| Author |
Message
|
| Shubee |
 Posted: Tue Aug 18,
2009 7:58 am
Post subject: The Theory of Devolution |
| |
Forum Freshman
Joined: 12 Aug
2009
Posts: 31
|
The foundation of molecular and
quantum creationism and the theory of devolution are
solid sciences. For example, the article, Evolution myths: Natural selection leads
to ever greater complexity at newscientist.com says:
"natural selection often leads to ever greater
simplicity."
"If you don't use it, you tend to
lose it. Evolution often takes away rather than adding.
For instance, cave fish lose their eyes, while parasites
like tapeworms lose their guts.
"Such
simplification might be much more widespread than
realised. Some apparently primitive creatures are
turning out to be the descendants of more complex
creatures rather than their ancestors. For instance, it
appears the ancestor of brainless starfish and sea
urchins had a brain."
Personally, I'm very
pleased that the theory of devolution is starting to
look respectable. | |
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Leszek Luchowski |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18,
2009 8:02 am
Post subject: Re: The Theory of
Devolution |
| |
Forum Senior
Joined: 16 Jun
2008
Posts: 398
Location: Gliwice,
Poland
|
| Shubee
wrote: |
| parasites like tapeworms lose
their guts. |
I'm not sure what to think about
the theory of devolution, but this sentence has a merit
of its own.
_________________
Leszek. Pronounces
[LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav. | |
| Back to top |
|
|
| drowsy turtle |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18,
2009 8:14 am
Post subject: |
| |
Forum Professor
Joined: 04 Mar
2009
Posts: 1260
Location: UK
|
You appear to have a problem
with addind a 'd' to 'evolution'. Whether an organism
becomes more complicated, or less complicated, if the
change means it is better adapted to its surroundings
then it has evolved. Devolution as the opposite of
evolution would mean the organism is not as well adapted
to its environment, and so will become
extinct.
_________________
Everyone hates me for
being paranoid.
| drowsy turtle
wrote: |
| Only a madman quotes
himself |
 | |
| Back to top |
|
|
| paralith |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18,
2009 8:45 am
Post subject: |
| |
Forum Cosmic
Wizard
Joined: 06 Jun
2007
Posts: 2114
|
As Drowsyturtle says,
devolution implies that evolution has some
directionality to it. It doesn't. Evolution is defined
as a change in gene frequencies over time. Any change of
any kind. Thus "devolution" as described in the OP is
the same thing as evolution, there is no new word or a
new concept that needs to be supported, it was already
inclusive in and is as well supported as modern
evolutionary theory.
In regards to your quantum
creationism idea, just because quantum mechanically
speaking there are infinite possibilities in the
universe, doesn't mean that what happened to life on
earth is a mystery of infinite possibilities. We have
empirical evidence that speaks to what did and did not
occur in earth's past, and though we certainly will
never know everything about the past, we can narrow down
the possibilities significantly given the evidence we
have.
_________________
Man can
will nothing unless he has first understood that he must
count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned
on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities,
without help, with no other aim than the one he sets
himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges
for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul
Sartre
Last
edited by paralith on Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:52 am; edited 1
time in total | |
| Back to top |
|
|
| Shubee |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18,
2009 8:45 am
Post subject: Re: The Theory of
Devolution |
| |
Forum Freshman
Joined: 12 Aug
2009
Posts: 31
|
| drowsy turtle
wrote: |
| Whether an organism becomes more
complicated, or less complicated, if the change
means it is better adapted to its surroundings
then it has evolved. |
Obviously, the organisms that
have that lost their brain have became less complicated
and less fit to survive but have survived nevertheless.
| drowsy turtle
wrote: |
| Devolution as the opposite of
evolution would mean the organism is not as well
adapted to its environment, and so will become
extinct. |
Specifically, the theory of
devolution agrees with Darwin that there are living
things that reproduce with variation but says that all
life is spiraling downward toward extinction and death,
not upward to more glorious forms of life. | |
| Back to top |
|
|
| paralith |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18,
2009 8:57 am
Post subject: Re: The Theory of
Devolution |
| |
Forum Cosmic
Wizard
Joined: 06 Jun
2007
Posts: 2114
|
| Shubee
wrote: |
Obviously, the organisms that
have that lost their brain have became less
complicated and less fit to survive but have
survived nevertheless. |
That is incorrect, Shubee. Loss
of a trait can be just as adaptive as gaining a trait.
