JudgeDracoAmunRa Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 A Proposal For A New Theory Called Devolution I propose a new theory called Devolution which re-interprets scriptural accounts of the fall of man. Premise: We're Devolving Not Evolving. When the Creator (let`s call him C) - some kind of crazy extra-terrestrial super-science geek, maybe - genetically engineered Adam and Eve as part of some science project called The Eden Terraforming Project, they were biologically perfect. In terms of today`s scientific understanding, they both posessed an uncorrupted genome which made them immune to death and disease. If this genome had remained intact, all of Adam and Eve`s offspring would have inherited this perfect genome. However, this perfect genome became corrupted by the actions of C`s opposer (let`s call him Anti-C - the villain in our story). This corruption of the genome deprived Adam and Eve of their immunity to death and disease. Worse than that the genome now was unable to replicate itself properly. As the familly of man developed, each subsequent generation inherited an increasingly more corrupted version of the human genome. Life-spans grew shorter, immunity to disease declined, and because the corruption was affecting the function of brain and body tissue, mental illnesses began to appear along with various forms of cancer. Unfortunately, when Anti-C did whatever it was he did to corrupt the genome, he did exactly the same thing to the perfect genomes of all other biological beings. Hence, re-interpreting the scriptures: when the serpent "tempted" Eve, her "sin" caused her to "fall" and she took all of Creation along with her. This is why the naked body was found to be "good" in the sight of God, and explains why Adam and Even hid themselves from God's sight and asked God for clothes when they realised their bodies were no longer the perfect form C had given them. As can be seen from the above explanation, humans and all other biological species are not currently evolving - they`re actually devolving. Has anyone got any comments, suggestions, whatever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Evidence? There's no such thing as biological devolution. The concept implies that there is a preferred direction for evolution and that change is moving against that direction. Devolution, de-evolution, or backward evolution is the notion that a species can change into a more "primitive" form. Biologically, the term is a misnomer for that concept because evolution has neither a teleological direction nor a motive, so it is difficult to speak meaningfully of its "reverse" at all. In simple terms, anything resembling "devolution" in that sense amounts to evolution of organisms into simpler forms. That confusion is based on two conceptual errors: the idea that evolution is supposed to make species more "advanced", as opposed to "primitive"; and the idea that some modern species that have lost functions or complexity accordingly must be degenerate forms of their ancestors. 1. Try to understand the terms you are using, otherwise you run the risk of promoting pseudoscience drivel.2. If you are going to post here, please look over our rules. Your unsupported and unverifiable fantasies do not constitute scientific discussion. If you wish to post fiction here, please do so outside of the science forums. Moontanman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclogite Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 I have several difficulties with your thesis JudgeDraco. For example, you use the term biologically perfect.I am quite unaware of the use of this term within biology, certainly within the last fifty years. Organisms may have a good fit for their current environment, but one can always identify improvements that would increase that fitness. Now you may respond, exactly so - and Adam and Eve were created with all the appropriate improvements. However, even if we grant that was the case I do not think you can call that biological perfection. You seem to define biologically perfect, at least in part, as immune to death and disease. An organism that was immune to death would be a biological dead end. Environments change: even if these engineered humans were perfect for their current environment, environments change. The 'perfection' is lost. They become progressively less fit. Evolution of organisms that have the good sense to die some time after reproducing don't have that difficulty. (By the way - how will these bioengineers make humans immunde to death if they fall off a 200m cliff?) JMJones has pointed out the serious error in your use of the word devolution. Devolution is what the Scot's are trying to practice in the UK - it has no place in biology. Your idea is so-so as a science fiction plot (though it is rather cliched), but as science it fails every test. However, if you are a teenager, then I applaud your imagination, but suggest you learn a little more of the basics. Then your imaginative ideas may actually find some purchase within science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudgeDracoAmunRa Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Evidence? There's no such thing as biological devolution. The concept implies that there is a preferred direction for evolution and that change is moving against that direction. 