Something puzzling me regarding testing of evolution

[McHrozni]

There is no devolution in evolution.
Sometimes 'evolution' is confused with such things as greater complexity, or better, or more, or cleverer but that is erroneous.
A tapeworm got to be what it is by the same process as humans: it evolved.

Well, yes, but we're talking about the word "devolve", which can mean "to deteriorate gradually". It could be argued that the tapeworm deteriorated to a more primitive state through evolution. It's not the only possible interpretation - it became highly specialized for it's survival strategy is one which you'd undoubtedly like better - but it is one of the possible ways to put it.

McHrozni

 

[Sunstar]

What you have just said here is a complete oxymoron.

Correction, it was not that whales evolved from mammals, it was that they started out as fish and became semi mammals and then reverted back to fish.

How old are you? I am 30.

 

[John Jones]

there is no evidence that DNA is subject to a deteriorating process over time in bones. This totally conflicts with the idea that a certain configuration of chemicals makes a living organism.

No.

Strike two!

 

[schrodingasdawg]

Correction, it was not that whales evolved from mammals, it was that they started out as fish and became semi mammals and then reverted back to fish.

How old are you? I am 30.

Can I have your permission to quote this elsewhere?

 

[Trent Wray]

What you have just said here is a complete oxymoron.

Correction, it was not that whales evolved from mammals, it was that they started out as fish and became semi mammals and then reverted back to fish.

How old are you? I am 30.

Are you correcting yourself, or arguing with yourself?

 

[McHrozni]

Because as was said, and which i was half thinking of, maybe in the future we could isolate certain type of genetic codes to build organisms or even animals from them, and then track the evolutionary lineage more closely.

Hm, what would be the point of that? Evolution is at least as dependent on the environment as it is on genes. Under a different set of environmental circumstances evolution would almost certainly take an entirely different route. More critically, under an identical set of environmental circumstances it could still take a drastically different route than it did in many species, simply due to chance.

Factor in the fact that evolution of other species in the area is a significant environmental factor in itself and you have a wonderfully difficult way to plot evolution in the future.

Lastly, following the progress evolution and hoping to observe significant changes in anything that needs more than a few hours or perhaps days to grow is an exercise in futility, unless you plan it to be your family obsession for the next couple of centuries. Then you could use something that needs a few weeks to grow, I guess.

McHrozni

 

[John Jones]

Correction, it was not that whales evolved from mammals, it was that they started out as fish and became semi mammals and then reverted back to fish.

How old are you? I am 30.

Strike three!

Are you under the care of competent mental health professionals?

 

[Sunstar]

Can I have your permission to quote this elsewhere?

no.

 

[icerat]

Correction, it was not that whales evolved from mammals, it was that they started out as fish and became semi mammals and then reverted back to fish.

How old are you? I am 30.

Sunstar, whales are mammals, not fish.

 

[kerikiwi]

Your analysis is stubbornly biased. You say that devolution doesn't exist even though you put it in inverted commas as if you didn't understand what was meant by it in the first place. no, devolution is the opposite of evolution in terms of progress. Natural selection doesn't specify that species that are unfit die off immediately. Indeed, there is good reason to think that species do revert to primitive forms.

It is comforting to think that evolution proceeds in a linear fashion but it is simply not even true.

If you had read my post you would have seen that I said exactly that evolution does not imply 'improvement'.
I didn't analyse anything, I simply made factual statements.
Species which revert to primitive forms evolve. There is no devolution.

 

[kerikiwi]

What you have just said here is a complete oxymoron.

How?

 

[Trent Wray]

I hope it is understood that this creature you sometimes see in movies and CarrotTop's act is not real:

 

[Sunstar]

Hm, what would be the point of that? Evolution is at least as dependent on the environment as it is on genes. Under a different set of environmental circumstances evolution would almost certainly take an entirely different route. More critically, under an identical set of environmental circumstances it could still take a drastically different route than it did in many species, simply due to chance.

Factor in the fact that evolution of other species in the area is a significant environmental factor in itself and you have a wonderfully difficult way to plot evolution in the future.

Lastly, following the progress evolution and hoping to observe significant changes in anything that needs more than a few hours or perhaps days to grow is an exercise in futility, unless you plan it to be your family obsession for the next couple of centuries. Then you could use something that needs a few weeks to grow, I guess.

McHrozni

My only response to this is, maybe it is for me to know and for you to find out?

 

[kuroyume0161]

Correction, it was not that whales evolved from mammals, it was that they started out as fish and became semi mammals and then reverted back to fish.

How old are you? I am 30.

Hi, I'm 45 and you need some education.

Whales are mammals. They are AQUATIC MAMMALS, not fish. Fish is a class of animals just like mammals and they are separate classes. No mammal has ever evolved/devolved into a fish. Plenty of mammals (birds, reptiles, amphibians, dinosaurs, insects as well) have gone from being terrestrial to aquatic.

 

[McHrozni]

there is no evidence that DNA is subject to a deteriorating process over time in bones.

I assure you there is.

Here, take these 28,107 peer-reviewed articles on the topic for a start:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=42624b36d054db68a4e46eead0c15fc9

This totally conflicts with the idea that a certain configuration of chemicals makes a living organism.

Can we agree that a dead organism is not a living organism?

McHrozni

 

[kerikiwi]

Correction, it was not that whales evolved from mammals, it was that they started out as fish and became semi mammals and then reverted back to fish.

Whales are not fish.
They did not evolve from semi-mammals. They evolved from mammals and still are mammals.
Where did you learn your science?

 

[Sunstar]

Strike three!

Are you under the care of competent mental health professionals?

Ignored, and for good reason. Especially judging by your avatar picture. Strike ultimate!

 

[McHrozni]

My only response to this is, maybe it is for me to know and for you to find out?

Huh?

McHrozni

 

[Sunstar]

Hi, I'm 45 and you need some education.

Whales are mammals. They are AQUATIC MAMMALS, not fish. Fish is a class of animals just like mammals and they are separate classes. No mammal has ever evolved/devolved into a fish. Plenty of mammals (birds, reptiles, amphibians, dinosaurs, insects as well) have gone from being terrestrial to aquatic.

Yes, it did strike me as rather weird why someone would bring up fish. Nevertheless, it wasn't me. And i should think that even if it was me, that the whale devolved, so to speak, then there is no real misunderstanding here except by nit picking trawlers.

 

[McHrozni]

Yes, it did strike me as rather weird why someone would bring up fish. Nevertheless, it wasn't me. And i should think that even if it was me, that the whale devolved, so to speak, then there is no real misunderstanding here except by nit picking trawlers.

Except in the OP?

We know that once there were mammals that devolved back into fish and that fossil records are based on skeletons and not necessarily biological processes.

McHrozni