Is there really such a thing a de-evolution?

Answer 1

Not really. Evolution is about change and doesn't actually say anything about direction or progress. We read that into it. If conditions change, then an advantage can turn into a disadvantage, so natural selection will favor a different direction.

Think about all of the Artic animals with white coats. The white coat is an advantage in the snow, so natural selection favors it and you get polar bears etc. If the climate warms up and there isn't as much snow, then a white bear is going to stick out rather than blend in. So natural selection will favor bears with darker coats. It might look like a reversal, but it's still evolution.

Humans probably won't ever lose our capacity for language -- too many advantages and more importantly, it's a highly adaptable tool -- but we could conceivably, given the right circumstances and a few million years, develop body fur or lose the upright posture or otherwise more closely resemble an ape. Again, that would be evolution, not de-evolution.

Answer 2

A common misconception about biological evolution (inherent in the colloquial use of the word) is that it means "progress" or "getting more complicated". That isn't the case, although it's often a side effect. Many organisms such as parasites start off as free-living creatures, but over time adapt to a host to such an extent that they lose many of their organs since the host does much of the work to keep the parasite alive.

Evolution is just an organism's way of tracking its environment, and if that means becoming less complicated over time to be successful, that's what will happen. Evolution cannot anticipate the future, or "evolve" something that has no current use.

Answer 3

In a way yes, I am thinking of creatures such as the flightless cormorants of the Galapagos islands, Ostriches , Rheas etc. These are obviously descended from birds that could fly. ( they still posses the remnants of wings, although they are now useless for locomotion) The mole has lost the use of its eyes, so has the bat virtually. These are not regressive steps, it is merely adapting to different circumstances. The skeletons of most whales still show vestiges of back legs, showing their land living ancestry.
MPV , very good answer, if a little curt. My above points prove evolution . For example the bat. God decides to create a flying mammal . So why give it eyes at all? they are virtually useless what's the point . ( They actually are vestiges from the time the bat's distance ancestors were ground living mammals )Why does an ostrich or emu have wings?
A man is rushed to hospital because his appendix is inflamed. The appendix is a useless thing , why is it there , God? No, it is a remnant from the time when mans's ancestors needed the organ to aid digestion of vegetable matter. Remove a rabbit's 'appendix' and it would die.

Answer 4

Never mind the a-scientific stick-head-in-the-sand-people answers which tell you evolution does not exist. Let them go back to their fantasy astrology books, or to their vision that the first time you have sex, you can't get pregnant.
The moment those same people have children, they will have contributed to evolution. Evolution is the survival (reproduction) of specimens. By definition, when someone reproduces, it's contributing to evolution, since the son/daugther has specific genes/properties of the parents. This in itself is already evolution. If evolution did not exist, then long people didn't get long children; they just got random length children. (We all know that's not the case: the longer the parents, the bigger the chance the child will be long too). So goes with thousands of other bodily properties.

Another example is: if i splat flies, the faster ones do survive, and have more chance to reproduce. This in itself is already a evolution: the next flies will fly faster, as they take the properties of the parents. If no people ever would hunt flies, they would fly slower. There are BILLIONS examples of this kind, all proving evolution.

Which way evolution went in the past (from ape like species to humans or not), isn't the question. It's just a fact that our old forefathers had different properties (by definition; if you believe any science, like genes, statistics, math, biology, physics, etc: every science mentioned has proved evolution). If they looked like some kind of monkeys or not, is not the question.

Evolution is a rather simple concept: every change given from father to son is already evolution.

Now onto your your question: de-evolution.
There's just no definition of it. If you'd say: 'it's a stop of evolution': if some specimin dies (without having reproduced), the evolution (of that specific line) stopped there. But it won't go in reverse. Whatever direction the evolution is going, it's still evolution, even if it goes 'back' compared with prior species.

Answer 5

No. Evolution is about survival of a population. It has no upward or downward direction, just survival.

And to the morons out there, evolution is FACT. The theory of evolution is the mechanism(s) behind that FACT, and the theory has mountains of evidence. There is no evidence at all for creationism.

Answer 6

no, but it is possible for evolution to go in reverse.. like a little monkey getting a little thicker hair because the temperature went down 10 degrees for thousands of years.. and then the temperature reverting.. so the monkey then would lose some hair

Answer 7

No.

Since evolution is based upon natural selection, it can only go forward.

This doesn't necessarily mean it gets 'better'. Natural selection has no emotion of personal bias. It is dependant on the pressures being applied to the genome.

Answer 8

if a miles less complicated form of a life form is standard by potential of a metamorphosis in enviroment--nature will prefer the variation that yields the main survivable offspring over the years. Evolution would not care what directon it is going in--it purely is the technique by potential of which lifeforms with the main favorable features have the better risk of survival.

Answer 9

There's no such thing as evolution, so how can there be de-evolution?

Eveloution has NEVER been proven scientifically, so how can there be proof of de-evolution?

I realize you just opened up a huge can of worms for debate, so BE READY for a ton of comments!!!!


Have a great day!

The answer about the monkey is called "Adaptation". It's NOT evolution!!!

Answer 10

there isn't anything such as evolution actually. darwin the truth be know came up with this as a joke and other scientists ran with it.