Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Theory of De-evolution!!!!!
sfripp
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 102 (122910)
07-08-2004 9:54 AM


Being a fanatical Christian And a beleiver in the more literal account of genesis I offer a challenge/new discussion topic to find out whether evolution of species from a single progenitor is any more/less likely than the DE-evolution of created kinds.
De-evolution, what signature(s) would it leave? Would such a theory fit better within the framework of the laws of thermodynamics? Could apparent speciation events in some plants be nothing more than the reversing (by human manipulation) of a weakened genetic code into its former state?
Go easy on me guys! I'm no rocket scientist. And this is my first post.
Released from [forum=-25] by Admin.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Dr Jack, posted 07-08-2004 10:04 AM sfripp has not replied
 Message 3 by jar, posted 07-08-2004 10:15 AM sfripp has not replied
 Message 4 by Gary, posted 07-08-2004 10:50 AM sfripp has not replied
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 07-08-2004 12:08 PM sfripp has not replied
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 07-08-2004 4:35 PM sfripp has replied
 Message 15 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-09-2004 1:54 AM sfripp has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 2 of 102 (122913)
07-08-2004 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sfripp
07-08-2004 9:54 AM


What is de-evolution? How does de-evolution differ from evolution? What is it's mechanism?
It's kind of hard to answer without answers to at least the first two of these questions.
Would such a theory fit better within the framework of the laws of thermodynamics?
Since evolution fits just fine within the laws of thermodynamics I can't see how it could.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sfripp, posted 07-08-2004 9:54 AM sfripp has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 3 of 102 (122918)
07-08-2004 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sfripp
07-08-2004 9:54 AM


First, what is a KIND?
Second, what is the difference between evolution and de-evolution?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sfripp, posted 07-08-2004 9:54 AM sfripp has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 07-08-2004 12:05 PM jar has not replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 102 (122944)
07-08-2004 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sfripp
07-08-2004 9:54 AM


Welcome to the forum!
"De-evolution" would simply be regular evolution, favoring something similar to what a group of organisms once was. Walking stick insects have evolved, then lost wings several times over the last few million years. This might be similar to what you are thinking of, but it really isn't going backwards. The walking sticks around today might be different from their ancient counterparts in body shape, coloration, immune systems, and other details, many of which do not fossilize well. They have been evolving, but sometimes their evolution gives the appearance of going backwards whether they are or not.
Evolution of any type leaves signatures, mainly in the fossil record, if the organism died in a place where conditions were right for fossils to form. Some creatures fossilize better than others though, for example, jellyfish fossils are rare since they are so fragile and are mostly water, and bat fossils are rare because they live in places where they tend to decompose quickly after they die.
Evolution fits just fine with the laws of thermodynamics. It is my understanding that organisms don't need to become simpler and simpler because they take in energy from the sun or from what they eat or absorb, and then they produce simple substances such as water, carbon dioxide, or oxygen which are pretty high in entropy. That's not to say that other organisms can't put these to use, but doing so just takes energy from an outside source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sfripp, posted 07-08-2004 9:54 AM sfripp has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 07-08-2004 11:27 AM Gary has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 5 of 102 (122963)
07-08-2004 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Gary
07-08-2004 10:50 AM


mistaken post
posted in error
[Note: This message has been edited by AdminNosy]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Gary, posted 07-08-2004 10:50 AM Gary has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 102 (122981)
07-08-2004 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
07-08-2004 10:15 AM


Evolution, of course, is the idea that species will become better adapted to their environment through natural selection. Modern genetics brings these ideas to the level of chemistry, and so evolution is consistent with the laws of physics, including the second law of thermodynamics.
When people talk of "de-evolution" or "devolution", I think the idea people have in mind is that we live in a universe that is getting worse over time, and that species are collecting more problems and becoming less fit. This is a philosophical theory, based more on a literal reading of Genesis than any scientific theory (except, perhaps, a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynaics).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 07-08-2004 10:15 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Dr Jack, posted 07-08-2004 12:12 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 7 of 102 (122983)
07-08-2004 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sfripp
07-08-2004 9:54 AM


Before anything else, define "kind" and define "de-evolution", since neither is a familiar term in the scientific community.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sfripp, posted 07-08-2004 9:54 AM sfripp has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Brad McFall, posted 07-08-2004 2:57 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 8 of 102 (122985)
07-08-2004 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Chiroptera
07-08-2004 12:05 PM


This is a philosophical theory, based more on a literal reading of Genesis than any scientific theory (except, perhaps, a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynaics).
Nit-picking but I'd say it draws more on traditions from Greek Philosophy than any biblical source. Although the Genesis myth does say that the world gets worse after Adam and Eve, but it provides no direct basis for the claim it continues to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 07-08-2004 12:05 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 07-08-2004 12:19 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 102 (122990)
07-08-2004 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr Jack
07-08-2004 12:12 PM