In the case of loss of a brain etc in gut parasites,
brain tissue is metabolically very expensive. In an
adult human, for example, 30% of our metabolism is
devoted entirely to our brain. In children with a
growing brain, 70% of their metabolism is devoted to
brain growth. That's a lot of energy you could be
spending on other things, and growing a brain is only
worth this high cost if it comes with high benefits. And
what are the benefits to a gut parasite? You just sit in
one place and the food falls down on top of you. You
don't need a brain, the benefits are not high enough to
outweigh the costs. Thus a parasite that wastes less
energy on brain growth and more energy on reproduction
will outreproduce those parasites which waste too much
energy on brain growth and have less offspring as a
result.
| drowsy turtle
wrote: |
Specifically, the theory of
devolution agrees with Darwin that there are
living things that reproduce with variation but
says that all life is spiraling downward toward
extinction and death, not upward to more glorious
forms of life. |
As I said before, evolution has
no direction. There has been a general trend in the
history of life on earth to move towards more complexity
but that is not a requirement of evolution. Evolution is
simply change. As long as the offspring are not 100%
genetically identical to their parents, evolution is
happening. Extinction is as much a part of evolution as
speciation.
_________________
Man can
will nothing unless he has first understood that he must
count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned
on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities,
without help, with no other aim than the one he sets
himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges
for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul
Sartre | |
| Back to top |
|
|
| Shubee |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18,
2009 9:36 am
Post subject: Re: The Theory of
Devolution |
| |
Forum Freshman
Joined: 12 Aug
2009
Posts: 31
|
| paralith
wrote: |
| As I said before, evolution has no
direction. |
The theory of devolution says
that evolution is always downward and that all life is
becoming less robust over time. | |
| Back to top |
|
|
| paralith |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18,
2009 9:56 am
Post subject: Re: The Theory of
Devolution |
| |
Forum Cosmic
Wizard
Joined: 06 Jun
2007
Posts: 2114
|
| Shubee
wrote: |
| paralith
wrote: |
| As I said before, evolution has
no direction. |
The theory of devolution
says that evolution is always downward and that
all life is becoming less robust over
time. |
And how do you define robust?
Number of species? Number of organisms? Adaptability?
Flexibility? I highly doubt that, barring complete
destruction of the planet, there is any catastrophe that
could completely wipe out life on earth. Sure, most of
the organisms we know today might die, but insects,
rodents, at the very least various kinds of bacteria
would persist.
_________________
Man can
will nothing unless he has first understood that he must
count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned
on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities,
without help, with no other aim than the one he sets
himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges
for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul
Sartre | |
| Back to top |
|
|
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18,
2009 10:09 am
Post subject: Re: The Theory of
Devolution |
| |
Forum Radioactive
Isotope
Joined: 08 Sep
2007
Posts: 3732
Location: South
Africa
|
| Shubee
wrote: |
| paralith
wrote: |
| As I said before, evolution has
no direction. |
The theory of devolution
says that evolution is always downward and that
all life is becoming less robust over
time. | This can only make some kind of dubious
sense if all life was created perfectly by a creator,
no?
_________________
Disclaimer: I do not declare
myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state
something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't
hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an
attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
"This just
in: The Catholic church officially denounces spooning."
- Onion News Network
Last edited by KALSTER on Tue Aug
18, 2009 10:35 am; edited 1 time in
total | |
| Back to top |
|
|
| SkinWalker |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18,
2009 10:28 am
Post subject: |
| |
Site Admin
Joined: 28 Apr
2005
Posts: 1265
Location: Grand Prairie,
TX
|
There is no "devolution" or
theory of it. If the changes in gene frequency are
gradual over a period of time, then it's evolution if
the population remains fit with regard to its
environment. If it doesn't, this is called extinction,
not "devolution."
