Talk:Devolution (biology)

message: This article in its current state seems to fail to grasp one of the main propositions of evolution. That is that there is no such thing as progress in evolution. Organisms adapt via natural selection to suit their environment. This is not progression but adaption. Therefore to argue that regression is a contrary view is nonsensical. Majts 04:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your edits for being redundant and at times erroneous (man is not an ape), but I reinserted part of your opening paragraph back in, as it was somewhat useful. The first thing the article said was that there is no such thing as "progress", so I don't see how the article failed to grasp that. I'm still looking for a better title by the way (the "(biology)" really should go) but I haven't thought of a good one yet. Any suggestions? -R. fiend 11:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest "Devolution (fallacy)" If it is agreed that progress and regression are nothing to do with evolution then how exactly does "devolution" differ from evolution. Surely that means devolution=evolution and there is nothing more to say.  I suggest that you also have a look at the  article ape as it will give you some more info on the fact that man is in fact by definition a member of its great family. Arguing against this is like contending that we are also not mammals  Majts 14:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your suggestion and have moved the article. As for the human/ape question, I have to look into it a bit more. This seems to be a newer classification. Though scientifically humans should be classified as apes, I don't think it means that they are universally accepted to be so. Since "ape" is not a scientific term as Hominoidea is, it is defined by laymen as much as by scientists. If people have used the word "ape" for hundreds of years to mean tailless simians excluding humans, scientific taxonomy cannot change that overnight and have it universally accepted. The OED (1991), for instance, defines ape as "A member of the Simiadae, having no tail or cheek pouches; including the gorilla, chimpanzee, orang-utan, and gibbons." No mention of humans. Certainly when most people talk about apes, they do not mean to include humans. It is a question of language as much of as science, as far as I can tell (and I think the ape article should address that better). As such I think that debate should be kept out of this article, though a slight rephrasing of the paragraph in question might be in order, as it contradicts the statement that humans are apes. I'll look into it a bit more. -R. fiend 20:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow - I never realised it was a point of contention nowadays that mankind is a member of the ape family. Oh well maybe it will take a few more years for the language to catch up with the science ;) Your move prompted me to be bold and rewrite the article.  I have also removed the Vonnegut reference because I couldn't see the relevance as Vonnegut didn't even use the term. Majts 21:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem regarding humans to be great apes, apes, primates, mammals, tetrapods, animals, organic life forms, &c.  allixpeeke (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress in evolution

message: The effects of systematic and methodological persecution are factors which might cause devolution in any organism;  that is why "Methodological operations (m. o.)" are considered to be criminological study material with regard to human beings.
Persecution causes mental retardation, mental illness, and atrophy of muscles and bones even when diet is optimum.
Beadtot 10/19/2005  00:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure the effects of persecution do cause physical and mental effects, but that would not qualify as "devolution", however it maybe defined, as it has no bearing on biological inheritance --Majts 01:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This talk page is for discussing the article and not for original research.  If you can cite sources that birthmarks are somehow related to misconceptions of evolutionary theory, then please add to the article. --Majts 11:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: As the article is solely about "misconceptions of evolutionary theory", which you are seemingly not referring to, then you are surely on the wrong talk page.  If you have evidence that birthmarks pose some difficulty to evolutionary theory, then maybe you should address these concerns within the evolution article. Incidently vestigal organs are also mentioned in that article. Majts 06:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  effects of persecution 

message: This section of the article is fascinating:
:As with other modern sciences, biology is based on a methodological assumption of philosophical naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. In contrast, Creationism and Intelligent design are based on Teleology in seeking to prove the existence of an organizing principle behind natural laws and phenomena. Proponents use the Teleological argument for the existence of God, and seek to displace evolution as the central organizing concept in biology. 
I think the text quoted above should be given a more prominent position at Wikipedia, perhaps in the creation-evolution controversy article. Uncle Ed 17:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it: should be "Some proponents" to allow for the evolutionary creationists....dave souza 19:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Central organizing principle

message: Un-disambiguated titles need a disamb hdr; EG United States. Disambiguated titled DO NOT need a disamb hdr; EG note that all articles (at least that I checked) at United States (disambiguation) DO NOT have disamb hdrs, because they are hard to reach if you are looking for the content at the un-disambiguated title (I don't see any reason for The United States of America (band) to have a disamb hdr to The Presidents of the United States of America--people ending up at the former are highly unlikely to be looking for the latter)(I believe a review of the links at Sarah (disambiguation) will show the same results). 24.17.48.241 08:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. My feeling was that some people would come to this and wonder what the correct meaning is, which is better dealt with by a link in the text. ....dave souza: talk 11:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree with User:Apostrophe--Devolution (fallacy) doesn't need disamb hdr to Devolution 

