Theory of De-evolution!!!!!

quote:

---

In other words, a reproductive community, aka "species."

​

You might be interested in this page of observed instances of speciation:

---

sorry i didn't see this post
I have already been through those and IMO they are inconclusive, however If i remember there was one that nearly convinced me, but that was the one that led me to consider de-evolution. The genetic information from each species being summed by human persuasion....hmmm...I do believe that, originally those examples were singular species that developed weaknesses in specific areas of their code basically splitting their chromosome count into two apparent species, only to be coaxed into their original form(s) through cicumstance.With animals, this genetic behavior would indeed be interesting but is yet to be observed.If nothing, I have a healthy imagination!

"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."sfripp.You need to get out more, erotion and deposition do not happen like that. It is not "very possible" at all, in fact it is quite impossible. Go look at any hill or mountain with exposed layers of sediment. Now look at how it is being eroded. You will see streams and gullies, valleys and rivers cutting through those layers. In aluval deposits downstream those layers are all deposited together, and easily discernable as different from any or all of the layers that eroded above it.Biffster

Let's see if we can pin down some items like "that which is on top".What exactly is the stuff on top?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hey sfripp, I think we run the risk of getting offtopic with the flood stuff, so lets stick to the evolution/devolution thread for now.Welcome to the forum BTW!I can tell that you are a bit of a newb when it comes to science and evolutionary theory, and thats ok. I think folks here have a tendency to jump on folks who may be a little scientifically ignorant (easy prey as it were )Anyway...I just thought Id drop my two cents worth, maybe help you understand the TOE a little better.First off devolution is a flag that tells me you have a gross misconception of what Evolution is and/or does.Evolution does not move in any specific direction, it doesn't seek to be more complex, nor does it seek to be "better", evolution simply means change. Essentially, that creatures will change over time and that only those suited to the environment will survive. That simple, no more to it.So if suddenly there is a noxious gas in the atmosphere that prevents smart people from living, sure enough the dumb ones will take over Anyway, as to 'kinds', you gotta also realize this is a misconception as well. Ever heard of a liger or a tigon? Those are cross-breeds of tigers and lions, some of them are even reproductively sound (they can have kids), this is because life on earth does not adhere to any rigid genetic boundaries, rather it is a continuum.Think of a color spectrum, can you tell me where red ends and yellow begins?Life is the same way on earth. It is a spectrum of subtle changes over millions of different animals. Sometimes it is just as hard to tell where one species ends and another begins. So you see, 'kinds' is not a useful classification, and even the traditional Linean taxonomy has its limitations. In nature, the lines between different animals and species aren't clear at all.Just look at the thousands of dog breeds, or rodents, look how similar different species of mice are, some look almost identical! Can YOU tell where one mouse stops and another begins?Anyway, I hope my explanation helped some. I had a similar post around here with some nice pictures to illustrate the concept, but I forgot where Let me know.This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-10-2004 12:41 PM

In what way are they "inconclusive"? Every one of them is a confirmed instance of reproductive isolation leading to separate reproductive communities, aka new species, or new kinds by your definition. Chromosome count isn't the defining factor of species, nor is it a necessary precursor of reproductive isolation. Many species experience variable karyotypes without experiencing reproductive isolation, including (I believe) the common mouse.

Not really of size, but rather, of specialization.That's what makes your body different from (for instance) a sponge or a Volvox colony - you have specialized cell types operating in a sort of community, including cells devoted entirely to the purpose of reproduction. In a sense a metazoan body is an example of cellular colonial kin selection taken to an extreme. But that's not really here or there. No, you wouldn't. You'd see boyant organisms (like ammonites) at the top and dense ones (like turtles) at the bottom.(Is it possible, btw, that when I say "shell suture complexity" you don't really understand what I'm talking about?)You wouldn't see ammonites at the bottom, sorted not by size or boyancy but by the mathematical complexity of a pattern on their shells. It's ludicrous to expect weather processes to sort shells by what is essentially a paint job. That page I linked to has enough biographical information for you to establish that the conclusions of the scientists - that in each case, the new population was unable to interbreed with the old - are accurate.New, reproductively isolated populations are so commonplace that this is not in fact a controversial claim. A simple college-level biology text should be enough to substantiate this for you. Otherwise you can do a PubMed.org search for abstracts.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-11-2004 01:26 PM

And this simply doesn't make sense one way or the other.Could you explain in realtively simple terms what the heck your hypothesis is here? It sure seems unrelated to the issue of "kind" and "de-evolution," or even to evolution itself. Are you trying to confuse us with off-topic stuff or are you just a bit unclear in how you worded your post?