1. Try to understand the terms you are using, otherwise you run the risk of promoting pseudoscience drivel.2. If you are going to post here, please look over our rules. Your unsupported and unverifiable fantasies do not constitute scientific discussion. If you wish to post fiction here, please do so outside of the science forums. I do understand the terms I'm using, I really do. I think it's you who does not understand these terms. Which is why you think my nonsense is pseudo-science. Would you prefer the term de-gene-ration? I have read the rules here, and I do understand that this forum is for scientific discussion. Here, I'm discussing a new idea: devolution (which term you don't like) or de-gene-ration (let's see what you have to say about that term). I have to say, did Darwin get the same reaction I'm getting from you when he presented his Theory Of Evolution to the Christian world in which he lived? I bet someone there told him he was spouting unsupported and unverifiable fantasies, and told him to take his fiction elsewhere. Has my idea upset you perhaps because it gives some weight to Intelligent Design? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudgeDracoAmunRa Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 I have several difficulties with your thesis JudgeDraco. For example, you use the term biologically perfect.I am quite unaware of the use of this term within biology, certainly within the last fifty years. Organisms may have a good fit for their current environment, but one can always identify improvements that would increase that fitness. Now you may respond, exactly so - and Adam and Eve were created with all the appropriate improvements. However, even if we grant that was the case I do not think you can call that biological perfection. You seem to define biologically perfect, at least in part, as immune to death and disease. An organism that was immune to death would be a biological dead end. Environments change: even if these engineered humans were perfect for their current environment, environments change. The 'perfection' is lost. They become progressively less fit. Evolution of organisms that have the good sense to die some time after reproducing don't have that difficulty. (By the way - how will these bioengineers make humans immunde to death if they fall off a 200m cliff?) JMJones has pointed out the serious error in your use of the word devolution. Devolution is what the Scot's are trying to practice in the UK - it has no place in biology. Your idea is so-so as a science fiction plot (though it is rather cliched), but as science it fails every test. However, if you are a teenager, then I applaud your imagination, but suggest you learn a little more of the basics. Then your imaginative ideas may actually find some purchase within science. I take your point about my use of the word Devolution. I used it because it seemed to suggest the opposite of what evolution is about. I've suggested an alternative. What do you think? Got any suggestions yourself? What do I mean by biologically perfect? Simply this: that an organism's genome has reached a state of perfection that enables the organism's cells to replicate without any loss of information whatsoever. Our cells today lose information when they replicate. This is why our body ages, why are skin becomes non-elastic, why blood thins, why bones become brittle, why we become susceptible to diseases in old age that do not affect us when we're young. Biologically perfect organism would be immune to disease, but they would not be immune to death caused by extreme trauma to the body. Thanks for helping me see that. An organism immune to death would only be a biological dead-end if it could not reproduce. My theory acknowledges the fact that Adam and Eve could reproduce. Therefore, if the environment changed it would still be possible for the genome to mutate in the offspring, while still maintaining a state of biological perfection. Another idea that has occurred to me is that perhaps this genetic engineer, if he has the power to create a perfect organsim, may have the power to create a perfect environment. A bit like a gardener can create a perfect environment within a greenhouse in order for tomatoes to grow. Thanks for your input on this. It's been most helpful. Anybody got any other ideas, or comments, or criticisms? Your input would be appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 I take your point about my use of the word Devolution. I used it because it seemed to suggest the opposite of what evolution is about. I've suggested an alternative. What do you think? Got any suggestions yourself? What do I mean by biologically perfect? Simply this: that an organism's genome has reached a state of perfection that enables the organism's cells to replicate without any loss of information whatsoever. Our cells today lose information when they replicate. This is why our body ages, why are skin becomes non-elastic, why blood thins, why bones become brittle, why we become susceptible to diseases in old age that do not affect us when we're young. Biologically perfect organism would be immune to disease, but they would not be immune to death caused by extreme trauma to the body. Thanks for helping me see that. An organism immune to death would only be a biological dead-end if it could not reproduce. My theory acknowledges the fact that Adam and Eve could reproduce. Therefore, if the environment changed it would still be possible for the genome to mutate in the offspring, while still maintaining a state of biological perfection. Another idea that has occurred to me is that perhaps this genetic engineer, if he has