message: I suggest the name be changed. Other older theories that are not supported anymore aren't labeled fallacy, such as Geocentric model. I suggest Devolution (genetics) or Backward evolution, the term used by Uner Tan. While heliocentrism isn't argued for anymore Backward evolution is, whether they are right or wrong, its POV to label it a fallacy. It would be like labeling religions as fallacies. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: support (genetics) is more descriptive of what is meant with the term. The fallacy is but a minor technicality that is currently over emphasized. --Zero g 17:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Support—I would prefer devolution (biology) over devolution (fallacy) for the reasons described by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) on 29 November.  allixpeeke (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: " Opponents of evolution use the teleological argument for the existence of God, and seek to displace evolution as the central organizing concept in biology. "
-- Ok... where in all that is reasonable and historically accurate is someone getting this? Creation has been believed for 6,000 years. The concept of Evolution isn't even a century old yet. Evolution is trying to diprove Creation, not the other way around. In fact, even after Evolution was established, Creation was still taught in the public schools as fact until the 1960's. Geez, Mankind IS devolving. Colonel Marksman 04:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know who wrote the above comment, but I wish to point out to her or him that Colonel Marksman isn’t saying that creationism is real.  Whether Colonel Marksman believes in creationism cannot be ascertained from the above comments.  Rather, it would appear that Colonel Marksman is simply making the point that, since evolutionary theory came after the conjecture of theological creationism, it might be more appropriate to say that the theory of evolution aims to dismantle faith in creationism, as opposed to the other way around.  I am not saying I agree with Colonel Marksman’s point, only that this is what Colonel Marksman’s position seems to be.  In contrast to Colonel Marksman, I’d say that both evolutionary theory and the conjecture of creationism jostle to position themselves as the standard understanding of how complex creatures came to be, and my subjective POV is that evolutionary theory is correct.  In any event, it can be objectively said that, regardless of whether it or correct or not, there is nothing scientific about theological creationism; as far as science goes, our only options are the theory of evolution (which is agnostic on matters of theology) and the hypothesis of intelligent design (which, unlike creationism, holds that evolution is real, but like theological creationism, asserts a positive theistic reality).  The unsigned commentator above asserts that creationism is trying to disprove evolution, and while I agree with her or him that creationism is, unlike intelligent design, in strict opposition to the theory of evolution, I believe she or he gives creationism too much credit when she or he writes “is trying to disprove.”  Creationism, unlike the theory of evolution and the hypothesis of intelligent design, is built entirely upon faith, upon fideism, and therefore has no capacity to even attempt to “prove” or “disprove” anything; all a creationist can do is assert her or his worldview and hope others will concur.  allixpeeke (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: AHEM?

message: I know the "science fiction" and "as a metaphor" sections were disputed as irrelevant, but is there anything wrong with having a section where examples are seen of "devolution" (as in, backwards evolution) being specifically referenced in pop culture?
I know of two already:
* The movie adaptation of Super Mario Bros., in which devolution is used as a means of punishment by King Koopa, turning the humanoid creatures of his world back into their primitive states (Goombas).  In another part of the movie, he uses a "Devo gun" to turn a human into a monkey.
* The American band Devo, which is named after the concept of devolution.
There could be others, so why not make a general section for this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stapler 9 42 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also the episode Genesis of Star Trek, in which devolution is caused by a virus. Mindmatrix 01:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with the above that a ==Devolution in popular culture== section would be appropriate.  allixpeeke (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The references above still weren't on the main page, though some less notable ones were, so I went ahead and copied them over more or less intact.  I wouldn't be surprised if that section needs some pruning now though.  Maybe there should be an entry for Idiocracy too, though I didn't add it yet. DKEdwards (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture references 

message: I assume we here are talking about regressive evolution, the reduction or total loss of a trait (a non-functional character), within a lineage over time? Or more than one trait for that matter. Like the eyes in cave species or the wings on the kiwi. Must not be confused with pedomorphosis, where traits from the embryonic or juvenile stage (who often but not always reflects an organism's evolutionary history) is kept in the mature individual as well, even if this phenomena can cause some characteristics to degenerate over time, which is what regressive evolution is really about. Personally, I think the article could be a little clearer. 193.217.195.160 12:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regressive evolution

