It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Dollo's law, which states that evolution is not reversible.
Originally posted by supertrot
I initially asked this question concerning information presented in this posting. This tread discusses the fact that grizzly bears split from polar bears four to five million years ago; but, polar bears are now cross-breeding with grizzlies, as they are pushed further south due to loss of habitat.
Considering the fact that it appears that these two species are evolving to a more primitive state, or devolving, my question is simple: If the earth has been in and out of ice ages and warming periods for millions of years, why is this trend not evident in the fossil records of millions of other species? I have no agenda (religious or otherwise). I just find it odd that organisms do not return to a former form as the earth reverts to a more primitive state. It appears to make too much sense that this should happen, for it not to have occurred over and over again in history.
There have been a few other threads started that are relative to this topic, but have had little response. The concept of backwards evolution, or devolution, seems to be a rather taboo subject in the biological world. This Wikipedia (I know...Wikipedia) discusses it some, but with no real answers. A very few species are cited that possibly did return to a less complex state, but nothing near as complex as a mammal. The article also mentions
Originally posted by supertrot
I initially asked this question concerning information presented in this posting. This tread discusses the fact that grizzly bears split from polar bears four to five million years ago; but, polar bears are now cross-breeding with grizzlies, as they are pushed further south due to loss of habitat.
Considering the fact that it appears that these two species are evolving to a more primitive state, or devolving, my question is simple:
Originally posted by supertrot
If the earth has been in and out of ice ages and warming periods for millions of years, why is this trend not evident in the fossil records of millions of other species?
Originally posted by supertrot
The concept of backwards evolution, or devolution, seems to be a rather taboo subject in the biological world.
Originally posted by supertrot
A very few species are cited that possibly did return to a less complex state, but nothing near as complex as a mammal.
Originally posted by supertrot
Dollo's law, which states that evolution is not reversible.
Originally posted by supertrot
The climate change that we are currently facing does not sound nearly as devastating as some of the impact, eruption, and ice age events that earth has experienced in the past. If these bears are reverting to a former state, what is so different this time, that we have not seen this before?
Ok so where are you going with this.......Is this another anti evolution thread in disguise?
The concept of backwards evolution, or devolution, seems to be a rather taboo subject in the biological world.
If evolution is true, then why would we still have the need for monkies or apes? Haven't we evolved past their requirement?
Originally posted by DOLCOTT
If evolution is true, then why would we still have the need for monkies or apes? Haven't we evolved past their requirement?
Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
Could we please refrain from using the term "de-evolution"? It is a term that doesn't make sense, unless you don't get evolution.edit on 30/7/12 by Thain Esh Kelch because: (no reason given)