediate descendants of that split proto-humans or early humans and to consider the common ancestor of chimps and humans to have been an ape like the chimpanzee. Instead, I have shown that essentially all of the evidence reveals that an extended lineage (millions of years) of the common ancestor of chimps and humans was probably very similar to the post-split human lineages like the australopithecines with regard to the fundamental issue of primary upright bipedal locomotion. This is another way to understand my assertion that a small founder group that led to the chimps budded off from a larger parent group that was more or less similar to the body plan of the post-split human ancestor - e.g. the chimpanzee species is an ape species that evolved from a human ancestor species. Others might frame the same facts in a different way, but I think this view most correctly reflects the biology of the events.

This has nothing to do with whether or not natural selection drives change. This is a matter of locomotor posture. It seems very clear that natural selection then drove gradual increase in brain size within our part of the human lineage after the split between the ancestors of the chimp and the ancestors of the modern human descendants of this split.

Optimization does not necessarily require increased complexity. This calls to mind Leigh Van Valen's famous "Red Queen Hypothesis" (another of my professors) - this hypothesis more or less asserts that like the Red Queen in Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking-Glass" - organisms appear to run faster and faster in order to stay in the same place. He asked us to consider what the blue green algae accomplishes in its life - it floats in the sea, in acquires energy, and it reproduces - he asks what all the far more complex organisms really accomplish in their existence that is not already accomplished by the blue green algae. From this point of view, we see that a drive to complexity may result from natural selection among competing species and it may result from competition among individuals within a given species, but it cannot be definitively equated with advancement, improvement or any other sort of directional measure. Natural selection will guide the survival of genotypes among organisms competing with each other for limited resources. Natural selection does not necessarily have a progressive direction and it is not necessarily the only process involved in the generation of biological innovation that can co-exist under the broad rubric of legitimate scientific evolutionary biology. Afiller (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Creationism and Devolution

I have found these creationists articles on the internet which argue for devolution:

• ‘Vestigial’ Organs: What do they prove?

"First, it is in principle not possible to prove that an organ is useless, because there is always the possiblity that a use may be discovered in the future. This has happened with over a hundred alleged useless vestigial organs which are now known to be essential. Second, even if the alleged vestigial organ were no longer needed, it would prove devolution not evolution. The creation model allows for deterioration of a perfect creation."

• Glasswing

"Such mutations demonstrate ‘devolution’, not evolution.4 Natural selection sometimes favours defects—e.g. the glasswing is likely less visible to predators than are colourful butterflies. But this is not evolution—no new information has been produced, notwithstanding that Pteronymia has been given its own species name, separate from other (coloured) types of Lycaenid butterflies"

• Evolution going in the opposite direction

• Beetle Bloopers

"The rare ‘beneficial’ mutations to which evolutionists cling, all appear to be like this wingless beetle—downhill changes, losses of information which, though they may give a survival advantage, are headed in precisely the wrong direction for evolution."

• Stickleback

"That is in no way evolution but rather devolution"

• Blind Cave Fish

"Actually, to the extent that the cavefish lost a trait rather than gained one, what we are studying here is devolution rather than evolution."