_________________
A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog | |
| Back to top |
|
|
| SkinWalker |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18,
2009 10:31 am
Post subject: |
| |
Site Admin
Joined: 28 Apr
2005
Posts: 1265
Location: Grand Prairie,
TX
|
I'm betting we're about to be
proselytized by some religious cult in the next post or
two from this guy.
This thread's OP seems to
pretend to be science but isn't. I'm moving it to a more
appropriate venue for
discussion.
_________________
A Hot Cup
of Joe - My Blog | |
| Back to top |
|
|
| Shubee |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18,
2009 10:54 am
Post subject: Re: The Theory of
Devolution |
| |
Forum Freshman
Joined: 12 Aug
2009
Posts: 31
|
| paralith
wrote: |
| And how do you define robust?
|
I
have adopted the term from computer science to mean
well-designed and inherently stable, with numerous
safeguards to prevent catastrophic failure.
| Quote: |
Robust
Definition
The word robust, when
used with regard to computer software, refers to
an operating system or other program that performs
well not only under ordinary conditions but also
under unusual conditions that stress its
designers' assumptions.
Software is
typically buggy (i.e., contains errors) and
fragile, and thus not robust. This is in large
part because programs are usually too big and too
complicated for a single human mind to comprehend
in their entirety, and thus it is difficult for
their developers to be able to discover and
eliminate all the errors, or to even be certain as
to what extent of errors exist. This is especially
true with regard to subtle errors that only make
their presence known in unusual circumstances.
A major feature of Unix-like operating
systems is their robustness. That is, they can
operate for prolonged periods (sometimes years)
without crashing (i.e., stopping operating) or
requiring rebooting (i.e., restarting). And
although individual application programs sometimes
crash, they almost always do so without affecting
other programs or the operating system itself.
Robustness is something that should be
designed into software from the ground up; it is
not something that can be successfully tacked on
at a later date. The lack of advance planning for
robustness is a major factor in the numerous
security and stability problems that plague some
non-Unix-like operating
systems. |
I believe that all science, like
the theory of devolution, must be given a mathematically
precise definition. See David Hilbert's Philosophy of Physics.
If there is a scientifically acceptable
definition for computer programs and electronic machines
being robust, then the theory of devolution may be
replaced with an equation that says, in the mathematical
limit, all forms of life are becoming less and less
robust over time. | |
| Back to top |
|
|
| paralith |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18,
2009 11:01 am
Post subject: |
| |
Forum Cosmic
Wizard
Joined: 06 Jun
2007
Posts: 2114
|
Shubee, the software definition
assumes, (1) a designer, and (2) and intended usage.
Organisms in the natural world lack both of these
things. A software program is also a discrete entity.
What is the entity in the biological realm? A single
organism? A population? A
species?
_________________
Man can
will nothing unless he has first understood that he must
count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned
on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities,
without help, with no other aim than the one he sets
himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges
for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul
Sartre | |
| Back to top |
|
|
| Shubee |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18,
2009 11:05 am
Post subject: |
| |
Forum Freshman
Joined: 12 Aug
2009
Posts: 31
|
| paralith
wrote: |
| Shubee, the software definition
assumes, (1) a designer |
I have made no such assumption.
Furthermore, please note that there are scientific theories that say that all
earthly species will eventually die out because all
forms of life are genetically programmed for
extinction. | |
| Back to top |
|
|
| SkinWalker |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18,
2009 11:10 am
Post subject: |
| |
Site Admin
Joined: 28 Apr
2005
Posts: 1265
Location: Grand Prairie,
TX
|
You're confusing "theory" with
"hypothesis." The link to tertiary literature you
provided on telomeres is an hypothesis and not a
theory.
_________________
A Hot Cup
of Joe - My Blog | |
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
