Hubbry Logo
Devolution (biology)Devolution (biology)Main
Open search
Devolution (biology)
Community hub
Devolution (biology)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Devolution (biology)
Devolution (biology)
Devolution (biology)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Devolution, de-evolution, or backward evolution (not to be confused with dysgenics) is the notion that species can revert to supposedly more primitive forms over time. The concept relates to the idea that evolution is purposeful (teleology) and thus progressive (orthogenesis), for example that feet might be better than hooves, or lungs than gills. However, evolutionary biology makes no such assumptions, and natural selection shapes adaptations with no foreknowledge or foresights of any kind regarding the outcome. It is possible for small changes (such as in the frequency of a single gene) to be reversed by chance or selection, but this is no different from the normal course of evolution and as such de-evolution is not compatible with a proper understanding of evolution due to natural selection.

In the 19th century, when belief in orthogenesis was widespread, zoologists such as Ray Lankester and Anton Dohrn and palaeontologists Alpheus Hyatt and Carl H. Eigenmann advocated the idea of devolution. The concept appears in Kurt Vonnegut's 1985 novel Galápagos, which portrays a society that has evolved backwards to have small brains.

Dollo's law of irreversibility, first stated in 1893 by the palaeontologist Louis Dollo, denies the possibility of devolution. The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains Dollo's law as being simply a statement about the improbability of evolution's following precisely the same path twice.

Context

[edit]
Lamarck's theory of evolution involved a complexifying force that progressively drives animal body plans towards higher levels, creating a ladder of phyla, as well as an adaptive force that causes animals with a given body plan to adapt to circumstances. The idea of progress in such theories permits the opposite idea of decay, seen in devolution.
Further information: Orthogenesis

The idea of devolution is based on the presumption of orthogenesis, the view that evolution has a purposeful direction towards increasing complexity. Modern evolutionary theory, beginning with Darwin at least, poses no such presumption;[1] further, the concept of evolutionary change is independent of either any increase in complexity of organisms sharing a gene pool, or any decrease, such as in vestigiality or in loss of genes.[2] Earlier views that species are subject to "cultural decay", "drives to perfection", or "devolution" are practically meaningless in terms of current (neo-)Darwinian theory.[3] Early scientific theories of transmutation of species such as Lamarckism perceived species diversity as a result of a purposeful internal drive or tendency to form improved adaptations to the environment. In contrast, Darwinian evolution and its elaboration in the light of subsequent advances in biological research, have shown that adaptation through natural selection comes about when particular heritable attributes in a population happen to give a better chance of successful reproduction in the reigning environment than rival attributes do. By the same process less advantageous attributes are less "successful"; they decrease in frequency or are lost completely. Since Darwin's time it has been shown how these changes in the frequencies of attributes occur according to the mechanisms of genetics and the laws of inheritance originally investigated by Gregor Mendel. Combined with Darwin's original insights, genetic advances led to what has variously been called the modern evolutionary synthesis[4] or the neo-Darwinism of the 20th century. In these terms evolutionary adaptation may occur most obviously through the natural selection of particular alleles. Such alleles may be long established, or they may be new mutations. Selection also might arise from more complex epigenetic or other chromosomal changes, but the fundamental requirement is that any adaptive effect must be heritable.[5]

The concept of devolution on the other hand, requires that there be a preferred hierarchy of structure and function, and that evolution must mean "progress" to "more advanced" organisms. For example, it could be said that "feet are better than hooves" or "lungs are better than gills", so their development is "evolutionary" whereas change to an inferior or "less advanced" structure would be called "devolution". In reality an evolutionary biologist defines all heritable changes to relative frequencies of the genes or indeed to epigenetic states in the gene pool as evolution.[6] All gene pool changes that lead to increased fitness in terms of appropriate aspects of reproduction are seen as (neo-)Darwinian adaptation because, for the organisms possessing the changed structures, each is a useful adaptation to their circumstances. For example, hooves have advantages for running quickly on plains, which benefits horses, and feet offer advantages in climbing trees, which some ancestors of humans did.[2]

The concept of devolution as regress from progress relates to the ancient ideas that either life came into being through special creation or that humans are the ultimate product or goal of evolution. The latter belief is related to anthropocentrism, the idea that human existence is the point of all universal existence. Such thinking can lead on to the idea that species evolve because they "need to" in order to adapt to environmental changes. Biologists refer to this misconception as teleology, the idea of intrinsic finality that things are "supposed" to be and behave a certain way, and naturally tend to act that way to pursue their own good. From a biological viewpoint, in contrast, if species evolve it is not a reaction to necessity, but rather that the population contains variations with traits that favour their natural selection. This view is supported by the fossil record which demonstrates that roughly ninety-nine percent of all species that ever lived are now extinct.[2]

People thinking in terms of devolution commonly assume that progress is shown by increasing complexity, but biologists studying the evolution of complexity find evidence of many examples of decreasing complexity in the record of evolution. The lower jaw in fish, reptiles and mammals has seen a decrease in complexity, if measured by the number of bones. Ancestors of modern horses had several toes on each foot; modern horses have a single hooved toe. Modern humans may be evolving towards never having wisdom teeth, and already have lost most of the tail found in many other mammals - not to mention other vestigial structures, such as the vermiform appendix or the nictitating membrane.[2] In some cases, the level of organization of living creatures can also “shift” downwards (e.g., the loss of multicellularity in some groups of protists and fungi).[7]

A more rational version of the concept of devolution, a version that does not involve concepts of "primitive" or "advanced" organisms, is based on the observation that if certain genetic changes in a particular combination (sometimes in a particular sequence as well) are precisely reversed, one should get precise reversal of the evolutionary process, yielding an atavism or "throwback", whether more or less complex than the ancestors where the process began.[8] At a trivial level, where just one or a few mutations are involved, selection pressure in one direction can have one effect, which can be reversed by new patterns of selection when conditions change. That could be seen as reversed evolution, though the concept is not of much interest because it does not differ in any functional or effective way from any other adaptation to selection pressures.[9]

History

[edit]
Bénédict Morel (1809–1873) suggested a link between the environment and social degeneration.
Further information: Degeneration theory

The concept of degenerative evolution was used by scientists in the 19th century; at this time it was believed by most biologists that evolution had some kind of direction.