I am an arachnid hobbyist. I collect tarantulas and try to identify them for fun.Where do you put the borderline between "kinds"? The first one is a haplopelma lividum, better known as a blue cobalt tarantula. This one has a habit of running up your arm if you stick your hand into its enclosure. It spends most of its time deep underground. When I say most, I mean it will only come out of its burrow once every 3 months or so. Sometimes it gives you the feeling that you are caring for dirt. It is extremely aggressive and, as far as the people that I personally know, I'm the only one that have had the guts to actually pick one up.The second one is a haplopelma minax, better known as a thailand black tarantula. It is also very aggressive and fast. This particular tarantula is quite nice if you ever spend the time to get to know one. I still have not the guts to pick this one up with my naked hands.The 2 are scientifically classified as 2 completely different species, although they belong to the same genus. In fact, some breeders have successfully bred some hybrids that are reproductively viable, although the hybrids are really weird looking.Would you say that they are of different "kinds" or are they the same? According to your definition, do you know of any mechanism for "de-evolution"?

---

The Laminator

​

You forgot to clarify what exactly you mean with "kind" and with "de-evolution." Particularly as your post indicates that you don't really know what Evolution is, either.

quote:

---

It is more than likely IMO that the fossil record has been redeposited many times over history due mainly to weather phenomina.

---

Is that more than likely? When fossils folllow a regular patter throughout the world in terms of appearance and disappearance, and given that each fossil is found in a rather confined spot? Or is this redeposition done with whole fossils only, not disturbing the individual arrangement of fossilized bones, so they always appear perfectly together, yet are moved all over the place (while still being maintained in their individual strata)? Your claim simply doesn't make sense. You will have to do a LOT more work in clarifying and proving this claim to make sense. Because immediately, it looks like your claim is outright nonsense, given what we DO know about the fossil location. So can you clarify this?

quote:

---

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?

---

Huh? In the first place, what claim are you making WRT the Laws of Thermodynamics, natural laws dealing with the flow of energy? Are you sure that your claims are within the parameters of these laws? (Because creationists have been known to make nonsense claims and to outright lie about this issue.) Can you clarify, please, to enhance your credibility?

quote:

---

I don't feel that the examples that have been documented are evidence of evolution.

---

Really? SO what would have to be found for it to be "evolution"? Exactly WHAT definition are you using for "evolution" (Since it obviously is not the one that Science is using)?

quote:

---

As far as devolution is concerned,

---

We still don't know what you mean with this term. You need to explain it.

quote:

---

I feel it is just as viable a theory as evolution given the possible uses of the evidence!

---

You can "FEEL" all sorts of things. However, what you feel doesn't carry much weight here. What you can SHOW and PROVE does.Now, The SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF EVOLUTION is a Scientific Theory, whioch means that it is derived through the exploration by the Scientific Method. For your unspecified claim to be found as "viable," it would also have been explored through the Scientific Method. Now, I have never seen a "Scientific Theory of deevolution," so perhaps you could state it for us for clarification and give examples of scientific evaluations of this theory?Because you DO know what a "Scientific Theory" is, don't you?And then what do you mean with "the possible uses of the evidence!"? Are you talking about the evidence currently incorporated in the Scientific Theory of Evolution? Because THAT evidence HAS been evaluated to fit best inbto the Scientific Theory of Evolution. Either you have NEW data that shows a better fit in your new mystery theory, which may or may not be a Scientific Theory, or you are making claims about the current data that simply isn't valid. Which one is it?

quote:

---

Beleiving that all species were created according to their individual (reproductively viable) "kinds",..