the power to create a perfect organsim, may have the power to create a perfect environment. A bit like a gardener can create a perfect environment within a greenhouse in order for tomatoes to grow. Thanks for your input on this. It's been most helpful. Anybody got any other ideas, or comments, or criticisms? Your input would be appreciated. Criticisms? What you are asserting has no basis in reality what so ever, are you going to tell us about the evil Xenu that crashed space ships into volcanoes next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Hi! I deviate from the rest in here. Being no scientist, im more of a philosopher and science fiction reader then perhaps the others are. So I have decided to postpone any decisions yet about your scenario.Yours so far neutral reader: sV PS Why not equate "god" with something believed in in here ...say... our "universe"?Then you can use any written religious fantasy to support your story.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Evidence? There's no such thing as biological devolution. The concept implies that there is a preferred direction for evolution and that change is moving against that direction. 1. Try to understand the terms you are using, otherwise you run the risk of promoting pseudoscience drivel.2. If you are going to post here, please look over our rules. Your unsupported and unverifiable fantasies do not constitute scientific discussion. If you wish to post fiction here, please do so outside of the science forums. -Stephen Gould! You wrote that evolution would, were it repeated not produce the same result (humans) again... since its an axiom that: Evolution does not have a direction... sV agrees and disagrees: It depends on definitions... Were the procedure repeated hE thinks life would still occupy all unoccupied possible living areas: Euchariotic cells will appear in the sea...they will develope into swimmers ,the swimmers will develope into walkers, some walkers will develope into flyers. And some Z will develope into space travellers... And if that aint the human direction, then what is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Stephen Gould wrote that evolution would, were it repeated not produce the same result (humans) again... Which i think you agree on since its an axiom that: E does not have a direction... I agree and disagree: It depends on definitions... Were the procedure repeated I think life would still occupy all unoccupied possible living areas: Euchariotic cells will appear in the sea...they will develope into swimmers ,the swimmers will develope into walkers, some walkers will develope into flyers, some Z will develope into space travellers...And if that aint the human direction what is? You are correct, that is what Gould said and there is some reason to expect ecological niches to be filled but if you look closely you would see no reason to expect even Eukaryota much less complex life forms. of course it might depend on how far back you rewound the tape. One simple change would mean no animals with back bones, yes something similar might evolve from some other source but there is no reason to expect that. Rewind the tape and you might end up with a planet of arthropods or cephalopods or bacteria and nothing else or more likely Archaea. Evolution has no direction other than survival... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 You are correct, that is what Gould said and there is some reason to expect ecological niches to be filled but if you look closely you would see no reason to expect even Eukaryota much less complex life forms. of course it might depend on how far back you rewound the tape. c Evolution has no direction other than survival... Hi Moonshiner :) As always you makes sense! 1 Evolution is directed towards survival. 2 There is an order in filling ecological nietzsches. If there is one thing I expect another,etc etc... Thanks for your help with them obstinate details! But I have difficulties in imagining a non complex cell surviving in intergalactic space... PS I would like to hear your view on the origin of life, is this thread a proper place for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Hi Moonshiner :) As always you makes sense! I wish... 1 Evolution is directed towards survival. Yes but not of individuals if i understand the theory correctly but more of a way to propagate the genes of the group... 2 There is an order in filling ecological nietzsches. Not sure that is true, it's niches unless you were making a pun... If there is one thing I expect another,etc etc... Thanks for your help with them obstinate details! Not sure what you mean But I have difficulties in imagining a non complex cell surviving in intergalactic space... Some complex animals could, at least theoretically... PS I would like to hear your view on the origin of life, is this thread a proper place for it? No, probably not but I do have some fine info on that, make a new thread and we can talk... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudgeDracoAmunRa Posted January 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Criticisms? What you are asserting has no basis in reality what so ever, are you going to tell us about the evil Xenu that crashed space ships into volcanoes next? Actually, what I am asserting does have a basis in reality, so there. :P I have done enough research on this to know that I'm not barking up the wrong tree on this. :D Obviously, you don't know what I know. And if you keep that attitude up, you'll probably never know. :o One last thing to consider: you have absolutely no idea who I really am. I could be a specialist consultant to The Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics at Cornell University for all you know. :rolleyes: If you've got nothing constructive to say, please stay out of my thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 You're new here, so perhaps you haven't read our rules yet. I suggest you do so. Who you are is irrelevant. All that matters is the evidence that you present. You have presented no evidence. Moontanman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Actually, what I am asserting does have a basis in reality, so there. :P I have done enough research on this to know that I'm not barking up the wrong tree on this. :D Obviously, you don't know what I know. And if you keep that attitude up, you'll probably never know. :o One last thing to consider: you have absolutely no idea who I really am. I could be a specialist consultant to The Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics at Cornell University for all you know. :rolleyes: If you've got nothing constructive to say, please stay out of my thread. You could be lots of things, an alien from zeti reticuli, or just another fundamentalist theist. It really doesn't matter here, what matters is backing up your assertions with evidence... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Actually, what I am asserting does have a basis in reality, so there. :P Prove it... I have done enough research on this to know that I'm not barking up the wrong tree on this. :D Show evidence of this... Obviously, you don't know what I know. And if you keep that attitude up, you'll probably never know. :o My attitude is fine, your's is questionable... One last thing to consider: you have absolutely no idea who I really am. No one here cares who you are... I could be a specialist consultant to The Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics at Cornell University for all you know. :rolleyes: Could be... If you've got nothing constructive to say, please stay out of my thread. You first... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamela Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 A Proposal For A New Theory Called Devolution I propose a new theory called Devolution which re-interprets scriptural accounts of the fall of man. Premise: We're Devolving Not Evolving. When the Creator (let`s call him C) - some kind of crazy extra-terrestrial super-science geek, maybe - genetically engineered Adam and Eve as part of some science project called The Eden Terraforming Project, they were biologically perfect. In terms of today`s scientific understanding, they both posessed an uncorrupted genome which made them immune to death and disease. If this genome had remained intact, all of Adam and Eve`s offspring would have inherited this perfect genome. However, this perfect genome became corrupted by the actions of C`s opposer (let`s call him Anti-C - the villain in our story). This corruption of the genome deprived Adam and Eve of their immunity to death and disease. Worse than that the genome now was unable to replicate itself properly. As the familly of man developed, each subsequent generation inherited an increasingly more corrupted version of the human genome. Life-spans grew shorter, immunity to disease declined, and because the corruption was affecting the function of brain and body tissue, mental illnesses began to appear along with various forms of cancer. Unfortunately, when Anti-C did whatever it was he did to corrupt the genome, he did exactly the same thing to the perfect genomes of all other biological beings. Hence, re-interpreting the scriptures: when the serpent "tempted" Eve, her "sin" caused her to "fall" and she took all of Creation along with her. This is why the naked body was found to be "good" in the sight of God, and explains why Adam and Even hid themselves from God's sight and asked God for clothes when they realised their bodies were no longer the perfect form C had given them. As can be seen from the above explanation, humans and all other biological species are not currently evolving - they`re actually devolving. Has anyone got any comments, suggestions, whatever?my comment? this sounds like a scifi flick with religious undertones- you could produce it on an indie label but as far as science goes,this isn't gonna fly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamela Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 I do understand the terms I'm using, I really do. I think it's you who does not understand these terms. Which is why you think my nonsense is pseudo-science. Would you prefer the term de-gene-ration? I have read the rules here, and I do understand that this forum is for scientific discussion. Here, I'm discussing a new idea: devolution (which term you don't like) or de-gene-ration (let's see what you have to say about that term). I have to say, did Darwin get the same reaction I'm getting from you when he presented his Theory Of Evolution to the Christian world in which he lived? I bet someone there told him he was spouting unsupported and unverifiable fantasies, and told him to take his fiction elsewhere. Has my idea upset you perhaps because it gives some weight to Intelligent Design?Rules read or not, you are not proposing a viable scientific theory here.I see no weight given to ID;only your theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.