I wanted to include this Darwin quote in my own @gbrooks9 “bucket”. Thanks for the assist!
Technically I suppose one could argue that all mammals, indeed all tetrapods, are subsets of fish, specifically bony as opposed to cartilaginous fish. But alas, the common usage and definition of the term “fish” is incorrigibly paraphyletic.
Thanks for the excellent overview of nested hierarchies and population divergence!
1 Like
George:
I do believe you are macro-devolving. Do you think you will soon be a Neanderthal man. Perhaps you will become some type of Blue Cheese man. Let me know when you finish devolving. You could be on Captain Picard’s ship when all on board were changing. I never saw the one with Janeway. Commander Riker became an ape and the Captain was becoming one of those little African monkeys. Have a nice evening.
You could use the word devolve.
“Devolve” and “Devolution” are crank terminologies for bogus concepts.
There is no up or down in Evolution. It’s all evolution. When a reptile population evolves into a snake population without legs, it’s real evolution.
When a land mammal population evolves into a whale population, and there are no more legs… the whale has still evolved.
@jpm
George:
Have a nice evening and do not eat too many bananas. I know how to use the English language as well as others. Remember, I am an English American. My forebears were Virginia Cavaliers. My seventh cousin, General Thomas Wynne, was a Democratic-Republican Congressman from NC from 1802 to 1807. George, are you a PhD? If so, what in? I remember several blogs back that you insulted my English. Can you tell me why you dislike me so? Every time we write you must insult me. Why? I have tried to be friendly to you.
First of all, my profile link is not @jpm; it is @gbrooks9.
This is the second time you have accused me of not liking you. This seems to be your default response when I object to something you ask of me. You ask me what I think of a man I’ve never heard of, but you don’t seem to know anything about him yourself. If you did, I would assume you would tell me what it is you think I would like about him.
You ask me if I have read your post, but you don’t quote a word from the post that would make finding the errant posting a piece of cake. There’s a way of making everyone happy to see you … and that’s to provide information and assistance. I do it constantly while here at this “spa” of an Evolutionary blog site! I provide images. I provide educational links (from sources that usually rhyme with “Splicka-Pedia” !!!
So… what does any of this have to do about your English? I’m not even going to try to figure out where that post is, mostly because it has nothing to do with the current conflict between us. It is a non-sequitur. Neither of my recent complaints have anything to do with your English. And I don’t need a Ph.D to be rendered helpless by your prodding me to respond to you - - even when you provide no help in trying to figure out what I’m supposed to research to answer you.
However, since you bring it up, my comments about your use of the word “devolve” was not a slam of your command of English. It was aimed at your flawed comprehension of Evolutionary science and the pseudo-scientific terminology you use to express it.
But perhaps you were just making a joke … using a term abused by YECs everywhere… and even by Dr. Behe. Since this is an evolutionary discussion blog… if you want to make well targeted humor, try making a joke about my being an orphan or something amusing like that. When you imply I’m devolving into a monkey, I can only imagine that you think that I think it could happen.
By the way, I am an English American too. I am a direct descendant of John Alden and his darling wife, Priscilla. I am also a descendant of Captain George Dennisson who was an officer in Cromwell’s Cavalary:
Fought at the battle of Marston Moor (March 2, 1644) and Battle of Naseby (June 14, 1645).
After defending God, the world, and the sceptered isle of Great Britain against the forces of religious coercion … he returned to America and settled in Mystic Seaport, Connecticut:
Denison Homestead and Museum, Mystic Seaport, Connecticut
This is apparently a genuine hand-engraved polaroid image from the 1600s preserved by the Museum.
Or, I suppose it could be a dreadful re-enactment… @beaglelady and @Christy, does she not have splendid foot wear?
1 Like
Oliver Cromwell’s real name was Oliver Williams, a relation to the Williams Wynn family of Gwydir Castle in Wales. On his mother’s side, he was a member of the House of Stewart. You see, I am a collateral descendant of Oliver Cromwell Williams. You apparently do not know what you have written earlier; however, I do. I have tried to hand the olive branch to you several times. Perhaps our personalities clash with each other. I asked my wife who is a scientist what she thought of my use of the verb devolve. She defined it and found nothing wrong with it. I also looked it up in the Merriam Webster and in several High German dictionaries. There was no disagreement with me. In any case, I wish God’s greatest blessings on you and will have no ill will against you. Perhaps we should stay on separate topics. Several generations of my family are named after Prince Charles Edward Stewart, the Young Pretender. In any case, we are getting off the subject although I find your history interesting.
Charles Edward Miller (Williams Wynn)
If I might interject here. Devolve is a perfectly fine word when used correctly. The problem comes when it is applied to evolution. None of the dictionaries I looked at applied it to biology. It is improper to apply the word to evolution as it is not possible for evolution to run in reverse. It is used by people who do not accept evolution as a way to make fun of the idea. Hence the strong reaction by some here when it is so used.
5 Likes
Yes, as in “discussions on this forum often devolve into petty bickering.” Not saying that applies to this thread. Yet.