In 1857 the physician Bénédict Morel, influenced by Lamarckism, claimed that environmental factors such as taking drugs or alcohol would produce social degeneration in the offspring of those individuals, and would revert those offspring to a primitive state.[10] Morel, a devout Catholic, had believed that mankind had started in perfection, contrasting modern humanity to the past. Morel claimed there had been "Morbid deviation from an original type".[11] His theory of devolution was later advocated by some biologists.

According to Roger Luckhurst:

Darwin soothed readers that evolution was progressive, and directed towards human perfectibility. The next generation of biologists were less confident or consoling. Using Darwin's theory, and many rival biological accounts of development then in circulation, scientists suspected that it was just as possible to devolve, to slip back down the evolutionary scale to prior states of development.[12]

One of the first biologists to suggest devolution was Ray Lankester, he explored the possibility that evolution by natural selection may in some cases lead to devolution, an example he studied was the regressions in the life cycle of sea squirts. Lankester discussed the idea of devolution in his book Degeneration: A Chapter in Darwinism (1880). He was a critic of progressive evolution, pointing out that higher forms existed in the past which have since degenerated into simpler forms. Lankester argued that "if it was possible to evolve, it was also possible to devolve, and that complex organisms could devolve into simpler forms or animals".[13][14]

Anton Dohrn also developed a theory of degenerative evolution based on his studies of vertebrates. According to Dohrn many chordates are degenerated because of their environmental conditions. Dohrn claimed cyclostomes such as lampreys are degenerate fish as there is no evidence their jawless state is an ancestral feature but is the product of environmental adaptation due to parasitism. According to Dohrn if cyclostomes would devolve further then they would resemble something like an Amphioxus.[15]

The historian of biology Peter J. Bowler has written that devolution was taken seriously by proponents of orthogenesis and others in the late 19th century who at this period of time firmly believed that there was a direction in evolution. Orthogenesis was the belief that evolution travels in internally directed trends and levels. The paleontologist Alpheus Hyatt discussed devolution in his work, using the concept of racial senility as the mechanism of devolution. Bowler defines racial senility as "an evolutionary retreat back to a state resembling that from which it began."[16]

Hyatt who studied the fossils of invertebrates believed that up to a point ammonoids developed by regular stages up until a specific level but would later due to unfavourable conditions descend back to a previous level, this according to Hyatt was a form of lamarckism as the degeneration was a direct response to external factors. To Hyatt after the level of degeneration the species would then become extinct, according to Hyatt there was a "phase of youth, a phase of maturity, a phase of senility or degeneration foreshadowing the extinction of a type".[17][18] To Hyatt the devolution was predetermined by internal factors which organisms can neither control or reverse. This idea of all evolutionary branches eventually running out of energy and degenerating into extinction was a pessimistic view of evolution and was unpopular amongst many scientists of the time.[19]

Carl H. Eigenmann an ichthyologist wrote Cave vertebrates of America: a study in degenerative evolution (1909) in which he concluded that cave evolution was essentially degenerative.[20] The entomologist William Morton Wheeler[21] and the Lamarckian Ernest MacBride (1866–1940) also advocated degenerative evolution. According to Macbride invertebrates were actually degenerate vertebrates, his argument was based on the idea that "crawling on the seabed was inherently less stimulating than swimming in open waters."[22]

Degeneration theory

[edit]
Johan Friedrich Blumenbach 1752 - 1840
Main article: Degeneration theory

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach and other monogenists such as Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon were believers in the "Degeneration theory" of racial origins. The theory claims that races can degenerate into "primitive" forms. Blumenbach claimed that Adam and Eve were white and that other races came about by degeneration from environmental factors such as the sun and poor diet. Buffon believed that the degeneration could be reversed if proper environmental control was taken and that all contemporary forms of man could revert to the original Caucasian race.[23]

Blumenbach claimed Negroid pigmentation arose because of the result of the heat of the tropical sun, cold wind caused the tawny colour of the Eskimos and the Chinese were fair skinned compared to the other Asian stocks because they kept mostly in towns protected from environmental factors.[24]

According to Blumenbach there are five races all belonging to a single species: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American and Malay. Blumenbach however stated:

I have allotted the first place to the Caucasian because this stock displays the most beautiful race of men.[25]

According to Blumenbach the other races are supposed to have degenerated from the Caucasian ideal stock. Blumenbach denied that his "Degeneration theory" was racist;[vague] he also wrote three essays claiming non-white peoples are capable of excelling in arts and sciences in reaction against racialists of his time who believed they couldn't.[25][need quotation to verify]

[edit]

Jonathan Swift's 1726 novel Gulliver's Travels contains a story about Yahoos, a kind of human-like creature turned into a savage, animal-like the state of society in which the Houyhnhnms—descendants of horses—are the dominant species.

H. G. Wells' 1895 novel, The Time Machine, describes a future world where humanity has degenerated into two distinct branches who have their roots in the class distinctions of Wells' day. Both have sub-human intelligence and other putative dysgenic traits.

Similarly, Helena Blavatsky, founder of Theosophy, believed, contrary to standard evolutionary theory, that apes had devolved from humans rather than the opposite, through affected people "putting themselves on the animal level".[26]

H.P. Lovecraft's 1924 short story The Rats in the Walls also describes devolved humans.

