The Theory of Devolution

The foundation of molecular and quantum creationism and the theory of devolution are solid sciences. For example, the article, "Evolution myths: Natural selection leads to ever greater complexity" at newscientist.com says:

"natural selection often leads to ever greater simplicity."

"If you don't use it, you tend to lose it. Evolution often takes away rather than adding. For instance, cave fish lose their eyes, while parasites like tapeworms lose their guts.

"Such simplification might be much more widespread than realised. Some apparently primitive creatures are turning out to be the descendants of more complex creatures rather than their ancestors. For instance, it appears the ancestor of brainless starfish and sea urchins had a brain."

Personally, I'm very pleased that the theory of devolution is starting to look respectable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To whom?

How are these examples of "devolution"?
Evolving simplicity is not devolution.

Hardly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The theory of devolution agrees with Darwin that there are living things that reproduce with variation but says that all life is becoming less robust over time and is spiraling downward toward extinction and death, not upward to more glorious forms of life.

Obviously, the organisms that have that lost their brain have became less complicated and less fit to survive but have survived nevertheless.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think you're misinterpreting completely what evolution is.

Yes, you are misinterpreting.

"Devolution" is a fiction.

 

I'm not interpreting evolution. I'm defining devolution.

I believe that sensible persons will agree that organisms that have that lost their brain have became less complicated and probably less robust, which is the meaning of devolution.

 

There's nothing to define.

No it isn't the "meaning" of devolution, it is part of evolution.
"Less robust"?
Any evidence?

As per YOUR first post:

Note the word "myth".
Evolution can, and does, lead to simplification in some cases.
This is neither evidence for, nor support of, "devolution".

 

I'm googling but can't find an animal that has evolved to the point where their brains are no longer required. In some cases the brains have become smaller but total brain loss I cannot find an example of.

Computer chips are getting smaller and smaller yet contain more information than the preceding model. I think the oldest computer took up about 2000 sq ft and weighed 25-30 tons.

 

You are making some logical errors here. No life form become less fit in the context of it's environment. They might get simpler, but that is an adaptation that helps the species.

Life forms do go extinct, but that is not because they are "devolving", there are numerous reasons, but most probably because the environment changes somehow.

 

It's not obvious at all. These creatures lost their brains and cave fish lose their eyes because either:

(A) Those parts (like brains) have an intendent cost to them and by filling an ecological niche whether they are not needed, you can recognoze cost savings by eliminating these structures. In other words, within their environmental niche, the brainless verision of the animal is more efficient and therefore better able to outcomplete its competitition. They are more fit to survive.

(B) Even if costless (like unused eyes) genetic drift that damages the structure does zero harm to the rates of survivability of the species. Cave fish live in darkness, so having no vision is not a handicap atall even if it is not itself an advantage. Humans slowily losing our tail bones over time is the same thing. We don't need them and losing them does us no harm. In that case, they are just as fit to survive, and if they were not, nature would see to it that they did not.

 

Google for "Evolution myths: Natural selection leads to ever greater complexity" at newscientist.com.

 

I do not refer to fitness in terms of environment. I define the word fit to mean robust.

I have adopted this term from computer science and us it to mean well-designed and inherently stable, with numerous safeguards to prevent catastrophic failure.

I believe that all science, like the theory of devolution, must be given a mathematically precise definition. See David Hilbert's Philosophy of Physics.

If there is a scientifically acceptable definition for computer programs and electronic machines being robust, then the theory of devolution may be replaced with an equation that says, in the mathematical limit, all forms of life are becoming less and less robust over time.

 

In other words you're not using it the way it's used by everyone else in the field.

Except that there is no "theory of devolution" and it's not science.

And you'd be wrong on that too.

 

Natural selection might incidentally make life forms more robust, but that isn't always the case. Fitness in evolutionary terms does not mean adapted for a variety of conditions that may occur in the future. That is why many species go extinct.

 

It is never the case.

 

Wait a second, something makes some animals quite durable with respect to changing conditions. Look at the cockroach, the crocodile...

 

I'm using the term to favor computer science. I also assume that mechanical engineers would agree with the terminology.

Wouldn't that depend on an unquestionably irrefutable and authoritative definition of a scientific theory?

 

Proof of de-evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utyDw4rvli8

 

Biology is not computer science and "fit" doesn't mean "robust".

And another incorrect assumption.

No.
Devolution is not a theory, at best it's a hypothesis.
An unscientific one.

 

Biology is coded chemistry and I believe I'm free to define whatever fundamental principles I wish to characterize a theory of my own devising.

Again, wouldn't the conclusion be entirely definitional and depend on an unquestionably irrefutable definition of a scientific theory?

 

And no need to adhere to definitions already accepted and used?
Wow.
Gonna re-write all the current books so that they conform to your definition?
Oh wait, maybe you could use the existing terminology the way it's used by everyone else and introduce the concept that way.
E.g. use "robust" when you mean robust and "fit" when you mean fit.

Nope.
It would depend firstly on it being science.
And then it requires developing beyond "oh, I've had this weird idea" through hypothesis to end up as a theory.