message: I suggest that the Great_chain_of_being be added to the "See also" section, as this model of the universe underlies devolution (albeit via a misconception of TGCOB).  I'd normally just add it myself, but as this article appears to be rather controversial, I'll leave it to the regulars.  Asat 02:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem - I'm not a regular on this particular article, but I'll add it. Richard001 22:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Chain 

message: Are Devo (the music group) really opponents of evolution theory? They certainly are pop-lyricists... and having seen their videos they also promote the idea that irresponsible handling of radioactive materials contributes to devolution (ie. pouring nuclear waste into water near a town and saluting a nuclear blast). They are evolutionists coming to pop-terms with some of the terrors of civilization. 
I also suggest a pop section; Devo would be more appropriate there. This article uses the term as describing an absolute end, or direction and as if the term is specifically a battle term between Biologists and Creationists. However, the term can be used synonymously with degeneration, which is not so ludicrous. Not to be terribly redundant, but references from sources other than Creationists would be appreciated. Perhaps such references are difficult to come by because the term is most used by Creationists. My point is that Devo's popular use of the term is not relevant to the bulk of this article. Therefore it might be good to include such additional uses of the term.  - Steve3849 talk 01:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding section: Use of the term by opponents of evolution AND propose popular section

message: It is neither a scientific term, nor should be masqueraded as such. the term you mean to serch for is dysgenics. devolution is a socio-political term for the regionalization and de-federalization of a government.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.145.173 (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had bothered to actually read the article before vandalising it, you'd have seen this in the header:"From a biological perspective, devolution does not exist."Moreover, the article explicitly deals with the biological fallacies with which the term is often associated. There is no "masquerade" here.  --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 11:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All caps is shouting, please don't do it, you'll get a better reaction, I promise. ornis (t) 11:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow I can't believe I'm responding to this 15 years later, but the original response to this contention is inadequate.  Many, perhaps most, people searching for "devolution" may have no interest or even awareness in the creationist beliefs about the term, and may actually be interested in dysgenics, and simply don't know what the proper term for that is. Even the disclaimer that "from a biological perspective, devolution does not exist" doesn't address that problem, it doesn't help those people who are actually interested in researching dysgenics and found themselves on this page by accident.  I'll thus be adding a reference to the wikipedia dysgenics entry. Davea0511 (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is an egregious mendacity 

message: First some history
Here's the original before a vfd: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_devolution&oldid=25019380
Here's my re-write all of two years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_devolution&oldid=25226082
This article was imo rightly up for a vfd over two years ago. However I spent a small amount of time rewriting it, and with consensus renaming it. However two years later the article is renamed back to the original - this is why it got vfd'd in the first place. There is no such thing as "biological devolution". Wikipedia is currently calling it "biological" and then in the opening paragraph saying from a biological perspective - it doesn't exist! It would be like me creating an article called "Chemical Alchemy", i.e. turning stuff into gold (by the way it doesn't exist) 
So therefore I suggest renaming the article back to "Devolution (fallacy)" (any better suggestions will be welcome) and because of this reverting back 2 years. 
So options are
1. rename or not rename?
2. revert article to 2yr old version?
3. Incorporate changes of the last 2 years with consensus & rename? 
4. Leave it as it is? = option 5 (see below)
5. vfd
I would prefer option 1 & 3, but as this isn't a hot topic (hell, I haven't even been here for two years and I rewrote the bloody thing :-) 
I'll give it a month before making major changes. Any comments will be welcome before then. (Majts 21:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit late getting back to you here, but I agree with moving it. I'm not sure if there was a discussion about moving it to this title, but I couldn't find one. Moving it back might be best. I'll have to look at content changes over the past few years to see if anything needs to be addressed, but the title seems to be the issue here, no? I'm open to better title suggestions as well, but "biological" was the initial problem and should be removed. -R. fiend (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to go ahead and move it. -R. fiend (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for a rewrite, revert & rename ?