Cyril M. Kornbluth's 1951 short story "The Marching Morons" is an example of dysgenic pressure in fiction, describing a man who accidentally ends up in the distant future and discovers that dysgenics has resulted in mass stupidity. Similarly, Mike Judge's 2006 film Idiocracy has the same premise, with the main character the subject of a military hibernation experiment that goes awry, taking him 500 years into the future. While in "The Marching Morons", civilization is kept afloat by a small group of dedicated geniuses, in Idiocracy, voluntary childlessness among high-IQ couples leaves only automated systems to fill that role.[27]

T. J. Bass's novels Half Past Human and The Godwhale describe humanity becoming cooperative and "low-maintenance" to the detriment of all other traits.

Kurt Vonnegut's 1985 novel Galápagos[28] is set a million years in the future, where humans have "devolved" to have much smaller brains.[29] Robert E. Howard, in The Hyborian Age, an essay on his Conan the Barbarian universe, stated that the Atlanteans devolved into "ape-men", and had once been the Picts (distinct from the actual people; his are closely modeled on Algonquian Native Americans).[30]

The American new wave band Devo derived both their name and overarching philosophy from the concept of "de-evolution" and used social satire and humor to espouse the idea that humanity had actually regressed over time.[31] According to music critic Steve Huey, the band "adapted the theory to fit their view of American society as a rigid, dichotomized instrument of repression ensuring that its members behaved like clones, marching through life with mechanical, assembly-line precision and no tolerance for ambiguity."[31]

The 1998 song "Flagpole Sitta" by Harvey Danger finds lighthearted humor in dysgenics with the lines "Been around the world and found/That only stupid people are breeding/The cretins cloning and feeding/And I don't even own a tv".

DC Comics' Aquaman has one of the seven races of Atlantis called The Trench, similar to the Grindylows of British folklore, Cthulhu Mythos' Deep One, Universal Classic Monsters' Gill-man, and Fallout's Mirelurk. They were regressed to survive in the deepest, darkest places on the bottom of ocean trenches where they hide—hence their name—and are photophobic when in contact with light.

LEGO's 2009 Bionicle sets include Glatorian and Agori. One of the six tribes includes The Sand Tribe, which the Glatorian and Agori of that tribe are turned into scorpion-like beasts—the Vorox and the Zesk—by their creators, The Great Beings; whom are also of the same species as Glatorian and Agori.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Devolution (biology)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Devolution in biology refers to the evolutionary process or notion whereby organisms undergo simplification, loss of complex structures, or reversion toward more primitive ancestral conditions, often characterized as degeneration in contrast to progressive adaptation. This concept emerged prominently in the 19th century within degeneration theory, which attributed heritable decline to environmental influences, as articulated by psychiatrist Bénédict Morel, who linked social and biological deterioration through progressive hereditary weakening. Historically, ideas of devolution drew from pre-Darwinian views positing an original state of perfection from which species could degenerate, as in Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's theories of racial and organic decline, and were later intertwined with Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics that could reverse or degrade traits..pdf) In nature, empirical examples include cave-adapted fish losing functional eyes due to energetic costs in lightless environments, parasitic worms reducing digestive systems as they absorb nutrients directly from hosts, and sessile sea squirts resorbing larval nervous systems upon settlement, all representing adaptive reductions in complexity rather than maladaptive reversals. Contemporary biology largely rejects devolution as a distinct mechanism, viewing such changes as standard favoring efficiency over retained ancestral traits, without teleological direction toward primitiveness; however, laboratory experiments like Richard Lenski's long-term E. coli demonstrate frequent functional disruptions yielding short-term fitness gains, prompting critics to label these as devolutionary breakdowns insufficient for macroevolutionary novelty. Michael Behe's analysis in Darwin Devolves argues that random mutations and selection predominantly degrade for adaptation, challenging neo-Darwinian accounts of buildup, though mainstream responses emphasize that such losses can future innovations. This debate underscores tensions between empirical observations of genomic simplification and institutional commitments to undirected , with peer-reviewed data confirming both constructive and destructive mutational spectra but limited evidence for net informational gains at higher biological levels.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Historical Usage

, also termed de-evolution or backward evolution, refers to the notion that biological can undergo changes leading to simpler, more "primitive" forms over time, often implying a loss of complexity or reversion to ancestral states. This concept presumes a directional in , with as the counterpart to progression toward greater organization. In historical contexts, it encompassed explanations for phenomena like vestigial structures and parasitic adaptations, where organisms appeared to descend from more advanced progenitors. The idea traces to pre-Darwinian natural history, where degeneration was invoked to account for variations from ideal forms. In the late 18th century, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach proposed that human racial diversity resulted from degeneration from a single original type, influencing early anthropological views on biological decline. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, in his 1809 Philosophie zoologique, formalized the use and disuse principle, asserting that organs diminish through neglect, with effects inherited, as in the degeneration of snake limbs from terrestrial to burrowing habits. By the mid-19th century, Bénédict Morel's 1857 treatise detailed hereditary degeneration in humans, linking physical, intellectual, and moral declines across generations, framing it as a biological process reversible only through environmental intervention. During this era, aligned with transformist theories assuming evolution's dual paths: ascent via and descent via atrophy or maladaptation. Though discredited post-Darwin for implying inherent directionality absent in , the term persisted in degeneration theory until the early , when emphasized undirected variation and selection without teleological progress or regress.