Perhaps, Mr. Jack, but I doubt that most fundamentalist Christians recognize how much of their religious and philosophical beliefs stem from the Greek pagans. Most fundamentalists really seem to believe that the ancient Hebrews saw the world as they do now, and had basically the same religion.
Edited to correct a minor typo.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 07-08-2004 02:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr Jack, posted 07-08-2004 12:12 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 10 of 102 (123020)
07-08-2004 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by coffee_addict
07-08-2004 12:08 PM


neither is phenogenotype nor neophenogenic but that does not deprecate the scientific relation of kind"" to grade vs clade as I have made out time and time again. You see the FORM need not be changed if the indicidence is merely a matter of what transparent level you might have looke through! In one of my very intended snail mail letters to ICR i Ineed spelled out the word in this thread head but now to rexpress it, I would need acknowledgement of the CONTENT and not just the context of my posts here on EVC. It seems technically possible though perhaps even less probable than ex nihlo that reverse genetic engineering could IN THE FUTURE accomplish the subject of the objective status of/in this thread but I would prefer to name my duty which is not have the tone but present again the formal requirements to find the Kantian "contradiction" in a viable organon that not only philosophically but to the relative frequency remands any change BACK from the environment to the organism. Lewontin suggested that there is a COUPLED equation here but to do so the differentiation must SPLIT time and this is not clearly the case but MIGHT and in that possiblity is also the possiblity that the time does not revolve the form but only rotates it into the future expolaratory possiblities of humanity. Such however would request a pracitical reason which if not so coupled but possesing information quantities nontheless could still be within supramolecular chemistry. The trouble is that finding such apparent contradiction leads many IN EXPERIENCE to see the dismisals of the supersensible apperectpion which might or might not find truth in the same.
So rather than circumlucate the posters here I prefer to KNOW what my DUTY is than to find any imperative to write on.
I have written to ICR on this, corresponded with Grehan as to the potential sources of error and have recieved communications from Gladsyhev on how to think the same in the place of the physical chemist. There is some work on Heat Shock Proteins and the TWO KINDS of cell death (oncosis vs apoptosis) that even permit the coupled nature of the evolutioanary differential equation to be REPLACED by reverse innformation flow from the hierachical thermodynamics even without the possible full blown time reversal invariant theory of ionic titration equilbriums that I promote.
There is JUST MORE ROOM to think from a c/e rather than an e/c position. For instance, if niche construction IS causal with all of this then it need not be necessary to REASON from non-life to life (oxygen adaptations over time etc) JUST AS CREATIONISTS REMAND while not doing any disservice to the full truth of Gladyshev's Law obedinance in the behavior we just need better education to catch all the concepts without running to the unconditioned toooooo fast.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 07-08-2004 12:08 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by MisterOpus1, posted 07-08-2004 4:05 PM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 16 by coffee_addict, posted 07-09-2004 4:30 AM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 37 by Steen, posted 07-11-2004 2:33 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
MisterOpus1
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 102 (123030)
07-08-2004 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Brad McFall
07-08-2004 2:57 PM


umm...uhhh....huh?
Like MANY newbies here, I just FELL victim to meagerly attempting TO decifer Brad's post. I read it THREE times, and I seriously don't know whether to scream OR giggle nervously. Right now I chose THE latter, simply because I wish not to frighten MY fellow cubicle neighbor.
I must GO now and smoke a CIGARETTE. Trouble is, I don't SMOKE, yet I really feel LIKE I need one now.
Actually, Brad, can I have WHATEVER it is you are smoking? It must be a worthwhile SMOKE, indeed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Brad McFall, posted 07-08-2004 2:57 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Brad McFall, posted 07-08-2004 4:40 PM MisterOpus1 has not replied
 Message 17 by coffee_addict, posted 07-09-2004 4:35 AM MisterOpus1 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 12 of 102 (123043)
07-08-2004 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sfripp
07-08-2004 9:54 AM