4 Likes
@Bill_II, thank you. And thank you, @Christy , for providing a contrasting application.
How is it, my dear sir, that I actually spelled out the same position that @Bill_II posted, and you still didn’t get my meaning? You are on a site discussing Evolution! When you read the dictionary definitions, didn’t you sense that the meanings listed there did not include the specific definition of Evolution that pro-Evolution scientists on these boards actually insist on using?
Are you getting a sense of where my frustrations with you come from? Let me spell out the minutiae on this “devolve” issue - - because I have clearly been too optimistic to think you are familiar with the background of the controversy:
- Early evolutionists like to offer the general trope that evolution, over time, increases the complexity of life forms. This is an easy idea to promote, since it is a recurring theme as we follow life from single cell, to multi-cellular, to creatures composed of organs of tissues that have become highly specialized.
And mammals have gone from the small and seemingly simple (like mice and shrews) to the ever more complex predatory mammals, and then into the very complex behavioral suite of the non-human primates, ultimately terminating at the very royalty of complexity, humanity.
But this is just one trend, and it is not the defining characteristic of evolution in general.
When a Creationist asks how we define evolution, it is very basic: any change in a population’s gene pool - - yes, that’s right, Any!!!
Creationists counter-argue that Evolution only creates “Devolution”, insisting that all evolution that can be seen or tested leads to a loss of information, not a gain. And so evolution of humanity from less complex non-human primates is impossible.
Aside from the fact this ignores the role of God, it is also “bad science”. When a complex reptile “evolves” into a legless reptile, but can now use it’s entire body to rapidly traverse territory … is that really a net loss of information?
More convincing, perhaps, is the transition of strong finned mud-dwelling fish evolving into land-based creatures without gills … but with four robust limbs. Is that devolution? How do you know? Do you think there is some scoreboard that shows gills are more complex than legs with toes?
What about whales? They are mammals that went into the ocean… and they have replaced their limbs with fins. Is that devolution? Or is the whale’s ability to deep dive more than sufficient compensation in complexity?
Basically these are impossible to define by anyone’s measure (other than God’s I suppose). And so the word “devolution”, which is perfectly fine in popular discussion, is the hallmark of bogus evolutionary ideas promoted by Creationists.
Now, @Edward, you don’t have to agree with this conclusion. I can shrug my shoulders about whether devolve is legit or not for evolutionists. But the fact you still didn’t understand what I was explaining to you (that “evolve” in the scientific, instead of its popular, meaning) - - and that I was not criticizing your English.
I was criticizing your flawed science!
So… exactly how many times do I need to repeat this explanation before you understand what I’m actually describing? - - instead of your somewhat paranoid ideation that I hate you, and that all I want to do is criticize your general linguistic skills?
What you write seems to make for fine English. But what you are thinking while you write seems to be structurally flawed in terms of comprehension. Perhaps you would prefer that I got back to criticizing your English, instead of what I think are the more serious doubts regarding your ability to follow even the major points of an analytical discussion on higher-level cognitive skills?
1 Like
Most colloquial terms for groups of species are paraphyletic which poses problems for communicating the science of evolution and cladistics. For the non-scientists I have always suggested the Tree of Life Web Project which is a great visual way of introducing cladistics. The trees are constructed using the modern clade names, such as Gnathostomata for us jawed vertebrates. It has hyperlinks for some of the groups within the clade, and also a hyperlink below the tree for the containing group which allows the user to move up or down the tree as they see fit. Each page also contains in depth scientific content that will probably be beyond the grasp of the non-biologist, but it is still there if someone wants to really dig down into it. I think tolweb is also a great way of teaching home schoolers about scientific prefixes and suffixes which is a vital area of knowledge for any budding biologist.
Anyway, just thought I would plug tolweb since I find it such a great resource.
1 Like
Is your wife a biologist? Does her work involve evolution?
The reason that biologists don’t use the word “devolve” is that there is no such thing in evolution. As Bill says above, evolution can’t go backwards. Evolution can only go forwards. Also, there is no set direction to evolution. If selective pressures cause a species to lose an adaptation or change into a form more like its ancestors then that is just evolution. More importantly, evolution has no memory. There are no biological mechanisms that allow species to reconstruct the genomes that their ancestors had.
To use an analogy, if you are going on a trip you don’t detravel when you fly back home. You travel. Any direction you go you are travelling. The same for evolution. Any direction it goes is evolution, it is change over time.
5 Likes
Has anyone even “admitted” or “confessed” to be a Neo-Creationist on these BioLogos boards?
1 Like
“Retreat, hell! We’re just attacking in another direction.”
(US Marine General Oliver P. Smith, during the breakout from the Chosin Reservoir.)
1 Like
I must admit you are a tough debater. I do respect you, George. There will be no fight here. I would say that you have convinced me. You do contribute a lot here, and I appreciate that. God bless and take care.
1 Like
There will be no fighting here.
3 Likes
I appreciate your “likes,” George. God bless.
1 Like
Gods word is equally true when it is interpreted as non-literal.
1 Like