Relation to Evolutionary Theory

In evolutionary theory, devolution is not regarded as a separate or opposing process to , but rather as a misconception rooted in pre-Darwinian notions of a linear progression toward . himself addressed degeneration in (1859), describing how could favor the simplification of structures in certain environments, such as in parasitic organisms that lose unnecessary organs, viewing this as adaptive modification rather than reversal. Modern , incorporating and , reinforces that lacks inherent directionality or a "ladder of progress," allowing for trait loss via mechanisms like purifying selection against costly features or genetic drift in small populations. Empirical observations of apparent devolution, such as eye reduction in cavefish (Astyanax mexicanus) over approximately 100,000 years, demonstrate how mutations disabling unused genes can spread if they confer energy savings in dark habitats, aligning with natural selection's opportunistic nature rather than implying backward movement. Similarly, genome sequencing reveals widespread gene loss in endosymbionts like Buchnera aphidicola, where bacterial genomes shrink by up to 90% over millions of years due to relaxed selection in nutrient-rich host cells, exemplifying how evolutionary processes can reduce complexity without contradicting descent with modification. Proponents of , such as in Darwin Devolves (2019), contend that random mutations predominantly degrade existing genetic functions—evident in lab experiments like Richard Lenski's long-term E. coli study (initiated 1988), where citrate arose via gene breakage rather than novel synthesis—suggesting Darwinian excels at "devolution" but struggles with . This perspective, while highlighting empirical patterns of information loss (e.g., accumulation rates exceeding 10% in mammalian genomes), is critiqued by mainstream evolutionary biologists as overlooking compensatory innovations and modular genetic architectures that enable functional novelty through recombination. Nonetheless, such debates underscore that evolutionary theory accommodates simplification as a viable outcome when it enhances fitness, without requiring net increases in complexity.

Historical Development

Pre-Darwinian Concepts

Pre-Darwinian notions of biological devolution emerged in the as naturalists grappled with species variation and environmental influences, often framing observed differences as degenerations from more perfect ancestral forms. , in his (1749–1788), argued that species originated in warmer climates and underwent degeneration in colder or harsher environments, resulting in smaller, less robust variants such as American mammals compared to their European counterparts. Buffon integrated this degenerative process with limited transformism, suggesting that time and climate could modify forms from primitive ancestors, though he maintained species stability overall. Johann Friedrich Blumenbach extended degeneration concepts to human diversity in De Generis Humani Varietate Nativa (1775), positing Caucasians as the original prototype from which other races deviated through environmental degeneration, such as climate or lifestyle, rather than separate creations. Blumenbach viewed these changes as reversible deviations, emphasizing a formative drive (Bildungstrieb) that could restore or alter forms, influencing later racial theories while rejecting polygenism. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck formalized degeneration within his transformist framework in Philosophie Zoologique (1809), proposing that organisms possess an innate tendency toward greater complexity but can regress through disuse of organs, leading to atrophy and simplification inherited across generations. Examples included the gradual loss of limbs in snakes due to subterranean habits, where unused structures degenerated, contrasting with progression via use and environmental pressures. Lamarck's mechanism of acquired characteristics thus encompassed both advancement and devolution as adaptive responses, predating Darwin's by emphasizing internal drives and habit over competition.

19th-Century Degeneration Theory

In the mid-19th century, degeneration theory emerged as a framework explaining the apparent decline in organismal complexity and function, positing that environmental factors could induce heritable deteriorations leading to progressive simplification over generations. French psychiatrist Bénédict Augustin Morel formalized this in his 1857 treatise Traité des dégénérescences physiques, intellectuelles et morales de l'espèce humaine, arguing that insults such as alcohol, opium, or excessive luxury deviated individuals from a normal human type, with effects intensifying hereditarily until sterility or extinction. Morel's model drew on Lamarckian principles of use and disuse, where disuse of organs resulted in their atrophy and eventual degeneration, extending beyond humans to suggest biological reversals in traits no longer adaptive. This theory intersected with early by providing a counterpoint to unidirectional progress, incorporating ideas from , who in (1809) described how prolonged disuse could lead to organ reduction and loss, as seen in vestigial structures. In biological contexts, degeneration was invoked to account for parasites and sessile organisms retaining rudimentary features of more complex ancestors, such as the loss of locomotion in . Pre-Darwinian thinkers like had earlier proposed environmental degeneration from an ideal form, influencing 19th-century views on trait regression in isolated populations. Following Charles Darwin's (1859), degeneration was reframed within by E. Ray Lankester in his 1880 monograph Degeneration: A Chapter in . Lankester defined degeneration as "retrogressive ," where organisms simplify when environmental conditions render complexity superfluous, citing examples like —degenerate crustaceans with reduced segmentation and sensory organs—and intestinal worms losing digestive systems. He emphasized that such changes were adaptive, not pathological, occurring when "food and safety [are] very easily attained," as in cave fauna exhibiting eye loss or pigmentation reduction. This biological interpretation distinguished degeneration from Morel's moralistic human applications, positioning it as a neutral evolutionary process rather than inevitable decline.

Post-Darwinian Shifts

Following Charles Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859, the concept of devolution in biology began to integrate with natural selection, departing from earlier notions of it as a primarily pathological or reversionary process independent of adaptive mechanisms. Darwin argued that rudimentary organs and structural simplifications, such as those in parasitic organisms, arise when natural selection favors the loss of unused traits, as maintaining them imposes unnecessary energetic costs without survival benefits; for instance, he cited intestinal worms retaining vestigial digestive systems from free-living ancestors. This reframed degeneration not as a failure of evolution but as a directional outcome under varying selective pressures, where simplification could enhance fitness in protected niches like parasitism. A pivotal elaboration came in 1880 with Edwin Ray Lankester's Degeneration: A Chapter in , which systematically positioned devolution as a legitimate Darwinian pathway parallel to elaboration. Lankester defined degeneration as a gradual, heritable deterioration in structure and function relative to ancestral forms, often driven by or sedentary lifestyles that relax selection for complexity; he exemplified this with ascidians (sea squirts), which evolve from mobile larvae to sessile adults with reduced neural and sensory systems, and human skin parasites like . Unlike pre-Darwinian views tying degeneration to Lamarckian use-disuse or moral decay, Lankester emphasized its adaptive value, critiquing unilinear progressivist interpretations of evolution prevalent among some contemporaries. This work influenced late 19th-century studies of "regressive evolution" in isolated habitats, such as blind cave salamanders (Proteus anguinus), where eye loss was attributed to energetic savings in dark environments. Into the early 20th century, devolution retained currency in discussions of vestigial traits and parasitic simplification, but genetic discoveries—particularly the rejection of Lamarckian inheritance via August Weismann's germ-plasm theory (1892)—shifted focus toward strictly heritable, non-acquired changes. The modern evolutionary synthesis of the 1930s–1940s, synthesizing Mendelian genetics with Darwinian selection (e.g., works by , , and ), further eroded directional terminology like "devolution," portraying trait loss as undirected evolution via selection against costly features or rather than a teleological "backward" slide. By mid-century, the term devolved into archaism, supplanted by precise mechanisms like neutral mutations fixing losses without fitness costs, as formalized in Motoo Kimura's (1968), which explained much genomic simplification as stochastic rather than selectively degenerative. This marked a conceptual pivot from devolution as a distinct evolutionary mode to its absorption into non-teleological , where complexity reduction is neither inevitable nor inherently regressive.