• Aegyptopithecus

• All these links talk about devolution. I suggest that some of this material is to be added to the creationist section on devolution. Please help out if you can, I know how to list links but do not know about references on wikipedia so another user please add some of this material to the article or suggest some opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianman12 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what it is you are asking. All these examples contain nothing better than evolutionary illiteralism clad in confident assertion. Not a solitary aspect of evolution as a principle demands either increased or decreased information --only a shift in the gene pool of the community, particularly under the influence of selection. Loss of phenotypic features, whether through loss or other modification of genetic information, is simply evolution, just as much as increase of genotypic or phenotypic information or features is. To call any of them devolution is totally pointless in practically all realistic circumstances; so much so that most textbooks on evolution don't even mention the word in their indexes and glossaries. I don't see that we should dignify those links with serious attention. JonRichfield (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Firstly if you look at the links that I listed you will see examples where actually information has been observed to of been lost. If you want to call that evolution then call it evolution but it is devolution. You may not understand what this devolution article is. The whole point in this devolution article is tp discuss the concept of devolution, theres no point in creating an article on wikipedia about devolution but then claim on the article devolution does not exist, most people know devolution is a creationist concept. And yes you are right, mainstream textbooks will not be using the word devolution. Devolution is position which is supported by Intelligent design and creationists I am not claiming otherwise, devolution exists to creationists and this article is a creationist article, I am not claiming here that mainstream biology is accepting devolution, see the categories at the bottom you will see that the article on devolution is a creationist article. There seems to be a strange attitude held by certain users on wikipedia who does not actually add or want new information added to wikipedia. Heres my point, we have a devolution article on wikipedia, yet nobody ever updates it. Devolution is a key concept in Intelligent design and creationist circles. Much can be uploaded to this article about it, In my opinion some of these links can be added to the article in the creationist section, so I am asking for help to sort this out and so we can add some of this information to the article.

Also see this: Reverse Evolution: The Evolution Darwin Never Saw Supports Creation

• Here are some mainstream references for devolution (non-creationist) as you can see the words "reverse evolution" are used:

• Reverse human evolution plausible, testable, U.S. biologist says

"Reverse evolution occurs when an organism returns to the genetic state of its ancestors, said Crandall, who wrote a paper on the topic in the Oct. 2003 issue of the research journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution. In that work, he wrote that reverse evolution is documented in various organisms, such as fish that lose their eyes after living in dark caves for generations."

• "Reverse Evolution" Discovered in Seattle Fish

"We call it 'reverse evolution' because the sticklebacks are reverting to an ancestral phenotype [or appearance], that of the marine sticklebacks, which originally founded the lake populations," she said.

There aren't many documented examples of reverse evolution in nature, Peichel said, "but perhaps that's just because people haven't really looked."

• See also

• Evolution in reverse: insects recover lost 'wings'

"The study shows "how development abilities can be lost or silenced over millions of years"

• Trophy Hunting Causing 'Reverse Evolution'

"Survival of the smallest is not exactly what Darwin had in mind, but in some animals species, humans may be forcing a smaller-is-better scenario, and the ultimate outcome may be species demise."

Scientists reverse evolution in mice

• US researchers have taken a mouse back in time some 500 million years by reversing the process of evolution.

Indianman12 (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Your first link is a self-published piece by a freelance researcher, hence not a reliable source. The last link is to an article with a misleading title - scientists have reconstructed an ancient gene from two modern descendants: "We have proven that from two specialised modern genes, we can reconstruct the ancient gene they split off from." That is not devolution. Mindmatrix 14:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank your reply regarding the freelance creationist paper, would that be aloud in the creationist section though?, and there appears to be an academic defense of regressive evolution from two scientists who are not creationists:

Losing Sight of Regressive Evolution

If you have access you can view the paper here, I do not have access at the moment but here is the link to the paper:

SpringerLink — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianman12 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"When we teach evolution to our students, we tend to focus on “constructive” evolution, the processes which lead to the development of novel or modified structures. Most biology students are familiar with the subjects of finches’ beaks, giraffes’ necks, and hair in mammals. Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with a constructivist approach to teaching evolution, but if it is our only focus, we may overlook the flip side of the coin. By the flip side of the coin, of course, we are referring to regressive evolution: the loss or degeneration of a trait. Regressive evolution does not often make its way into biology textbooks, but it is of great relevance nonetheless. In all likelihood, when a new trait evolves or an existing one is modified, something is sacrificed in return. In order to develop a flipper, a marine mammal must sacrifice individual digits. You may be familiar with one or more of the following familiar characters lost through regressive evolution: teeth in birds, scales in mammals, and tails in higher primates. For aficionados of cave biology like us, one of the most interesting examples of regressive evolution concerns cave fish: Why do cave fish lose their eyes?"

