sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Why does the timeline of evolution seem to point to ever-increasing complexity. Are there instances of it going the other way with organisms becoming simpler?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
De-evolution?
- Thread starter sandy whitelinger
- Start date
Bishadi
Active Member
Sure! Fundamentalists get simpler and simpler every year!
or better said, the religions will be extinct once the evolution of knowledge reaches it's pinnacle; mass comprehending its existence and being capable of making choices, perfect with natures reality.
Then mankind can return to the garden (God) and know exactly what choices to make.
The you will be able to answer that question;
Are there instances of it going the other way with organisms becoming simpler?
as then the lies of beliefs will not put our species on so many tangents..... (them structures of belief systems will be extinct)
to our species; the simplicity comes from knowledge equal to all mankind
It doesn't. At least, not when you look at life as a whole.
Early in the history of life, the vast majority of living things (both in terms of numbers/volume of organisms and number of species) were simple organisms like bacteria.
Today, the vast majority of living things (both in terms of numbers/volume of organisms and number of species) are simple organisms like bacteria.
If you look at all of life on a distribution graph in terms of complexity, you'll see that the mode is and has always been at the "simple" end. However, a right tail on that graph has emerged with time... and we tend to put a fair bit of thought into that tail, because it's where you find us and most of the species that we emotionally and psychologically "connect with" live.
Stephen Jay Gould explored this idea of development of complexity in life in his last book, Full House. If you're serious about learning more about the topic, I suggest you check it out.
In his book, he notes that the complexity of life has a "left wall" but no "right wall": there's no apparent maximum limit to how complex an organism can be, but an organism has to have a certain minimum complexity just to function. Even if life doesn't have any particular tendency or drive towards greater complexity, or even if it's got a tendency to get less complex, we'll still see that tail - and with it, the average - expand rightward over time, because that minimum limit on complexity means that the graph isn't free to expand leftward.
Yes. There are many examples, but one that comes immediately to mind are parasites: many species that adopted parasitic lifestyles have become less and less complex as they stop relying on their own systems to produce things that they can now ingest from a host.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Organisms evolve, either in complexity or simplicity, according to many factors. Including, but not limited to, mutation, environment and necessity. Not all are successful.
I´ll agree with 9/10ths.
While, naturally enough, more complex organisms were made possible with the passage of time, there is arguably no pointed movement towards such complex organisms. In fact, I doubt such a movement could be even sustainable; the more complex an organism, the more it relies on simpler organisms in various ways.
While, naturally enough, more complex organisms were made possible with the passage of time, there is arguably no pointed movement towards such complex organisms. In fact, I doubt such a movement could be even sustainable; the more complex an organism, the more it relies on simpler organisms in various ways.
3.14
Well-Known Member
for humans it would not be an improvement to revert to single cellulair life (unless we want to travel outside our solar systeem) but most animals and plants don't do it because of the so called arms race
if a plant gets thorns a herbivor would benifit from a stronger tong now if the herbivor were to revert to a soft tong again it would starve (thus not passing its gene's) so animals might de-evolve but they just don't survive de-evolving long enoug to realy tell the diffrence
if a plant gets thorns a herbivor would benifit from a stronger tong now if the herbivor were to revert to a soft tong again it would starve (thus not passing its gene's) so animals might de-evolve but they just don't survive de-evolving long enoug to realy tell the diffrence
De-evolution? When did we walk into the set to the Super Mario Bros. movie? ()
Joking aside, evolution doesn't necessarily mean going from less complex organisms to more complex organisms. It's simply change based on environment.
If you want an example of animals that kinda "reversed" their evolution, look at dolphins, whales, and porpoises. They were land-based mammals that took to the water. I would not be surprised to come back in a couple million years and find these creatures able to breath water again.
()Joking aside, evolution doesn't necessarily mean going from less complex organisms to more complex organisms. It's simply change based on environment.
If you want an example of animals that kinda "reversed" their evolution, look at dolphins, whales, and porpoises. They were land-based mammals that took to the water. I would not be surprised to come back in a couple million years and find these creatures able to breath water again.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I'm confused. If there are only examples of 'micro-evolution', as you call it, then there isn't any indication of complexity increasing or decreasing whatsover. So which is it?
Alceste
Vagabond
The dolphins in the ganges have eyes, but are blind. This means evolution gave them ocular "complexity", then took it away when they moved into permanently muddy water. Lots of organisms living in lightless or murky environments show the same or similar effects.
I'm sure some of the resident experts in biology (painted wolf?) can add many more examples.
Even the largest animal on earth, the blue whale, has little useless leg-bones remaining from the time it spent evolving on land.
So, either the theory of evolution explains and predicts these developments accurately, or a Creator god intentionally gave blind eyes to dolphins and useless leg bones to whales. Take your pick.
I'm sure some of the resident experts in biology (painted wolf?) can add many more examples.
Even the largest animal on earth, the blue whale, has little useless leg-bones remaining from the time it spent evolving on land.
So, either the theory of evolution explains and predicts these developments accurately, or a Creator god intentionally gave blind eyes to dolphins and useless leg bones to whales. Take your pick.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
That is not an example of de-evolution. They still have all the genes to make eyes and whatnot, they are just switched off.
It is a classic example of typical adaptive evolution.
Evolution is unidirectional... once a feature has been evolved it can never be fully lost. Traces will remain in the genetic code. Birds still have genes for teeth and long tails.
One has to be careful with how you define "simple" and "complex".
Parasites loose many of the body systems that their free living ancestors had, such as a full digestive tract. But they are no more 'simple' than their ancestors. They still have the genetic code to make the no longer needed organs, but they are no longer functional as they are no longer needed.
Likewise some bacteria are amazingly good at snipping out parts of their genetic code that no longer serve any purpose. This also helps them keep viral DNA out of themselves.
We don't have that ability... so who is to say who is more 'complex'?
wa:do
It is a classic example of typical adaptive evolution.
Evolution is unidirectional... once a feature has been evolved it can never be fully lost. Traces will remain in the genetic code. Birds still have genes for teeth and long tails.
One has to be careful with how you define "simple" and "complex".
Parasites loose many of the body systems that their free living ancestors had, such as a full digestive tract. But they are no more 'simple' than their ancestors. They still have the genetic code to make the no longer needed organs, but they are no longer functional as they are no longer needed.
Likewise some bacteria are amazingly good at snipping out parts of their genetic code that no longer serve any purpose. This also helps them keep viral DNA out of themselves.
We don't have that ability... so who is to say who is more 'complex'?
wa:do
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Devolution (biological fallacy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is no such thing as de-evolution. It's a commonly held mistaken view.
wa:do
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Yes there are.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Now, now.Sure! Fundamentalists get simpler and simpler every year!
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Whatever.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Thanks.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Isn't it amazing that there are situations that organisms can face where evolving toward a more simple body plan is advantageous.
It's a perfect example of why "complex" and "advanced" don't go hand in hand when talking about evolutionary biology.
wa:do
It's a perfect example of why "complex" and "advanced" don't go hand in hand when talking about evolutionary biology.
wa:do
logician
Well-Known Member
"
Why does the timeline of evolution seem to point to ever-increasing complexity. Are there instances of it going the other way with organisms becoming simpler?"
Life went for a half a billion years in the unicellular mode - do you call that a "trend" towards complexity.
Why does the timeline of evolution seem to point to ever-increasing complexity. Are there instances of it going the other way with organisms becoming simpler?"
Life went for a half a billion years in the unicellular mode - do you call that a "trend" towards complexity.