Empirical Observations

Natural Examples of Trait Loss

In natural populations, evolutionary trait loss manifests as the reduction or elimination of structures when they confer no adaptive advantage or impose metabolic costs in changed environments. Such regressive is documented across taxa, often involving genetic mechanisms like in developmental genes or relaxed selection, leading to simplified morphologies without compromising fitness. A prominent example occurs in cave-dwelling populations of the Mexican tetra fish (Astyanax mexicanus), where eyeless forms have independently evolved in multiple isolated caves over approximately 100,000 to 1 million years. Surface-dwelling ancestors possess functional eyes, but cave variants undergo early embryonic degeneration: the lens apoptoses around 18-24 hours post-fertilization, followed by retinal collapse and fibrosis, resulting in vestigial, non-functional eye sockets. This loss correlates with energy savings—vision-related neural tissue demands up to 15% of metabolic resources in sighted fish—and enhancements in other senses, such as taste buds and lateral line systems for detecting vibrations. Genetic studies identify mutations in genes like shh (sonic hedgehog) and pax6, alongside epigenetic silencing via DNA methylation, driving convergent eye regression across cave populations. Parasitic flatworms, particularly cestodes (tapeworms) in the class , exemplify loss of the entire digestive tract, evolving from free-living or gut-possessing ancestors in the phylum Platyhelminthes. Adult tapeworms lack a , , and intestine, instead absorbing pre-digested nutrients directly through their syncytial tegument via microtriches, which increase surface area for in the host's intestine. This simplification arose as cestodes adapted to endoparasitic lifestyles, where external by the host obviates the need for an internal alimentary canal, reducing complexity while enhancing reproductive output through prolific proglottid production. and molecular traces this to over 300 million years ago, with no reversion observed in derived lineages. In cetaceans (whales and dolphins), hind limb reduction represents a transition from terrestrial to fully aquatic lifestyles, with fossil intermediates like (circa 50 million years ago) showing weight-bearing legs that dwindled to vestigial pelvic bones and femur remnants in modern species. These structures, buried subcutaneously and lacking musculature for locomotion, persist due to conserved developmental pathways but serve no propulsive function; instead, tail flukes and pectoral fins evolved for swimming. Genetic analyses reveal modifications and in limb buds, confirming selection against hind limbs post-aquatic commitment, as evidenced by embryonic limb buds that regress by mid-gestation in species like the .

Genetic and Microbial Cases

In populations of the Mexican tetra fish (Astyanax mexicanus), cave-dwelling forms exhibit eye degeneration, with embryonic eyes forming but regressing into vestigial structures by adulthood, a process that has evolved independently across at least 30 cave populations over roughly 200,000 years. This loss involves early developmental disruptions, including reduced expression of the rx3 gene, which limits optic vesicle growth, and expanded signaling from the shh (sonic hedgehog) pathway, which narrows the eye field through midline tissue overgrowth. Downregulation of the cryaa crystallin gene triggers lens apoptosis, secondarily inducing cell death and , as demonstrated by lens transplantation experiments where surface fish lenses partially rescue cavefish development. Epigenetic modifications, such as increased in regulatory regions, further contribute to suppressed in optic tissues. Similar genetic degeneration occurs in other cave-adapted vertebrates, such as the olm salamander (Proteus anguinus), where eye primordia develop but degenerate due to mutations in opsin genes and regulatory elements, eliminating functional vision while preserving latent genetic potential for eye formation. In cave crustaceans like the amphipod Niphargus species, pigment and eye loss correlate with pseudogenization of synthesis genes and photoreceptor pathways, driven by relaxed selection in perpetual darkness. In microbial systems, frequently undergo reduction by excising non-essential genes, enhancing replication efficiency in nutrient-limited or host-dependent niches. For instance, the marine bacterium Candidatus Pelagibacter ubique (SAR11 ) maintains a streamlined of approximately 1.3 million base pairs encoding about 1,300 genes, having lost pathways for unnecessary biosynthesis to minimize metabolic costs in oligotrophic ocean environments. Endosymbiotic like Buchnera aphidicola in exhibit severe reduction to roughly 600 kilobase pairs, retaining genes for essential nutrient provisioning to hosts while deleting mobile elements, repair systems, and redundant metabolic operons through accumulated deletions and pseudogenization. Experimental evolution confirms these patterns; in Salmonella typhimurium passaged over 20,000 generations in nutrient-rich media, genome size decreased by about 7% (from 4.8 to 4.5 Mb) via large-scale deletions of biosynthetic clusters for and , which became dispensable due to environmental provisioning, without impairing growth rates. such as Rickettsia prowazekii similarly show reduced genomes (around 1.1 Mb), with losses in transport and energy genes offset by host reliance, correlating with increased across bacterial lineages. These reductions often proceed via neutral or slightly deleterious mutations fixed under weak selection, followed by selective sweeps favoring faster replication.