And a beleiver in the more literal account of genesis I offer a challenge/new discussion topic to find out whether evolution of species from a single progenitor is any more/less likely than the DE-evolution of created kinds.
Well, one thing is that we would see a decrease in complexity through time in the fossil record. That's the opposite of what we do see - a proliferation of species and an increase in ability, complexity of form, etc.
Would such a theory fit better within the framework of the laws of thermodynamics?
Under thermodynamics it's actually inevitable that evolution occurs, so I'm not sure how you could get a better fit than that.
Could apparent speciation events in some plants be nothing more than the reversing (by human manipulation) of a weakened genetic code into its former state?
Given the competitive aspect of survival and a selection pressure that tends to "weed" out weaker individuals, how could such a weakening be a consistent trend throughout all species over time?
Moreover the "kinds" model itself doesn't make much sense in the presence of observed acts of speciation. How would you distinguish, for instance, between two individuals from the same kind who, through "devolution", can no longer interbreed; and two individuals who were never in the same kind to begin with?
That's the biggest question facing proponents of "kinds" methodology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sfripp, posted 07-08-2004 9:54 AM sfripp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Brad McFall, posted 07-08-2004 4:59 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 22 by sfripp, posted 07-09-2004 2:35 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 13 of 102 (123046)
07-08-2004 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by MisterOpus1
07-08-2004 4:05 PM


Re: umm...uhhh....huh?
Sure,
I will not take you all the way through the larval tadpole intestinal epithelium but see http://www.antigenics.com/whitepapers/hsp_potential.html
for a little more to the fact lexicology.
In this article it would be possible to find the reverse information flow THROUGH "B-7" but the route from the metaphysics to this thin thread of informed discussion has more twists and turns than if I myself was the wheather channels "perfect storm and not a one here has taken ALL of these steps with me.
B7 is a molecule needed for enhanced immunologic reacation and I have indicated in the past that cell DEATH might channel"" genetic information BACK but this needs to be read and written from a living reality which is difficult to find explict in the literature (hence the reason de etre I write as I do...) but in this research it was found what I thought up theoretically, namely, that there would be DEactivation(downregulation) of the immune response in apoptosis such that information (say niche constructed cell death) could actually be carried photonically if not electronically across the B-7 environment by TOLERATEING (permitting) noncovalent "software" objectivcation formations where otherwise the same shapes (as found by immunologic processing) would and should be excluded actively OR BY PRIOR DEATH (where selection pressure might be backed even by special creation of inventions we will later find nature to posses that we humans first invent by so tracing the shapes that would otherwise result if instead of apoptotic bodies the expulsion was via the rupture in oncosis). GO figure-- I know it is possible.
It only takes a little thinking but the possibity is here and it is much easier to think the whole thing thru if you dont spend ANY TIME crying or trying to spell out things in Creationism that are better left till later. I dont think that Nosy needed to reread the post but alas he did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by MisterOpus1, posted 07-08-2004 4:05 PM MisterOpus1 has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 14 of 102 (123052)
07-08-2004 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by crashfrog
07-08-2004 4:35 PM


lipids vs collagen
There might be a mismatch between the 1-D symmetry affect of proteins/RNA/DNA and the effects of the total weakening of full differential formed supramoleuclar aggrregation even if seen as the same as molecular level aggreagations. This is a tough point to discern in the Russian but it is available in English to the knowledgable reader of Gladyshev's work with a broad background in biology that you posses Crashfrog. But if one at once tries to "imagine" Kant's "Copernican Revoution" among any molecular biological species enumerations (irrespective of the spilt I indicated Gladyshev provided) then it is possible to circument even my own local dissucssion of cells in baraminology but which way the information is flowing might not be both at that time but only in the direction of increasing entropy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 07-08-2004 4:35 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 15 of 102 (123174)
07-09-2004 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sfripp
07-08-2004 9:54 AM


Cavefish
Welcome sfripp,
For some time cavefish were thought of as having undergone "regressive" or "degenerative" evolution, since they had lost their eyes and pigment - essentially since they didn't need them anymore (once isolated in caves, there was no longer selective pressure that gave an advantage to fish with vision). I'm guessing this might represent an example of what you think of as "de-evolution".
However, it has been more recently realized that the cavefish have also undergone "constructive" evolution in response to selection by their new subterannean environment. These include specialized taste buds for sightless hunting, changes in neurological structures, metabolism suited to the cave climate, and others. Such characteristics are not found as part of the natural variation in the cavefish's close relatives at the surface, and these are not organisms manipulated by man.
It is also important to realize that what might seem to be "degenerative" changes to you, may likely help an organism in its particular environment - using the cavefish as an example:
They don't need eyes, so their loss of eyes means less energy expended during development. Also, it appears that the loss of the eye-related structures allowed evolutionary changes to the structure of the jaws of the fish, allowing them to be more efficient hunters... thus some "constructive" changes can only take place after "regressive" changes, making it unlikely that those constructive changes were a result of recreating previously existing structures.
The following link will take you to an abstract of a review article discussing both the "regressive" and "constructive" evolution in cavefish. Depending on your access point (library, campus) you may be able to access the full article:
Cavefish as a model system in evolutionary developmental biology - PubMed
Hopefully you found this helpful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sfripp, posted 07-08-2004 9:54 AM sfripp has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024