Comments on: Strange Crustacean Undergoes Reverse Evolution

By: fornetti

fornetti — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 09:17:24 +0000

I do not believe this

By: Spoffin

Spoffin — Sat, 24 May 2008 02:23:31 +0000

@Silly people: “Reverse evolution” is not an acceptable phrase for describing this, pouring scorn on people who actually DO seem to know what they’re on about doesn’t add any weight to your assertion to the contrary. As already mentioned, evolution does NOT occur in individuals, it occurs between generations. Reverse metamorphosis might be an acceptable phrase. “Reverse evolution” as an analogous phrase is used to describe when in an abnormally short space of time a species abruptly resembles an older form (presumably by activating dormant genes). This is still evolution because it occurs across generations, and is reverse to the degree that the resemblance is to an older form.

“Technically there is no “reverse evolution”, but its a suitable semantic tool to describe a real phenomenon.” What you say is correct, but its not a suitable semantic tool to describe THIS phenomenon.

By: silly people

silly people — Fri, 23 May 2008 14:35:40 +0000

Gotta love self proclaimed blog experts…

“Reverse evolution” is a reference to recapitulation theory, thought to have been outdated but a form of it is now making a comeback as we discover more fossils/evidence.

The evolution of certain organisms and their structures can sometimes be understood by observing the organisms devlopment. i.e. the growth of feathers on birds has shed light on how feathers evolved in dinosaurs.

This “reverse evolution” is a creature that for whatever reason found it advantageous to take on a simpler body structure in its adult life, the “blueprint” for which is found in a body form held by its ancestors. Technically there is no “reverse evolution”, but its a suitable semantic tool to describe a real phenomenon.

By: Ajan

Ajan — Fri, 23 May 2008 08:53:29 +0000

Reverse whaaaaaaaaaaa???

By: Thomas

Thomas — Fri, 23 May 2008 06:56:27 +0000

The Merlin shrimp — it ages backwards.

By: groksocket

groksocket — Fri, 23 May 2008 01:34:49 +0000

Yup, that’s much more “reverse maturation” than anything re:evolution. I’d love to see how they came to evolve such an unusual lifecycle, though.

By: phoenix

phoenix — Thu, 22 May 2008 20:58:53 +0000

ted, you’re my new hero.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Thu, 22 May 2008 20:45:32 +0000

Wait …. that sounds more like their aging backward, not evolving backward.

By: Jules

Jules — Thu, 22 May 2008 20:22:42 +0000

Evolution has no direction or an end goal, it simply develops an organism best suited for a particular environmental niche. Clams for instance have no central nervous system even you their ancestors did because it was too cost inefficient for their lifestyle.

Having said that, it is an interesting metamorphic effect .

By: Wesley

Wesley — Thu, 22 May 2008 20:00:40 +0000

Beat me to it, TomWWW. Becoming a more simple organism is not evolving “in reverse.”

Besides, the process in question here is not evolution in any case. It’s a metamorphic change within one generation. It would be like referring to a caterpillar turning into a butterfly as evolution. It’s just another stage of its life-cycle.

By: ted

ted — Thu, 22 May 2008 19:59:42 +0000

*smacks forehead*

Nothing to do with evolution.

“Reverse evolution” is as much a misnomer as “reverse sexism” or “reverse racism”.

By: TomWWW

TomWWW — Thu, 22 May 2008 19:47:26 +0000

There is no such thing as “reverse evolution”. Evolution has no direction.

By: sparge

sparge — Thu, 22 May 2008 19:27:55 +0000

Careful. Evolution occurs over generations, not a single lifetime.

Still, fascinating creatures. I wonder how the complexity of adult mayflies compares to their larva… I know the adults only live long enough to mate, and do not even have time or energy to eat.

By: CheeseDuck

CheeseDuck — Thu, 22 May 2008 19:26:53 +0000

:O Too cwazy. Too cwazy.