message: This term was originally coined by Douglas Besharove, of the American Enterprise Institute, to describe an effect of the crack baby epidemic. However, I think this term, although it is made-up and has virtually no scientific basis, describes a broader notion. This could encompass any number of phenomena, some of which really do exist. So I think it deserves to be mentioned, regardless of its actual truth value, and it seems to relate to this subject. I could be very wrong, but please give me your thoughts on this. Thomasiscool (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bio-Underclass 

message: It seems this entire article is written on the premise that devolution assumes evolution, in general, means progress. From all sources I've seen (and even in my own discussions) devolution is used more to describe the lack of (or opposite of) /positive/ adaptation. Devolution doesn't include the loss of wisdom teeth, for example, as that's a positive adaptation (we don't need wisdom teeth) with no harmful impact on the species.
The main thing devolution is used in argument for is our ever decreasing intelligence. Idiocracy and "Korn - Evolution" both cover this concept quite clearly. In this case, the loss of intelligence is harmful adaptation (hence devolution). Of course one can argue whether or not the loss of intelligence is harmful, but I'd like to know how it isn't.
I find this whole article insulting to the concept, and extremely biased. Comparing the devolution concept (which is improperly defined in this article) with Intelligent Design supporters seems to be more bashing of the concept than relevant. E.g. "This concept is so stupid even IDers believe in it".  (71.215.218.220 (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the hand waving, do you have specific proposals for improvements, verifiable from reliable sources? .. dave souza, talk 22:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current sources of this article do fit the wiki standards. However, my argument was that the current article works on an invalid definition of devolution (the same thing goes for source Num 1). I mentioned this in hopes other people would be made aware, and thus search for sources. I currently do not have the time or interest beyond informing you of the mistake made. You seem to insinuate that, because I'm not rewriting it myself, what I said was less valid. (71.215.218.220 (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The "wisdom teeth" and "intelligence" examples do not demonstrate different types of events. A species' situation may cause the growth of wisdom teeth to be an unnecessary expenditure of resources, or the teeth may obstruct the chewing of a new type of food, and so the species may evolve to have smaller or no wisdom teeth. Likewise, a species' situation may cause the large metabolic, developmental, and nutritive costs of a certain type of intelligence to become an unnecessary expenditure of resources, or an environment's hazards may make the large amount of play/experimentation/mental occupation that is necessary to sustain an intelligent organism to be an unfavorable cost to pay for any benefits intelligence may bring, and so that species may evolve to have less intelligence. An individual organism may "like" its own wisdom teeth or the idea of wisdom teeth, but that doesn't mean that its species "devolves" by losing them. Likewise, an individual organism may "like" its own intelligence or the idea of an intelligent species, but that doesn't mean that its species "devolves" by losing intelligence. --Raphite1 (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  If I may correct... 

message: Hasn't anyone coined "devolution" in a more scientifically correct way as a form of 'successfully divergent evolution' i.e. a form of evolution divergent from success or overall well being of the said thing evolved, out of circumstance or outside influence to environment or such? 4.242.192.145 (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A form of [[divergent evolution]]? 

message: Surely this is not the proper word to use in this instance: "To a biologist, describing the biological evolutionary process as goal-oriented would seem as ludicrous as a physicist claiming that the ultimate goal of gravity is to keep the Earth in its present orbit." "Unsubstantiated" is not the same thing as "ludicrous." Any biologist that believes the notion of evolution existing for some purpose is incongruous and/or ridiculous - or any physicist that believes that the notion of gravity existing to keep the Earth in orbit is incongruous and/or ridiculous - needs to consult a philosopher.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.155.229 (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, it's not sufficiently NPOV. I removed the sentence in question and cleaned up some of the other misconceptions. --Armchair info guy (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ludicrous? 

message: I don't think "Reverse evolution" should redirect to this page. The term "reverse evolution" is used in current scientific literature to say that the genotype of a population is returned to the ancestral state. This is most commonly used in experimental evolution, and it works thanks to the short and long term evolutionary memory which is stored in the population. It can be quite confusing for someone who just read a published paper on reverse evolution to end up in this page, and they could be misinformed. Maxorz (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverse evolution 

message: Fitness is fitness: the ability to jump higher, run faster, know more, sense more...  it is not to do with 'complexity'.
The article is in convolutions and bias about this issue.
eg. If mankind has lost the gene to produce Vitamin C because our lineage once had a fruit diet, and now does not, surely we can count this loss function as devolution when we now are short Vitamin C!
And I put it to you: mankind did not lose this function from eating an all fruit diet.  We lost it through inbred overpopulating devolution like we have lost everything else that much of the animal kingdom takes for granted.
And don't tell me mankind's technology makes man a fit animal.  We are a super-ganging behavior which conveys the illusion of capacity.  A chimp too can fire a gun, go to school, undertake farming, or pick up and use a camera.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.184.90 (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry mate, but you should do your homework before sounding off and removing all doubt about your competence. You don't know what fitness means in terms of evolutionary theory. You need to be careful about using technical terms that resemble normal English. What would you think of a layman who confused the size of a barn with the interaction cross-section of a nuclear particle? Or the inertia of a mass with laziness? As for the mechanisms of selective costs, humans, many other primates, and guinea pigs, escaped the consequences of the inability to produce gulonolactone oxidase because they absorbed far more vitamin C from their plant-rich diet than they needed. Any animal that eats too little Vitamin C will die if it lacks any of the enzymes in the synthetic chain of reactions. As for chimps, I have never known one to write an argument like your one about fitness, but of course, perhaps you know different? And incidentally, what would any of your points have to do with devolution if they had happened to be meaningful? That is what this article is about, you know?  JonRichfield (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demolition of functionality is not fitness.... 

