Theory of De-evolution!!!!!

True. However, I had a feeling that sfripp is one of those that doesn't really know what "kind" or "de-evolution" means. By asking him to tell us what he meant by those 2 terms, I was hoping to force him to deal with the fact that he was suggesting a topic he knows little about. Don't worry about it. What possible purpose could this serve, though? Unless you want to set out to demonstrate some lame theory that has no basis whatsoever, why even bother with the effort? I agree. Care to explain this a little further? I understand your intention. However, this is a bit off-topic, wouldn't you agree?

---

The Laminator

​

Don't worry.Have you ever had one of those dreams where you show up for work (or in my case, school) and realizes that you are completely naked? Brad's posts give me the same feeling as being naked.I'm sure there are many other people that have trouble deciphering his posts.The problem is he often comes and responds to a very narrow mini-topic within one of your posts in a very cryptic way that sends you chasing for the original message that he was responding to. I was lucky this time, because there wasn't much in my post that he could have responded to.

---

The Laminator

​

evidence for de-evolution:my high school football team. bunch of knuckle-dragging troglodytes.ok, now that the jokes over with, what's the difference exactly? evolution doesn't have a presrcibed direction, from simple to complex. it's more of a best fit situation. if simple fits the niche better, simple breeds more.

Yeah. Let's not forget that complexity continues to be the exception rather than the rule - the vast, vast majority of the Earth's biomass is now and has always been single-celled organisms. Complex metazoan life is just a tiny outlier on the distribution of life. The majority of organisms that have ever lived are extremely simple ones, so by any measure, they're by far the most successful.

i played around with a variant of dawkins biomorph program for a while once. i was suprised at how incredibly difficult it was to keep complex biomorphs.

Not only is it the vast majority of the mass, it can also be said to be the most successful as well.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

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

---

Complexity at a genetic level, or in apparent form?It is more than likely IMO that the fossil record has been redeposited many times over history due mainly to weather phenomina. That being the case, the geological record would certainly be out of wack dont you think. I must admit though, I do see the great flood(s)
having a lot to do with this.

quote:

---

Under thermodynamics it's actually inevitable that evolution occurs, so I'm not sure how you could get a better fit than that.

---

How so?

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't feel that the examples that have been documented are evidence of evolution. As far as devolution is concerned, I feel it is just as viable a theory as evolution given the possible uses of the evidence!
Beleiving that all species were created according to their individual (reproductively viable) "kinds", coupled with a young earth perspective doesn't, in my mind, leave much time for devolution much less evolution. My understanding of the second law of thermodynamics leads me to favour the prediction that organisms deteriorate "genetically" over time rather than becomeing more viable/complex. How would I distiquish between the two? If genetically compatible they can bred! If not, its a different species! The debate here is the mechanism. From my slant, origins are according to created kinds, then whatever happens happens.

Hey sfripp,You've used the term "kind" repeatedly in your rebuttal, but you still haven't given us a specific definition of "kind". Please supply a definition of "kind", as many have asked, in order to continue the discussion sensibly.You may also want to check out the fossil sorting and flood threads since you seem to have ideas about these things...Thanks.

there are still two questions that need to be answered before we can proceed. They are located at Message 3.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I must admit though, I do see the great flood(s)
having a lot to do with this.

---

Jumping the gun, aren't you? First you have to have conclusive evidence that a great flood occured before you can base hypotheses off of it. As of this time, a great flood has been falsified by the evidence, not supported by it. You might as well claim that the sedimentary layers were effected by a war with UFO's. If I claimed that UFO warfare made sense to me without any evidenciary support, what would you think of my claim?

quote:

---

My understanding of the second law of thermodynamics leads me to favour the prediction that organisms deteriorate "genetically" over time rather than becomeing more viable/complex.

---

Thermodynamics has nothing to do with the order of bases in a DNA molecule. The literal definition of "thermodynamics" is the movement of heat (thermo=heat, dynamo=movement). Thermodynamics deals with energy, not with the order of bases in DNA. The only time thermodynamics is applied in biology is in the chemical reactions that take place, such as metabolism and enzyme function. You might as well apply the theory of gravity and claim that biological complexity should deteriorate since orbits decay over time.If anything, evolution limits complexity. For instance, lets say that a population has 10 types of variants. Let's say that only 2 of those variants are well adapted after an ecological change. We will then go from 10 variants (complex) to 2 variants (less complex). It is this winnowing process that causes evolution in combination with the production of new variants through random mutation. The amount of complexity would be magnitudes higher without the effect of natural selection.

quote:

---

True. However, I had a feeling that sfripp is one of those that doesn't really know what "kind" or "de-evolution" means. By asking him to tell us what he meant by those 2 terms, I was hoping to force him to deal with the fact that he was suggesting a topic he knows little about.