On the topic of Creationism and Devolution, There are a couple of other things here written by creationists, that may able to be used in the creationist section:

• Life Devolves - Life is Devolving, Dynamically Engineered Invention of Vast Originality

From the Insitute of Creation Research:

• Flower 'Evolves' in the Wrong Direction

"Degeneration" refers to the breakdown of previously functional genetic information. Some of the plants the scientists investigated had lost some of the genes required to develop bilaterally symmetrical flowers.

• The Natural Direction of Life Is Degeneration, Not Evolution
• Mutation Study Contradicts Evolution

I noticed this reference is already on the article:

• Biology Confronts Evolution

"As anyone can observe, the Primordial Law of Biology is minor vita ex vita, life arises only from life and always with less vitality. Biology is under the jurisdiction of the laws of the universe, the propaganda of evolution notwithstanding. The Primordial Law of the Universe is natura semper scalas descendet, nature always descends, that is, devolves. Therefore, devolution, never evolution, is the relentless, inescapable law of the universe. The true nature of the universe, and therefore biology, is devolution, the exact opposite of masquerading evolution interloping in public school and university biology textbooks as science."

Degeneration is also discussed in this paper here:

• Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory

A more well known scientist behind the theory of devolution is John C. Sanford, known for his invention of the gene gun, he has written over 80 scientific publications in peer reviewed journals. Something should be mentioned on the article about him. He endorses the theory of devolution in his book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome. Indianman12 (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You could save everyone, including yourself, a lot of trouble by doing a bit of homework on the basics of evolution before sounding off about it like this. If you are trolling us, I sympathise with your lack of effect, because you have to write a lot of words to elicit a few brief replies; I only made my contribution because I wasn't sure whether you were serious; I still am not, and I hardly know whether to hope that you are. If you had prepared properly, you would realise that to the very definitions of "devolution" quoted, or half-quoted by various people, are no more sensible than claims that the mainstream theory of driving a car is incomplete and invalid because no one realises that there are two different things that need different names, one being what you get when steering to the left and one when steering to the right, so it is crazy to call them both "driving" -- the only rational option is obviously to call the one "driving" and the other "undriving" because the one undoes what the other one does. When you think you can convince me of that, come back and tell me aaalll about errr... "devolution"...

Don't hold your breath for my immediate conversion though. This delusion had whiskers even in Darwin's day and very few biologists were sufficiently naive to take it seriously even on first hearing. JonRichfield (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Jon I am not sure about your comment it is not very easy to understand it is almost like you are talking to yourself oneline, did you read anything I put up? I am not sure what you are talking about but theres no need to personally attack me, you have obviously come here to argue, if you do not like creationism or the theory of devolution then why come to a creationist wikipedia article in the first place? Are you calling every creationist a troll? Are you calling peer reviewed papers written by trolls? I am not understanding your attacking. I made it clear devolution is a key mechanism in creationist circles, this is an article page on devolution, an article to upload information to, please see the links, but you refuse to look at the links becuase this is what happens when users start seeing evidence that they can not handle, you obviously close your eyes to the evidence and then get abusive, you have not even commented on the links that I put up. John C Sanford has 80 publications peer reviewed, he says devolution is a fact. "Reverse evolution" has been documented, look at the link even in the National Geographic magazine and other peer reviewed publications I have listed. If you wish to give a civil opinion then fair play that is what I was hoping for, opinions on how we can improve this article, looking at your edits it seems you have never added anything to wikipedia, remember wikipedia is a free wikipedia where people upload information to, you may be in the wrong place. Indianman12 (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not a place to debate general issues (see WP:TPG and WP:NOTFORUM). Your posts are too long—if you have a reliable source that demonstrates a need to make a change in this article, please present a brief statement of what needs to be fixed, with the reliable source. As this is a scientific topic, scientific sources would be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok I will do a summary of just two references and keep it short of which can be added to the article:

• "Reverse Evolution" Discovered in Seattle Fish - This is a scientific reference.