---

Hmm, what is a "kind"? You certainly use this term a lot, and seem to have it being an integral part of your claims, so of course you can describe it in great specificity, right? Otherwise your arguments hinge on something you don't even know what is, which would make you instantly look like a troll with dishonest arguments.So I am with great anticipation awaiting your detailed explanatoion of what a "kind" is, including liberal use of examples. That's nice of you, please do so at the earliest possible time.And "reproductively viable kind," is that another word for "species"? Because certainly, speciation HAS been directly observed and documented many times.Given that you said that the current evidence wasn't sufficient, you MUST be aware of the evidence of speciation (Otherwise, you would be making your claim without knowledge of the evidence that you claimed was insufficient, which would be dishonest, and you are not bearing false witness, I am sure), and as such, I am curious about this claim of "reproductively viable kind." Please elaborate.

quote:

---

coupled with a young earth perspective..

---

"perspective"? You mean bias? Bias in disregard of the young earth fantasy having been flat out disproven?

quote:

---

..doesn't, in my mind, leave much time for devolution much less evolution.

---

There is that use of that word again. What is devolution? And are you saying that evolution has never been observed? How much "time" are you under the misconception that is needed for actual evolution to occur?

quote:

---

My understanding of the second law of thermodynamics..

---

Hmm, you have shown little understanding of evolution. Should we expect you to have better understanding of the 2LoT, a favorite red herring of the creationists, and a sure indicator of their (1) ignorance of science, (2) ignorance of thermodynamics, and (3)ignorance of energy. So what **IS ** your "understanding of the 2LoT?

quote:

---

.. leads me to favour the prediction that organisms deteriorate "genetically" over time rather than becomeing more viable/complex...

---

That certainly does NOT have anything to do with the 2LOT which is a natural law about ENERGY, and which operates in a closed energy system, one which does not have energy infusion from the outside, f.ex. from a nearby sun. So exactly HOW does your use of the 2LoT operate here? And how is it evidence of anything with evolution, which is merely a change in organisms over time, and NOT an issue of caloric energy flow?

quote:

---

How would I distiquish between the two? If genetically compatible they can bred! If not, its a different species!

---

Ah, so are you saying that "kind" is the same as "species"? In that case, all creationist arguments of all times have just been disproven. The creationist use of "kind" doesn't work if it is at the Species-level. SO please clarify here. Are you actually using science in your arguemnts here, or is it merely "proof" through wishful thinking and "because I say so" psotulations? Your claims are so inconsistent with each other and with reality that you need a much better definition of how you are using all these terms.

quote:

---

The debate here is the mechanism. From my slant, origins are according to created kinds, then whatever happens happens.

---

Given that you can't even tell us what a "kind" is, it merely seems like dishonest nonsense. I hope you can disavow us of that impression?

quote:

---

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

---

Yes. See the tread about ring-species.

quote:

---

quote:

---

In other words, a reproductive community, aka "species."
You might be interested in this page of observed instances of speciation:

---

sorry i didn't see this post
I have already been through those and IMO they are inconclusive,

---

Really? How are ring-species inconclusive?(Yes, you said you had been through the talk.origin site, which includes ring-species. If not, then you were lying, so you MUST be aware of ring-species. How are they inconclusive?)

quote:

---

If nothing, I have a healthy imagination!

---

Unfortunately, that seems to be ALL that you have. Where are your facts?

bump.Think this guy was a hit and run shame...

They are always hit-and-run. They have been told by their minister that there is no evidence for evolution, and thus come here boldly and smugly making that same claim, because why would their minister lie to them.Then it turns out that there is lots of evidence and it turns out that they are challenged on their claims and have to actually make a real argument based on facts.So they get angry and defiant, and then run away, hoping that we merely think they got busy elsewhere rather than ran off as a another creationist coward

I don't think so. He was too polite. I think he's just a guy that posts infrequently. He'll be back, I suspect. Let's not trash him just yet, huh?

quote:

---

The 2 are scientifically classified as 2 completely different species, although they belong to the same genus. In fact, some breeders have successfully bred some hybrids that are reproductively viable, although the hybrids are really weird looking.
Would you say that they are of different "kinds" or are they the same?

---

If they are genetically capable of breeding then that is the definition of "kind" to me anywat