Theoretical Implications

Compatibility with Neo-Darwinism

Devolution, interpreted biologically as the progressive loss or simplification of traits rather than a teleological reversion to ancestral forms, is consistent with Neo-Darwinian theory, which posits that natural selection acts on heritable variation to enhance fitness without mandating directional complexity. In environments where complex structures become superfluous or costly, selection favors alleles that reduce or eliminate them, as seen in the eye degeneration of cave-dwelling fish like Astyanax mexicanus, where mutations disrupting eye development persist due to relaxed selection pressure and potential energy savings from non-functional tissues. Similarly, pigmentation loss in these populations arises from selection against melanin production, which offers no camouflage benefit in perpetual darkness, demonstrating how Neo-Darwinian processes—combining mutation, selection, and genetic drift—explain regressive phenotypes as adaptive outcomes. The modern synthesis integrates Mendelian genetics with Darwinian selection, accommodating trait loss through mechanisms like , where beneficial mutations in non-eye genes indirectly impair ocular development, or neutral drift in small, isolated populations fixing mildly deleterious variants. Empirical genomic analyses of subterranean beetles reveal parallel decays in vision-related genes across independent lineages, attributable to either direct selection reallocating resources from unused sensory systems or accumulation of neutral mutations, both frameworks within . These cases refute outdated progressive biases, affirming that evolutionary change prioritizes over morphological advancement. Critics occasionally misconstrue as challenging by implying inherent degradation, but such views conflate historical degeneration theories with contemporary evidence; the synthesis explicitly allows simplification as a viable path when it aligns with selective pressures, as evidenced by widespread examples in parasites shedding digestive organs or flightless on islands discarding wings. No empirical data necessitates deviations from core Neo-Darwinian tenets for these phenomena, reinforcing their explanatory power across diverse taxa.

Information Loss and Complexity Debates

In biological , the loss of often correlates with reductions in genetic information, typically measured as decreases in functional sequence length, count, or in protein-coding regions. Empirical studies of streamlined genomes, such as those in endosymbiotic like Buchnera aphidicola, reveal extensive deletions and pseudogenization, where formerly functional accumulate disabling mutations, resulting in genomes reduced by up to 90% compared to free-living relatives. These losses are adaptive in nutrient-rich host environments, eliminating unnecessary metabolic pathways, but they diminish the organism's informational content and capacity for independent function. Similarly, in vertebrate evolution, comparisons of genomes show net loss in lineages like teleost fish, with thousands of absent relative to ancestors, supporting devolutionary simplification over informational gain. Debates arise over whether such pervasive information loss undermines neo-Darwinian explanations for the origin of biological complexity. Critics, including biochemist , contend that adaptive predominantly proceeds via loss-of-function (LOF) mutations—deletions, frameshifts, or inactivating substitutions—that degrade existing genetic machinery rather than construct novel functions. In Behe's 2019 analysis of long-term microbial experiments, such as Richard Lenski's E. coli serial transfer study spanning over 70,000 generations, the majority of beneficial mutations (over 90% in key cases) were LOF events, like disruptions in regulatory genes, yielding short-term fitness gains but no sustained increase in complex, interdependent systems. This pattern extends to natural examples, such as antibiotic resistance in or lens degradation in cave-adapted fish, where selection favors informational over innovation, challenging the sufficiency of unguided mutations to generate the integrated presumed ancestral to modern complexity. Neo-Darwinian proponents counter that while LOF dominates microadaptive changes, macroevolutionary complexity arises through rarer mechanisms like followed by neofunctionalization or horizontal transfer, which can expand informational content. However, quantitative assessments, including a 1993 paleontological survey of over 100 lineages, found no directional trend toward increasing morphological complexity, with stasis or decreases as common as gains, suggesting lacks an inherent toward informational buildup. A 2023 critique of Behe's claims acknowledged degradative biases in lab data but argued that neutral drift and rare constructive mutations suffice for historical complexity, though without resolving empirical gaps in observed de novo circuit assembly. These exchanges highlight a tension: exemplifies verifiable informational decay under selection, yet the causal pathway from simple prokaryotes to eukaryotic intricacy remains undemonstrated at the molecular level, prompting calls for beyond mutation-selection alone.

Criticisms and Alternative Views

Scientific Consensus Against Directional Devolution

The concept of directional devolution posits a consistent evolutionary trajectory toward reduced complexity or reversion to ancestral states, but this is incompatible with neo-Darwinian synthesis, which views as a non-teleological process driven by random mutations filtered by for local fitness advantages, without inherent directionality toward progress or regression. Empirical genomic analyses, such as those of parasitic organisms losing metabolic genes, demonstrate that such reductions enhance efficiency in stable niches rather than indicating systemic degeneration; for example, the of the intracellular bacterium Candidatus Hodgkinia cicadicola has shrunk by over 50% in coding capacity compared to free-living relatives, yet this confers replicative advantages in its host-specific environment. Proponents of directional devolution often invoke —the discredited 19th-century hypothesis of intrinsic evolutionary momentum—but post-1950s integration of has refuted it through models showing stasis, branching, or opportunistic shifts rather than unidirectional decline. records, including the Ediacaran-to-Cambrian transition around 541 million years ago, reveal episodic increases in morphological disparity without corresponding devolutionary trends; quantitative cladistic studies confirm that lineage-specific adaptations, not global simplification, dominate over geological time scales. In , genetic evidence from the (2015) indicates ongoing selection for traits like in dairy-farming populations, countering claims of uniform entropy-driven loss. Critics of devolutionary directionality, including evolutionary biologists like , argue that labeling trait loss as "backward" anthropocentrically imposes a scala naturae bias absent from Darwin's original framework, which emphasized descent with modification sans hierarchy. in microbes, such as Escherichia coli long-term cultures initiated in 1988 by Richard Lenski, shows parallel losses of unused functions (e.g., flagellar in citrate-utilizing strains) but no overarching devolution; instead, these are stochastically selected efficiencies, with overall fitness gains persisting across 70,000+ generations. This aligns with Dollo's law (1893, reaffirmed in modern ), which precludes exact reversals to prior states due to genetic entrenchment, further undermining notions of directed backward progression. Institutional syntheses, such as the 2019 on evolutionary predictability, underscore that while reductive evolution occurs in ~20-30% of documented cases (e.g., or per variants), it lacks universality or inevitability, as counterbalanced by innovations like multicellularity in volvocine lineages over 1 billion years. Claims of directional devolution, often amplified in non-peer-reviewed outlets, fail tests under Popperian criteria, contrasting with testable neo-Darwinian predictions validated by CRISPR-edited fitness assays showing context-dependent outcomes over fixed decline. Thus, the consensus frames as opportunistic, not devolutionary, privileging empirical lineage tracing over speculative .