• The work of John C Sanford — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianman12 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And here are two scientific papers on reverse evolution (degeneration/devolution), scientists have admitted that it exists:

SpringerLink

Paper 2

Indianman12 (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Demolition of functionality is not fitness....

Fitness is fitness: the ability to jump higher, run faster, know more, sense more... it is not to do with 'complexity'. The article is in convolutions and bias about this issue.

eg. If mankind has lost the gene to produce Vitamin C because our lineage once had a fruit diet, and now does not, surely we can count this loss function as devolution when we now are short Vitamin C!

And I put it to you: mankind did not lose this function from eating an all fruit diet. We lost it through inbred overpopulating devolution like we have lost everything else that much of the animal kingdom takes for granted.

And don't tell me mankind's technology makes man a fit animal. We are a super-ganging behavior which conveys the illusion of capacity. A chimp too can fire a gun, go to school, undertake farming, or pick up and use a camera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.184.90 (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry mate, but you should do your homework before sounding off and removing all doubt about your competence. You don't know what fitness means in terms of evolutionary theory. You need to be careful about using technical terms that resemble normal English. What would you think of a layman who confused the size of a barn with the interaction cross-section of a nuclear particle? Or the inertia of a mass with laziness? As for the mechanisms of selective costs, humans, many other primates, and guinea pigs, escaped the consequences of the inability to produce gulonolactone oxidase because they absorbed far more vitamin C from their plant-rich diet than they needed. Any animal that eats too little Vitamin C will die if it lacks any of the enzymes in the synthetic chain of reactions. As for chimps, I have never known one to write an argument like your one about fitness, but of course, perhaps you know different? And incidentally, what would any of your points have to do with devolution if they had happened to be meaningful? That is what this article is about, you know? JonRichfield (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Refs are not always sufficient

Someone wrote:

However, more recently, the term has been used to describe the idea that humans are evolving to have less desirable characteristics (such as low intelligence). This is a correct use of the term unless the speaker is under the impression that evolution could actually work in reverse.

Someone else rv'd it saying "need a reference". That was true of course, but it was not enough. In terms of Darwinian theory the statement as it stands (stood!) is meaningless and incoherent. If a statement makes no sense an editor is quite correct to remove it, giving appropriate reasons of course (or, if it seems worthwhile to salvage something useful from the text, to edit it appropriately). I make this remark in case anyone interested should think that tacking a ref onto such a paragraph would justify its inclusion in the article. I for one would revert it, ref and all. JonRichfield (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sanford articles

Supposedly, "Sanford has published two peer reviewed papers modeling genetic entropy." One of the two articles referenced is available for free online (must be a super reputable journal), and it is in the special issue of a computer science journal. As far as I can tell, the peer review staff weren't biologists but computer scientists and the article was published because it demonstrates how a particular type of programming in which the journal is interested could be applied to data modeling in biology. The soundness of his biological conclusions aren't even the point of his article, much less the reason it was accepted. From the title of the other article, the same situation seems to be in place.24.171.121.177 (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)MOB

Biology as science and creationism as science

I see that someone has been editing boldly. Very boldly. There could be rough waters ahead. All the same, maybe we biologists have been insufficiently bold in this article lately. I am forced to agree that there is a rational basis for demanding that a topic such as devolution, discussed in a branch of science, such as biology, be discussed in terms of scientific principles, which the creationism (ID, whatever) section certainly was not; it was barely discussed coherently. But we also must be cautious in aggression, and we must bear in mind that we are discussing a concept (devolution) that is only meaningful in constrained contexts; biology as it stands could do without the concept entirely -- the main reasons for discussion are: 1) To explain why it is merely a vague sideline of evolutionary theory at best 2) To explain why the irrelevant and unsound concepts that have been riding on it or confused with it are no part of biology as she is spoke for the last century plus. This places severe constraints on what we may fairly and reasonably say within the article. In particular we must be sure that we do not confuse trenchancy with cogency. Bandying terms like "science" sounds great, until one realises how great a responsibility it places on the author and editor.

