Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devolution (biology)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Redwolf24 00:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Devolution (biology)

This is factually incorrect, it is not even an opposing view to evolution, a google search [1] shows only results regarding using the term in a branding type strategy and this wikipdia article. The fact that it is devoid of scientific merit is not even required since it's not a real opposition view. cohesion | talk 05:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Scientific merit is not required, not being original research is. --fvw* 06:31, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• delete as OR. Even Devo's satirical philosophies made more sense than this. Brighterorange 18:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it's a pointless article, there is no proof of this in the Bible or elsewhere. Chakatzodiac 06:04, June 13 2008 (UTC)
• This is interesting, as I've heard this term used before, but not necessarily in relation to biblical theory. It's been used to describe what happens to humans in the Vonnegut novel Galapagos, for example (in which humans de-evolve", basically into dolphins). It's not a valid scientific term because even evolution in which species "regress" to "lower" or more "primitive" states is still evolution (just like "reverse racism" is still racism). It's more theoretical than anything, I guess. I'm going to go with a tentative keep and cleanup. "Devolution" gets more than a million google hits, and I'm certainly not going to look through them all to see what's relevent and what isn't; nor am I sure on the best ways to limit a google search in this way. My father is an evolutionary biologist, so maybe I'll ask him if he's come across the word informally, next time I talk to him. i think this needs some more discussion. -R. fiend 23:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• tentative keep but it needs a lot of work. The concept of devolution from a creationist perspective is incoherent with regard to evolution. Since evolution has no direction devolution is nonsensical so I agree with R. fiend above in this regard. Nevertheless, if it is a term used commonly by creationist then it should probably be included in the encylopedia. Devolution is also a political term. When Scotland was discussing the option with regard to getting a new parliament devolution was the buzzword at the time. David D. 08:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that devolution with regard to politics is already a page. I disagree strongly with this page being called devolution (biology). This implies that biologists use this term, they don't. Is it possible to move it to a page called devolution (religion)? Or something similar? David D. 08:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I was sort of under the impression that it wasn't used so much by creationists, as they don't believe in evolution in either "direction", but more by people who don't fully understand evolution, and see it linearly, or as sort of a colloquial verbal shortcut to describe evolution that runs counter to the common perception of how it usually works. I'll try to look into this some more. (And we really should have a Galapagos (novel) article.) I do agree that the "biology" should be replaced with another word in the title. As I indicated, probably not "religion" though. -R. fiend 13:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not familiar with all creationism but your point is well taken that they believe in life being created 'as is'. I have seen arguments in creationism for high rates of mutation after the fall of Adam. I was wondering if they use devolution to describe this steady decline in fitness from the perfect creation to the a mutatted mess. As we know creationists believe all mutations have a detrimental effect. In this argument creationists can acknowledge mutations do exist in a population even if they ignore the nested hierarchy. Basically from a creationist perspective I have no idea how they use the term. talk origins may have an answer David D. 13:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I checked talk origins and they barely mention it in the whole archive: Darwinism is a theory of outcomes, and does not insist on progress. Species are seen as lineages that do whatever they do, and are not subject to "racial decay" or "devolution" or "drives to perfection".. If it is not debated in talk origins I suspect the term is rarely used by official creationists. David D. 14:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

That they use the word at all shows that even if it is not a valid concept, it is at least a word in use. As such I think it belongs somewhere in Wikipedia, if it can be more than a dicdef, which I think it can. It might just need a few sentences in the evolution article (I haven't checked yet to see if it's mentioned there, but I suspect not), with some sort of link from the current devolution article, for those who try to search for it. Anyone want to look into the Inherit the Wind reference? -R. fiend 14:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I found a couple of post from the talk origins usenet group. There were 70 hits for devolution, which is not many, but there does seem to be a definitive book on the subject by Michael Cremo. His book is actually referenced on one wikipedia page; OOPART.

[ New Evidence Challenges Darwin's Theory Best-selling Author Further Defies Evolutionists] San Diego, CA – Human Devolution: A Vedic Alternative to Darwin's Theory (Torchlight Publishing, September 2003), "If we did not evolve from apes, then where did we come from?" Human Devolution is author Michael A. Cremo's definitive answer to this question. "We did not evolve up from matter; instead we devolved, or came down, from the realm of pure consciousness, spirit," says Cremo.

Also here is a from a message in the talk origins usenet archive. One of the problems with evolution not being taught in the schools is that the word hasn't got out to enough people that it doesn't need to be a step upwards to be evolution. Some people even think that there is something that they call "devolution", for a step down the ladder. David D. 16:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: It doesn't seem like the term is used consistently even among creationists, beyond the fact it is used by people who don't know what evolution really is. Failing that, merge with Creationism, as a last resort rename 'devolution (creationism)' ("Devolution" makes no sense in biological terms. ) Peter Grey 09:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't stress this more, this is not a mainstream term in creationism, or evolutionary biology, I am fairly well versed in both. It doesn't belong in Creationism any more than it belongs in an actual scientific article. The word doesn't really mean any single thing as evidenced by the many uses quoted above. It is sometimes used in context to mean "backwards evolution" which is scientifically non-viable, and something creationists don't accept either. It's use and meaning is in no way standardized though because the word is not important to any theory or belief system. cohesion | talk 05:14, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: Notable concept; I've written a new stub; I don't think it has any POV problems. Ben Standeven 07:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The stub starts "In the context of biology" and ends with "the term is not used by biologists". The latter is certainly true, however with that definition it's not clear that wikipedia isn't describing a word of it's own creation. cohesion | talk 09:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete. This is simply an abstract concept generated by semantic negation. There is no actual biological concept to which it applies and it represents a misunderstanding of a fundamental biological concept. Kill it and restrict the author to writing about Pokemon or tv shows. alteripse 10:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme delete. I wouldn't even call the current article Original research as much as not quite coherent ramblings. It should have been speedy deleted as patent nonsense. BlankVerse ∅ 12:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• I've taken a pass at cleaning up the cleanup. Looking better. Whoever closes this please keep in mind that the current version bares to real resemblace to the version nominated. Right now it's got a bit of a dicdef to it, but I think it goes beyond that enough. I googled devolution evolution (which should do a pretty good job of filtering out the political useage of the word) and got 154,000 hits. What I looked at seemed to relate to this concept, so I think there's ample proof that it is a word pretty often used. Probably should be renamed though. -R. fiend 00:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Unverifiable. Robert McClenon 18:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What is unverifiable about it? The term is used quite a lot. Check google if you don't believe me. It's not a scientifically valid term, but it's still a term often used. -R. fiend 19:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I've heard of this concept before. Not real science, but if someone tries to look it up, I'd prefer if they were told that. It seems that everyone else here wants to dispose of this page as quickly as possible, though, so in that event we should at least redirect to evolution. Explodicle 22:10, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Tεxτurε 17:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.