Pro-Devolution Perspectives and Challenges

Biochemist argues that unguided Darwinian processes predominantly drive "," defined as the degradation or loss of genetic function, rather than the construction of novel complex features essential for major evolutionary transitions. In his 2019 analysis, Behe examines laboratory experiments, such as Richard Lenski's 30+ year E. coli evolution study, where adaptation to citrate utilization in aerobic conditions arose via followed by regulatory protein disablement through frameshift —a net loss of specificity rather than innovative gain. He extends this to natural cases, like the bacterial flagellum's simplification under selection or malaria parasite resistance to drugs via disrupted transporters, positing that such breakdowns provide short-term fitness benefits but erode the informational foundation needed for , as in blood-clotting cascades. Behe contends this pattern aligns with empirical mutation spectra, where deleterious or neutral changes vastly outnumber constructive ones, challenging neo-Darwinism's capacity for upward complexity without guided intervention. Proponents further highlight genome reductions in obligate parasites and endosymbionts, such as bacteria (genome ~0.5–1 Mb vs. free-living relatives' 4–5 Mb), where streamlined coding sequences reflect elimination of superfluous genes under host dependence, interpreted as directional simplification from more versatile ancestors. These observations support claims of information loss as a dominant evolutionary mode, with Dollo's law—positing irreversibility of complex trait loss—invoked to argue against facile reversal, as seen in persistent vestigial structures like whale pelvic bones. Challenges to these views emphasize that "devolution" imposes an anthropocentric directionality absent in , which is opportunistic without inherent progress or regression; trait losses, like eyeless ( mexicanus), conserve energy in dark habitats via mutations, yielding equivalent fitness without net informational decline when considering regulatory innovations elsewhere. Critics, including evolutionary biologists, rebut Behe's overemphasis on degradation by noting duplications enable neofunctionalization, as in vertebrate families from ancient duplicates, fostering complexity despite losses; Lenski's Cit+ trait, for instance, involved promoter capture yielding novel expression, not mere breakdown. Moreover, and genomic records document macroevolutionary gains, such as eukaryotic cell complexity from prokaryotic symbiosis, undermining claims of predominant devolution, while Behe's selective examples ignore population-level dynamics where rare constructive mutations accumulate under selection. Pro-devolution arguments, often from circles, face scrutiny for conflating microadaptive losses with macroevolutionary barriers, as mainstream models integrate both via neutral theory and drift, without requiring directionality.

Cultural and Philosophical Impact

Representations in Literature and Media

In science fiction literature, biological devolution is frequently depicted as a regressive counterpoint to progressive evolution, serving as a metaphor for societal decay or environmental catastrophe. H.G. Wells' The Time Machine (1895) portrays future humanity bifurcating into the frail, intellectually diminished Eloi and the predatory, troglodytic Morlocks, illustrating the long-term biological ramifications of Victorian class divisions and technological stagnation. This narrative underscores Wells' pessimism regarding unchecked social Darwinism, where evolutionary pressures exacerbate human degeneration rather than refinement. Pierre Boulle's La Planète des Singes (1963), adapted into the film Planet of the Apes (1968), reverses human-ape evolutionary hierarchies, with humans reduced to mute, primitive scavengers subservient to intellectually superior apes. The story critiques anthropocentric arrogance and nuclear-age hubris, positing devolution as a consequence of civilizational collapse, where humans revert to pre-sapient states amid the apes' ascent. This theme recurs in the franchise's sequels, emphasizing cyclical regression tied to warfare and ecological ruin. Other works explore devolution through experimental or cataclysmic triggers. In Brian W. Aldiss' Hothouse (1962), post-apocalyptic humans shrink and revert to arboreal, instinct-driven forms in a vegetation-dominated , losing to adaptive simplicity. Similarly, Paddy Chayefsky's (1978 novel; 1980 film) depicts pharmacological and sensory experiments causing protagonists to physically regress through hominid stages to amorphous protoplasmic entities, probing the boundaries between consciousness and primal biology. These portrayals often invoke Lamarckian or rapid , diverging from neo-Darwinian mechanisms to dramatize vulnerability to reversal. In media, devolution motifs appear in episodic formats, such as the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Genesis" (1994), where a viral agent and cellular reversion cause the crew to devolve into reptilian or ancestors, framed as a reversible by intervention. Such depictions prioritize narrative tension over biological plausibility, treating devolution as a directed, Lamarckian unwind of phylogeny rather than trait loss. Overall, these representations reflect cultural anxieties about progress's fragility, contrasting on evolution's non-teleological nature by anthropomorphizing regression as moral or civilizational failure. In discussions of evolutionary directionality, devolutionary trait loss undermines assumptions of inherent biological progress toward greater complexity. While early evolutionary theorists like equated with a ladder-like ascent, modern observations—such as the vestigial eyes of cave-dwelling fish or organ reduction in —illustrate that often involves simplification for efficiency, not escalation. This pattern, documented in studies of regressive across taxa, refutes teleological narratives of unidirectional improvement, aligning instead with Stephen Jay Gould's view of as a "drunkard's walk" contingent on local contingencies rather than global advancement. Proponents of interpret devolution as evidence against unguided construction of complexity. Biochemist Michael J. Behe, in Darwin Devolves (2019), analyzes experimental data from bacterial evolution and adaptations, concluding that adaptive mutations predominantly degrade function—via frameshifts, premature stops, or impairments—yielding short-term benefits at the cost of long-term innovative capacity. Behe argues this "first rule of adaptive evolution" implies biological systems originate from purposeful arrangement, as random variation plus selection systematically erodes rather than erects , echoing thermodynamic tendencies toward disorder without external specification. Relatedly, geneticist John C. Sanford's genetic entropy model quantifies devolution through accumulation rates, estimating 100–300 deleterious s per human zygote, mostly near-neutral and escaping strong purifying selection. Sanford's simulations project fitness declines of 1–5% per generation in large populations, portraying genomes as decaying repositories of original high-fidelity information rather than incrementally improving archives. This challenges progressive evolutionary timelines exceeding thousands of generations, positing devolution as the default causal trajectory in finite populations under -selection-drift dynamics. Mainstream rebuttals emphasize compensatory mechanisms and variable selection strengths mitigating entropy, yet the model's empirical grounding in load data fuels debates on whether observed biological stasis reflects informational ceilings incompatible with bottom-up progress.