message: Someone wrote:
:However, more recently, the term has been used to describe the idea that humans are evolving to have less desirable characteristics (such as low intelligence). This is a correct use of the term unless the speaker is under the impression that evolution could actually work in reverse.
Someone else rv'd it saying "need a reference". That was true of course, but it was not enough. In terms of Darwinian theory the statement as it stands (stood!) is meaningless and incoherent. If a statement makes no sense an editor is quite correct to remove it, giving appropriate reasons of course (or, if it seems worthwhile to salvage something useful from the text, to edit it appropriately). I make this remark in case anyone interested should think that tacking a ref onto such a paragraph would justify its inclusion in the article. I for one would revert it, ref and all. JonRichfield (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs are not always sufficient

message: Supposedly, "Sanford has published two peer reviewed papers modeling genetic entropy."  One of the two articles referenced is available for free online (must be a super reputable journal), and it is in the special issue of a computer science journal.  As far as I can tell, the peer review staff weren't biologists but computer scientists and the article was published because it demonstrates how a particular type of programming in which the journal is interested could be applied to data modeling in biology.  The soundness of his biological conclusions aren't even the point of his article, much less the reason it was accepted.  From the title of the other article, the same situation seems to be in place.24.171.121.177 (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sanford articles

message: I see that someone has been editing boldly. Very boldly. There could be rough waters ahead. All the same, maybe we biologists have been insufficiently bold in this article lately. I am forced to agree that there is a rational basis for demanding that a topic such as devolution, discussed in a branch of science, such as biology, be discussed in terms of scientific principles, which the creationism (ID, whatever) section certainly was not; it was barely discussed coherently. But we also must be cautious in aggression, and we must bear in mind that we are discussing a concept (devolution) that is only meaningful in constrained contexts; biology as it stands could do without the concept entirely -- the main reasons for discussion are: 
1) To explain why it is merely a vague sideline of evolutionary theory at best
2) To explain why the irrelevant and unsound concepts that have been riding on it or confused with it are no part of biology as she is spoke for the last century plus. 
This places severe constraints on what we may fairly and reasonably say within the article. In particular we must be sure that we do not confuse trenchancy with cogency. Bandying terms like "science" sounds great, until one realises how great a responsibility it places on the author and editor. 
It also becomes important to point out to any creationists who argue that we are stifling them and depriving readers of their pearls of wisdom and faith, that they are perfectly welcome to publish what they want as long as :
*they adhere to the various WP requirements
*they confine their topics to articles into which they fit, articles that they are welcome to write, subject to the foregoing point. For example, evolutionary biology does not deal with non-scientific or counter-factual material except when it is necessary to refute direct claims, and that is only necessary outside articles dealing with coherent biological material. 
Any thoughts, anyone?  JonRichfield (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yess, but that doesn't explain this edit. Why do you prefer "However, according to the definition of evolution, and particularly of "Darwinian" or "neo-Darwinian" evolutionary adaptation, phenomena represented as instances of devolution are in every sense evolutionary." to "However, modern evolutionary theory does not support this concept of direction, and phenomena represented as instances of devolution are in every sense evolutionary."? Have you had a look at our article on Darwinism, a much abused term? The modern theory of evolution has no part for "devolution" or "descending the scale of nature". Charles Darwin himself was a bit ambivalent on this point, and gave more credence to progression in evolution (as our article correctly states). If by "Darwinism" you mean natural selection, please reword the article to say that. . . dave souza, talk 18:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Having waited a day, I've now done that to improve the lead. More improvements are of course desirable or even necessary. By the way, I was prompted by Larry Moran's comments on how MET isn't "Darwinism" even though creationists keep misusing that term. . . dave souza, talk 20:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I wasn't on tap all the time; I really must schedule my activities more considerately. Your prompt response however has been a bit confusing in its apparent implications; are you under the impression that I am in any way any sort of creationist? If not, why did you ask about whether I have read about that "much abused term"? That it is a much used term is I trust undisputed, but what exactly do you have in mind as abuse? In your link Larry Moran wrote a nice column, but his personal definitions of what counts as Darwinism and what doesn't are not cogent and are not highly pertinent to this article, nor in fact