Can a species devolve or de-evolve? Evolution Question #21

[Kitefel]

I would definitely watch a video or an entire series about "how popular media depicts/misconstrues the concept of evolution"

[PabloSanchez-quib]

Data's cat became an iguana? I imagine Data transformed into a typewriter then.

[behrensf]

Not necessarily de evolve, evolution doesn’t have a direction.

[Don-dsdy]

I think perhaps to many people get the wrong idea about how evolution works from sci-fi media. That one Star Trek episode for example.

[JediKalElStarkiller]

I would love for you to go over that episode of Star Trek TNG. Before I started learning what evolution really taught, this episode confused me.

[jasonthurston]

Could a mammal simplify enough to a point where it could then become complex again as a different kingdom, such as becoming an insect? I suspect it would need practically evolve back to a single cell organism.

[daithiocinnsealach]

The idea of devolve seems to include the idea of progression. There is no real progression going on. Just pressures to adapt. So if a bird species loses it ability to fly has it devolved? Maybe those wings will evolve into something more useful given enough time.

[DeconvertedMan]

Yes do a whole video on Genesis (Star Trek The Next Generation), & don't forget Threshold (Star Trek: Voyager)!! :D

[prammar]

Do you have any plans on writing a book? You are pretty good at explaining stuff. Maybe a complex popular science book, like a transition species between popular science books and text books 😜

[infinitemonkey]

I think organisms, like many bird and fish species, where the sexual selection pressure can make members more susceptible to predation ( fancy plumage, .etc. ) is fascinating.

[ShamGam]

Have you seen Kurzgesagts poster about evolution?

[nagranoth_]

NO. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Devolving assumes there is an _intended_ end point evolution is supposed to reach, which goes directly against the very nature of how evolution works. If apes were to become smaller and get tails again, that is not de-evolving. There was no goal of getting bigger and losing tails, so you can't go further away from that non existing goal either. It's just evolving in a direction where apparently being smaller and having a tail again happens to be beneficial under the circumstances.

[mtbee]

Change that is more likely than devolution would be something like the whale and other cetaceans, that have returned to aquatic life but have NOT become fish!
It is also useful to think about other examples where only small changes have occurred that could be fairly easily reversed, such as i Darwin's finches. If a long time has passed and lots of changes have accumulated, it is essentially impossible for them to all be reversed.
Another example would be giraffes - if they found only shorter vegetation in an environment they would gradually evolve to not have long necks, as it would have no advantage, but the result would NOT be the same animal that giraffes evolved from. There would be significant differences.

[dongeonmaster]

Every time there is a discussion about evolution the trope about beneficial mutations gets paraded around. I'd like to suggest that while beneficial mutations may aid in a species "fitness" and influence that species evolution, all a mutation need do to get passed on and possibly influence the evolution of a species is not be so detrimental to its host that it in someway keeps them from propagating or procreating.

[erikaamot]

were not whales at one time land animals with legs that lost that function to become fins?

[nicola-xkcp]

The analogy of the soldier it's not ideal, rather The elephants that are de evolving because of humans activities. The ivory market has led the elephants with bigger tusks to be hunted and killed, leading mostly the elephants with smaller tusks to mate and pass their genes.

[morroghaiky]

The closest thing to deevolution might be sacculinisation.

[darynf]

Great video as usual :) #HomoHenrietta

[GapWim]

(house owner): If you’re on this personal journey, why do you always crash on my couch? Go some place!
(stoner couch surfer): Dude, it’s like, evolution, you know? There is no destination, there is only the path! 🤯

… and my path keeps leading me to your couch.
(houseowner): 😒 convenient

[aldoushuxley]

A species can evolve in such away, that it loses an ability, we as observers like, and which might hurt the species in the future, even though it may be adaptive in that moment.
A good example is the Dodo's ability to fly, and what happened, when there finally were predators again to hunt them.

Another example is our intelligence. Despite the commonly held view, intelligence, at least for women, is a bad trait in humans. All of our children survive, and so it is best to have as many children as possible and have them as early as possible (to reduce the time between generations). It does not matter, what networth you have. In general, less intelligent (esp. women) and the most intelligent have the most children.
So while we might value and want intelligence, that is not the direction of our species. The perfect human is one very beautiful, but too stupid to wear a condom.

Sidenote:
The Flynn effect is a consequence of nutrition and exposure to pollutants (like lead), not genetics. It has been reversed in the west for many decades now.