It also becomes important to point out to any creationists who argue that we are stifling them and depriving readers of their pearls of wisdom and faith, that they are perfectly welcome to publish what they want as long as :

• they adhere to the various WP requirements
• they confine their topics to articles into which they fit, articles that they are welcome to write, subject to the foregoing point. For example, evolutionary biology does not deal with non-scientific or counter-factual material except when it is necessary to refute direct claims, and that is only necessary outside articles dealing with coherent biological material.

Any thoughts, anyone? JonRichfield (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yess, but that doesn't explain this edit. Why do you prefer "However, according to the definition of evolution, and particularly of "[[Darwinism|Darwinian]]" or "[[Darwinism|neo-Darwinian]]" evolutionary adaptation, phenomena represented as instances of devolution are in every sense evolutionary." to "However, modern [[evolution]]ary theory does not support this concept of direction, and phenomena represented as instances of devolution are in every sense evolutionary."? Have you had a look at our article on Darwinism, a much abused term? The modern theory of evolution has no part for "devolution" or "descending the scale of nature". Charles Darwin himself was a bit ambivalent on this point, and gave more credence to progression in evolution (as our article correctly states). If by "Darwinism" you mean natural selection, please reword the article to say that. . . dave souza, talk 18:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Having waited a day, I've now done that to improve the lead. More improvements are of course desirable or even necessary. By the way, I was prompted by Larry Moran's comments on how MET isn't "Darwinism" even though creationists keep misusing that term. . . dave souza, talk 20:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't on tap all the time; I really must schedule my activities more considerately. Your prompt response however has been a bit confusing in its apparent implications; are you under the impression that I am in any way any sort of creationist? If not, why did you ask about whether I have read about that "much abused term"? That it is a much used term is I trust undisputed, but what exactly do you have in mind as abuse? In your link Larry Moran wrote a nice column, but his personal definitions of what counts as Darwinism and what doesn't are not cogent and are not highly pertinent to this article, nor in fact to his. One point that your edit de-emphasised was the fact that devolution was not a necessary, nor even a distinct, concept in Darwin's day, and has not become any more so at any time since. The fact that in his day Darwin was still mulling over the validity of certain principles does not imply anything more than that concerning "devolution". The rather shrill passages in the WP article on Darwinism include some interesting historical points, but they have nothing to do with the validity of the term "Darwinism", particularly in preferred modern usage. The fact that scientific illiterates use the term as abuse is about as relevant as that some (often the same ones) use "Einsteinian" as abuse, more often than not with no clear understanding even of Newtonian physics, never mind relativity. If we migrated to the term MET, how long do you suppose it would take for such persons to follow, abuse and all? It is altogether reasonable and practical to use "Darwinism" as a term of convenience when we refer to the modern view of systematic changes in population constitution in response to selection and similar pressures, but to refer to more views as "Neo-Darwinism" (specifically in the light of developments and discoveries since what Julian Huxley described as the "Modern Synthesis") also is reasonable and practical. The term "evolution" is just as much a term of abuse among the unregenerately ineducable as (neo-)Darwinism, so that doesn't help, and in any event, "evolution" does not technically mean the same as Darwinism. neo or not, as I hope you are well and specifically aware. (If you are not, you have no business in this discussion.) We have no single word that covers all aspects of what I have just described as Darwinism or Neodarwinism (certainly "evolution" doesn't, not even in combination as MET as yet). Maybe it is time that we coined a completely new word. MET rather lacks something, don't you think? How about MACPOC (Modern adaptive change in population... etc I am sure someone can provide something pronounceable that doesn't offend anyone by mentioning Darwin.) Must run again. Maybe just as well... JonRichfield (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In Wikipedia terms, evolution covers the modern theory, which some call MET. As to What is Darwinism?, I go along with Mayr's definition that the term "has numerous meanings depending on who has used the term and at what period". Thus Huxley coined the term and was a leading Darwinian "without being convinced that natural selection was the chief driving force of change" (Bowler p. 218). In contrast, as Mayr says, neo-Darwinism was a term coined by Romanes in 1896 to designate "Darwinism without an inheritance of acquired characters". In other words, August Weismann's doctrine, which discarded Darwin's concept of "use and disuse inheritance", but predated genetics. My understanding is that, more recently, both terms have been used for the modern synthesis, and specifically for views giving primacy to natural selection, but Darwinism remains in use (particularly among creationists) as a term for evolution in general. Rather confusing, which is why I tend to go along with Olivia Judson. So, keep it simple and call it evolution or evolution by natural selection, whichever is most appropriate. As for this article, it would be good to tighten the creationist section without removing it altogether. A more pressing question is whether we include Buffon's proto-evolutionary idea of degeneration from an ideal,[2] a concept from a time when evolution just meant unrolling. . . dave souza, talk 17:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Two Recent Experiments that support the idea of a mechanism for Devolution. It would perhaps be of merit to consider two recent studies / experiments. One done by a professor in Montana discovered dinosaur like teeth and tail structures in a specific type of chicken embryo.