---

Kind: A bunch of animals that are reproductively viable.De-evolution; degradation / loss of genetic information in species.You are quite correct! I know very little about what I have started, save a tiny bit of faith and an imagination, but you've gotta work with what you've got! Perhaps I can learn something from you, even in possible disagreement. I shall, however, try not to let my pride get in the way of a potentially better/different understanding of the Truth.Pleased to make your aquaintance Lam!Shaun

Some clarification, please:What do you mean exactly by "reproductively viable?"If two fish (or two snails, or two crickets, or two woodchucks) look absolutely identical but don't or can't interbreed, are they of different kind?Is "reproductive viability" the only qualification?

Since all genomes are apparently equally complex, I was speaking of apparent form. I would suggest it's not very controversial to assert that a garden snail is more complex than a bacillus. That's simply false. There's no "weather phenomina" that can sort fossils in the way that they are sorted. For instance, fossil ammonites are found sorted by the mathematical complexity of their shell sutures, not by size or boyancy. What on Earth could sort them that way except a gradual deposition over time, capturing in stone the evolution of shell suture over time? It certainly wouldn't be the well-sorted record we see today. Therefore we must necessarily conclude that no such flood has occured. Genetic replication is a chemical process, so it's inevitable (under thermodynamics) that mutation will occur. Mutations give rise to phenotypical change.It's a tautology that organisms are selected by their environment, for reasons that haven't fundamentally changed since Darwin's time. Mutations give rise to changes that, in some instances, are beneficial. Natural selection weeds out detrimental changes and keeps beneficial ones (which means the vast, vast majority of mutations are selected against.)The result is a ratchet effect - the persistence of beneficial mutations and the elimination of detrimental ones. All because of thermodynamics. Except for the "kinds" stuff, which doesn't make sense, there's no difference between "devolution" and "evolution", because evolution doesn't go up, it goes out. In other words evolution predicts not that all species will advance - they obviously haven't if you read my post about the majority of Earth's biomass - but rather that our heriarcheal taxa will encompass more individual species over time.In other words, evolution isn't described as a ladder, its described as a bush. Ok, well, we know that the Earth is significantly older than the "young Earth" timelines generally presented.Moreover we've observed the formation of new reproductively viable groups, which is a direct contradiction of your above hypothesis. Well, it's not clear that you have a correct understanding of the second law. Nothing in the second law prevents genetic changes that would increase viability, they're just not likely.It's natural selection that eliminates those detrimental changes and selects for beneficial changes. It's a ratchet effect. But we've observed the formation of new species many, many times. The mechanisms that lead to speciation are very well understood. To assert that all species are really created "kinds" is simply contrary to observation, because we observe new species all the time, and it doesn't take anything but reproductive isolation to create them. Certainly not a "creator."If your position is that no new species ever form on their own, well, not even the major creationist groups like Answers In Genesis cleave to such a view. It's simply not a tenable position with so many observations of new species formation.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-09-2004 05:35 PM

In other words, a reproductive community, aka "species."You might be interested in this page of observed instances of speciation: Observed Instances of SpeciationAlso be sure to read the introductory material as it discusses at length the precise nature of what it means to be a "species."

quote:

---

Since all genomes are apparently equally complex, I was speaking of apparent form. I would suggest it's not very controversial to assert that a garden snail is more complex than a bacillus.

---

Then you would consider complexity a matter of size?

quote:

---

That's simply false. There's no "weather phenomina" that can sort fossils in the way that they are sorted. For instance, fossil ammonites are found sorted by the mathematical complexity of their shell sutures, not by size or boyancy. What on Earth could sort them that way except a gradual deposition over time, capturing in stone the evolution of shell suture over time?

---

Consider that which is on top being washed downstream and that which is on the bottom then being deposited on top of the former! Very simple I know, but very possible gradually over time or quickly given the right events. Mathematical complexity? If parts of the supposed geological column have been re-deposited in the fashion which I have mentioned then you would indeed see more complex forms in higher levels of strata. As far as weather sorting is concerned, it does a good job on the sediments that make up the column.

quote:

---

Moreover we've observed the formation of new reproductively viable groups, which is a direct contradiction of your above hypothesis.

---

Really, do you have links that prove they are no longer reproductively viable with a member of the the species from which they diverged?