100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Devolution (Ain't no such thing.) | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
"Fittest" has various meaning relating to man but only one outside of man's influence. And I take it that from your POV, that one meaning is: "Fittest" outside of man's influence is simply which offspring are strong, smart, lucky, and healthy enough to bring in another generation. This is evolution. Its perfectly understandable that you would embrace a the concept of devolution, given your concept of 'fittest'. Your collective statements here are not spoken from the point of view of the modern scientific theory of evolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The earth and science seems to have a ying to the yang in everything.....and all is possible......maybe global warming is a de-evolution for the dinosaur age to become again and maybe different species of man will de-evolutionize back into neandrathal man hence the Mayan change in 2012....the earth degree changes towards warmth and de-evolutionary change Thank you for illustrating the misunderstandings that can arise when people use the term 'devolution'. It is possible (if terribly unlikely) that we could evolve to have qualities more like Neanderthals than modern day humans... If this were to happen, this would be evolution. Ummmm that was de-humor.........LOL.....geesh scientists can't get a laugh outta nunya  Thanks at least someone in this room still has a funny bone........ |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
metalwing
on
Wed 01/12/11 04:42 PM
|
  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know considering that evolution is always a process of change seeking out the best suited life forms to live on in a given environment deevolution really is not possible. Evolving to a reverted state IS more likely possible and plausible. What would happen to us if say we had a new Ice Age that went on for 100,000 years? Our written history loosely begins where the Ice Age ended. We may develop features more attuned to a colder environment and become more Neanderthal like. That is not to say Homo Sapien would revert to Neanderthal in as much as physically imitating one. Neanderthals were remarkably adapted to cold weather survival. Then again it is possible for Humans to revert to a more Feral state. Aborigines are arguable a more feral human. Then again Chimpanzees could very well act like our fore fathers did too. Stripped of our tools we would revert to a more animalistic way of living. But a change "backwards" can be a change for the best if it means the species surviving a catastrophic change in environment. Written history begins quite a long time after the last MAJOR glacial period--by at least 6,000 years. The Egyptians and Sumerians were the first to invent writing circa 2,500-2,000 BCE: the glacial age ended about 12,500 to 10,000 years ago. We would not become "feral" if another glacial age began: our tools and ability to move around the globe are much superior to our ancestors' abilities. In addition, the last major glacial period began roughly about 110,000 years ago. The date for the emergence of Homo Sapien is given anywhere from 250,000 to 100,000 years ago (depending upon which research you read). Regardless, modern humans lived through the last glacial period and did not develop Neanderthal tendencies: there is no reason why they would do so in another major glacial period! Species do not make rapid evolutionary changes to adapt to catastrophic changes in the environment: it is why there have been series of extinctions on the planet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree that by a basic understanding of what evolution is ... a term directly related to "natural sellection" ... then devolution would basically be the term for "non natural sellection" ... No, not at all. We have other terms for selective pressure thats caused by humans, such as 'breeding'. It doesn't matter whether the selective pressure originates from human or non-human sources - the proper biological term for the consequence is 'evolution', never 'devolution'. I see it as useful for humans, sometimes, to discriminate between non-human selective pressure and human-motivated selective pressure. The process of evolution makes no such distinction, and biologists sometimes use the phrase 'natural selection' to include 'breeding' and other effects of human actions. If you think this is a misnomer, I somewhat agree. Now the only good argument against its existance {devolution] would be that ... human tinkering is natural in itself ... Of course humans influence evolution; if you want to specify 'human influenced evolution' there are better ways than using a misleading and incorrect term like 'devolution'. Evolution is blind. Evolution does not select for any person's concept of what fittest ought to mean. Evolution only selects for the qualities that favor propagation of those genes in that particular circumstance. Therefore, the whole idea of an evolution/devolution dichotomy makes no sense whatsoever, and encourages people to wrongly think that evolution has a direction. The process of evolution doesn't care whether selective pressure originates from humans or not. Edit: To (redundantly) clarify: Its the assumption of 'moving in a direction' which underlies the typical evolution/devolution dichotomy that makes no sense. I do agree with both of you that discriminating between human-caused and not-human-caused evolution is sometimes helpful. woopdy doo ... you agree with something. as for ... outright no ... to devolution ... if we can make it a word we can give it a meaning if you don't like the meaning to fn bad. if someone finds a way to deconstruct the evolutionary chain and move back along it ... then that will be devolution ... not evolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
woopdy doo ... you agree with something. How courteous of you. as for ... outright no ... to devolution ... if we can make it a word we can give it a meaning As Wux already pointed out, the word can be useful, accurate, and meaningful in other contexts. if you don't like the meaning to fn bad. Its not a question of my preferences, its a question of working with an accurate representation of the modern theory of evolution - something which is rarely done in public discourse with non-biologists. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Fittest" has various meaning relating to man but only one outside of man's influence. And I take it that from your POV, that one meaning is: "Fittest" outside of man's influence is simply which offspring are strong, smart, lucky, and healthy enough to bring in another generation. This is evolution. Its perfectly understandable that you would embrace a the concept of devolution, given your concept of 'fittest'. Your collective statements here are not spoken from the point of view of the modern scientific theory of evolution. Ha Ha. No. What I am trying to convey is a more modern concept of modern evolution plus human factors as an "un-natural" element. In many ways, mankind acts more like a disease on the planet, or a cancer. It's effects are simply too detrimental to fall into the "fit" or "fittest" category. You are trying to cram everything into the classical definition. Once, a while back, you made the comment that once someone has taken a position, it is difficult to see other points of view. You appear to have that problem now. Because you do not see what I am trying to convey does not make my position "wrong". Modern evolution has changed dramatically over the past decades. The concept of rapid change has taken over the old vision of "slow gradual change". Climate, asteroids, disease, radiation, and volcanoes have set up situations where species changed rapidly, by comparison. Mankind is a whole different ballgame. You want to talk "classical" evolution. I am talking "modern" evolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In many ways, mankind acts more like a disease on the planet, or a cancer. I understand that this is central to your thought process in this thread. It's effects are simply too detrimental to fall into the "fit" or "fittest" category. As you wish. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In many ways, mankind acts more like a disease on the planet, or a cancer. I understand that this is central to your thought process in this thread. It's effects are simply too detrimental to fall into the "fit" or "fittest" category. As you wish. It didn't get much press but recently, the plant genome was broken for the known plant world. There is currently a major revision of the family tree because biologists had placed many many plants in the wrong category based on what they thought were inherited traits and similarities. Of course the genome tells the story of actual kinship and evolution. Western China has one of the most bio-diverse areas in the world and was recently declared so by the UN. A rhododendron in the low areas had offspring who were "fitter" than the parent by having thicker, smaller leaves (who could withstand higher altitudes) so the offspring were able to live a little higher up the mountain. This survival of the "fittest" continued until rhododendrons with tiny 1/4 inch leaves and tiny plant bodies could live high on the mountain while the fifteen inch leaf versions still live at the base. Evolution continued to produce over 400 species of rhododendrons in this region while only about forty others exist worldwide. The Chinese are in the process of converting the area to human use. |
|
|
|
|