http://www.livescience.com/17642-chickenosaurus-jack-horner-create-dinosaur.html

And another experiment done in Germany in which seeds and eggs were subjected to electrostatic / electrical fields during germination producing fish and wheat both thought to be extinct.

http://www.urzeitcode.com/english/

more details (in German) at

http://www.rafoeg.de/index.php/seite/10,Forschungsprojekte/80,Biologische_Experimente_mit_elektrostatischen_Feldern/10,Die_Experimente_von_Ciba_Geigy/Die_Experimente_von_Ciba_Geigy.html

you can try this link with Google Translate to see it in another language.

User: sunwukongmonkeygod, 08:27, 20121212 (PST)

Lack of "fittest" having enough children

I would like to point out that very few children are had by intelligent people compared to their intelligence.

Einstein, Hawking, etc. should be having women line up at their door to have their children.

In fact it is the poor illiterate that have many children and don't use contraception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.230.113 (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Introduction Paragraph

Opening section is clearly an opinion about "devolution". Examples:

"Current non-technical application of the concept of "devolution" is based largely on the fallacies that:

• in biology there is a preferred hierarchy of structure and function, and that
• evolution must mean "progress" to "more advanced" organisms with more complex structure and function.

Those errors in turn are related to two misconceptions: that:

• evolution is supposed to make species more "advanced", as opposed to "primitive"; and that
• modern species that have lost some of the functions or complexity of their ancestors must accordingly be degenerate forms. (Note however that degeneracy in this context has little to do with the current technical use of the term degeneracy in biology)."

("progress" to "more advanced" organisms) this is wrong, because evolution is biological "acclimatization" to survive, if environment changes from "bad" to "good", living organisms evolve to adapt to "good", if environment changes back to "bad", do living organisms "devolve" to adapt to a new "bad" environment or do they "evolve"? Organisms can't devolve to survive, evolution is about survival, that's why in this example they "evolve".

Hence devolution is about losing the adopted "features" required for your survival in an environment you live, that's devolving, assuming that environment changes gradually, giving organisms time to evolve. Devolution is seemingly a rare thing and in most cases applicable to humans only, examples, environmental and self-destruction, humans stopped evolving and started to adapt environment to themselves, hence in the process devolving themselves into mentally incapable to survive weaklings, though it might be applicable to call it a counter-evolution.