References

  1. https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/devolution
  2. https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Biological_devolution.html
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11482047/
  4. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673610604254/fulltext
  5. https://critter.science/animal-devolution-the-science-behind-it/
  6. https://www.sciencealert.com/what-happens-when-species-evolve-backwards-the-strange-science-of-devolution
  7. https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2019/02/19/devolution-not-a-thing/
  8. https://www.auctoresonline.org/article/the-lenski-long-term-evolution-experiment-an-example-of-devolution
  9. https://creation.com/review-darwin-devolves
  10. https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2019/06/23/darwin-devolves-debunking-michael-behes-case-for-intelligent-design/
  11. https://www.booksataglance.com/book-reviews/darwin-devolves-the-new-science-about-dna-that-challenges-evolution-by-michael-j-behe/
  12. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-human-race-evolvin/
  13. https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0107-0
  14. https://www.turito.com/learn/biology/lamarckism-postulates-and-drawbacks
  15. https://wng.org/roundups/devolution-not-evolution-1617220888
  16. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution-before-darwin/
  17. https://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/650077.html
  18. https://aeon.co/essays/modern-racism-rests-on-scientific-theories-from-the-19th-century
  19. https://www.biologydiscussion.com/evolution/mechanism-of-evolution-4-theories-biology/49525
  20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39416562/
  21. https://archive.org/details/degenerationchap00lank
  22. https://books.google.com/books/about/Degeneration.html?id=mgEFAAAAYAAJ
  23. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/59171
  24. https://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1880_Lankester_Degeneration_CUL-DAR.LIB.351.pdf
  25. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/4740
  26. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/05/30/devolution-2
  27. https://philosophynow.org/issues/71/The_Evolution_of_Evolutionary_Theory
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6496948/
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10445413/
  30. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-37909-8
  31. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0569-4
  32. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1500363
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/tapeworm
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10302083/
  35. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-evolution-of-whales/
  36. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12492145/
  37. https://ncse.ngo/true-vestigial-structures-whales-and-dolphins
  38. https://evodevojournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2041-9139-4-26
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3078413/
  40. https://asm.org/articles/2025/september/why-some-bacteria-evolve-reduced-genomes-only-the
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867402006657
  42. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0503654102
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9473318/
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3594788/
  45. https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-008-0094-z
  46. https://www.nature.com/articles/hdy2009184
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S105579032200135X
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3410441/
  49. https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-025-02405-8
  50. https://scienceandculture.com/2021/02/vindicated-but-not-cited-paper-in-nature-heredity-supports-michael-behes-devolution-hypothesis/
  51. https://creation.com/problems-with-neo-darwinism-drive-experts-to-call-for-new-theory-of-evolution
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5200945/
  53. https://record.umich.edu/articles/evolution-may-not-mean-more-complexity-researcher-says/
  54. https://joelcarini.substack.com/p/why-not-theistic-evolution-part-4
  55. https://consensus.app/home/blog/is-devolution-possible/
  56. https://evolutionnews.org/2019/02/woo-hoo-in-science-review-of-darwin-devolves-lenski-has-no-response-to-my-main-argument/
  57. https://www.discovery.org/a/35062/
  58. https://jmg.bmj.com/content/54/12/787
  59. https://scienceandculture.com/2020/05/harvard-molecular-geneticist-vindicates-michael-behes-main-argument-in-darwin-devolves/
  60. https://academic.oup.com/evolut/article-abstract/73/4/862/6882029
  61. https://www.livescience.com/regressive-backward-evolution
  62. https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/devolution
  63. https://hist3101dystopia.uconn.edu/2015/11/22/caution-over-evolution/
  64. https://www.gradesaver.com/planet-of-the-apes/study-guide/themes
  65. https://planetoftheapes.fandom.com/wiki/Human
  66. https://bryantlibrary.org/the-time-machine-by-h-g-wells/
  67. https://today.duke.edu/2018/09/what-star-trek-can-teach-us-about-genetics-and-evolution
  68. https://www.sciof.fi/five-times-star-trek-biology-plots-went-off-the-rails-2/
  69. https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-011-0381-y
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3093243/
  71. https://michaelbehe.com/books/darwin-devolves/
  72. https://www.discovery.org/b/darwin-devolves/
  73. https://creation.com/genetic-entropy-vs-evolution
  74. https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2023/03/01/a-quadrillion-mutations-later-why-are-you-still-alive-a-response-to-genetic-entropy/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.