to his. One point that your edit de-emphasised was the fact that devolution was not a necessary, nor even a distinct, concept in Darwin's day, and has not become any more so at any time since. The fact that in his day Darwin was still mulling over the validity of certain principles does not imply anything more than that concerning "devolution". The rather shrill passages in the WP article on Darwinism include some interesting historical points, but they have nothing to do with the validity of the term "Darwinism", particularly in preferred modern usage. The fact that scientific illiterates use the term as abuse is about as relevant as that some (often the same ones) use "Einsteinian" as abuse, more often than not with no clear understanding even of Newtonian physics, never mind relativity. If we migrated to the term MET, how long do you suppose it would take for such persons to follow, abuse and all? It is altogether reasonable and practical to use "Darwinism" as a term of convenience when we refer to the modern view of systematic changes in population constitution in response to selection and similar pressures, but to refer to more views as "Neo-Darwinism" (specifically in the light of developments and discoveries since what Julian Huxley described as the "Modern Synthesis") also is reasonable and practical. The term "evolution" is just as much a term of abuse among the unregenerately ineducable as (neo-)Darwinism, so that doesn't help, and in any event, "evolution" does not technically mean the same as Darwinism. neo or not, as I hope you are well and specifically aware. (If you are not, you have no business in this discussion.) We have no single word that covers all aspects of what I have just described as Darwinism or Neodarwinism (certainly "evolution" doesn't, not even in combination as MET as yet). Maybe it is time that we coined a completely new word. MET rather lacks something, don't you think? How about MACPOC (Modern adaptive change in population... etc I am sure someone can provide something pronounceable that doesn't offend anyone by mentioning Darwin.) Must run again. Maybe just as well... JonRichfield (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In Wikipedia terms, evolution covers the modern theory, which some call MET. As to What is Darwinism?, I go along with Mayr's definition that the term "has numerous meanings depending on who has used the term and at what period". Thus Huxley coined the term and was a leading Darwinian "without being convinced that natural selection was the chief driving force of change" (Bowler p. 218). In contrast, as Mayr says, neo-Darwinism was a term coined by Romanes in 1896 to designate "Darwinism without an inheritance of acquired characters". In other words, August Weismann's doctrine, which discarded Darwin's concept of "use and disuse inheritance", but predated genetics. My understanding is that, more recently, both terms have been used for the modern synthesis, and specifically for views giving primacy to natural selection, but Darwinism remains in use (particularly among creationists) as a term for evolution in general. Rather confusing, which is why I tend to go along with Olivia Judson. So, keep it simple and call it evolution or evolution by natural selection, whichever is most appropriate. As for this article, it would be good to tighten the creationist section without removing it altogether. A more pressing question is whether we include Buffon's proto-evolutionary idea of degeneration from an ideal, a concept from a time when evolution just meant unrolling. . . dave souza, talk 17:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Biology as science and creationism as science

message: I would like to point out that very few children are had by intelligent people compared to their intelligence.
Einstein, Hawking, etc. should be having women line up at their door to have their children.
In fact it is the poor illiterate that have many children and don't use contraception.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.230.113 (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of "fittest" having enough children 

message: Substituted at 21:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: While deevolution is to be considered psuedoscience in terms of this article, discussion of fetal alcohol syndrome - and how its negative effects may have spurred Bénédict Morel to put forward the idea of deevolution and social degradation - may help provide context towards why such beliefs were so strongly considered plausible in the late 19th century. The theory itself was wrong, but the theory had evidence (for an entirely different condition) and I think that should be mentioned so as to provide proper context for the theory in the article's history section. I was going to add a reference to FAS myself, but I hesitated to do so to avoid the possibility of violating Wikipedia's policy on original research. Perhaps a more experienced editor than myself could help add to the article in the appropriate manner. 50.45.222.110 (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

message: Crossopterygians are not teleosts, so I didn't think deleting "other" would be controversial. Grassynoel (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody thought they were, actually. But not a justification for edit-warring at any time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other" teleosts 

message: DEVO the band from Ohio, is not mentioned or referenced in the Wikipedia section for Devolution. 2601:646:300:2EEA:C5A3:6BEC:F1F0:5885 (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devolution w/o DEVO