All the things stated above is just a critical thinking, because original paragraph was clearly a wrong assumption about evolution, hence implying non-existence of a devolution. --Monkeypaul (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be a misreading of the intro, which clearly states that these are errors and misconceptions. As the lead section, it's a summary of the points shown with their sources in the main body of the article. Can you suggest specific improvements to the wording which would make this clearer? . . dave souza, talk 16:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like it tries to deny devolution as a concept based on "misconceptions" and "fallacies" of "others" about evolution, the way it's put in that context sounds like an "opinion" that "devolution" shouldn't exist as a term, end user reading this is more concerned about what is devolution and not why some, based on fallacies and misconceptions of others, might misinterpret devolution, main part is more concerned about others "opinion" regarding evolution, than what's devolution.

Devolution is the opposite of evolution... sometimes it is misconceived based on fallacies and misconceptions about evolution, thinking that evolution is all about "progress" and "more advanced" organisms. Evolution is about organisms development and adaptation to survive, main aspect of evolution is survival, devolution, being the opposite, would mean "refusal" to adapt or transformation aggravating adaptation and survival compared with previous organism's characteristics.

Honestly it can be worded any way you want, because I've read too much into it, though there should be some brief definition about devolution and not all about why the term shouldn't "exist", just because others believe in fallacies and misconceptions. Plus I don't have any links, as I've said, it's all based on critical thinking.

--Monkeypaul (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph is fatally biased, and also misses the central theory of devolution. Devolution is not confined to a reversal, recapitulation, or retracement back to earlier forms. Devolution encompasses the idea of a general trend or prolonged phase representing a loss of genetic information and/or bio-diversity. The bulk of this biased article seems to be devoted to an apologetic defense against any suggestion that evolution entails progress or advancement or direction of any kind. Fine, but biologists certainly can and do speak of things like a Cambrian explosion, and they certainly do speak in relative terms regarding the difference between a rich or a poor gene pool, biodiversity, and the dangers of monoculture. If there is such a concept as an evolutionary explosion, then we can also legitimately discuss theories regarding potential implosion or abatement. Some may not like the theory, and there may ultimately be insufficient data to support any recognizable genomic trends, but the concept of devolution can't be dismissed as a mere misunderstanding of evolution (as this article attempts to do). If there are mechanisms that favor deletion of genomic material over insertion, or mechanisms that favor monoculture over diverse allele expression, then scientists should go where the data leads without anyone prejudging their investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.87 (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Devolution (biology)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The reference to the warbled no-eyed large-eyed spider needs a citation. A Google search for said spider yields no results aside from this particular article. A few more citations in general wouldn't hurt, but something that specific definitely needs one. The article is written in a manner such that it treats evolution as a certainty. It essentially jumps to evolution as the conclusion (treating humans having lost a tail as scientific fact, etc.), avoiding any legitimate debate between either side.

Substituted at 21:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

While deevolution is to be considered psuedoscience in terms of this article, discussion of fetal alcohol syndrome - and how its negative effects may have spurred Bénédict Morel to put forward the idea of deevolution and social degradation - may help provide context towards why such beliefs were so strongly considered plausible in the late 19th century. The theory itself was wrong, but the theory had evidence (for an entirely different condition) and I think that should be mentioned so as to provide proper context for the theory in the article's history section. I was going to add a reference to FAS myself, but I hesitated to do so to avoid the possibility of violating Wikipedia's policy on original research. Perhaps a more experienced editor than myself could help add to the article in the appropriate manner. 50.45.222.110 (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"Other" teleosts

Crossopterygians are not teleosts, so I didn't think deleting "other" would be controversial. Grassynoel (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Nobody thought they were, actually. But not a justification for edit-warring at any time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Devolution w/o DEVO

DEVO the band from Ohio, is not mentioned or referenced in the Wikipedia section for Devolution. 2601:646:300:2EEA:C5A3:6BEC:F1F0:5885 (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)