The Process Of De-Evolution [Returning back to where it all started]

We’ve so much heard of the process of evolution from the primitive stage to what we have now, but have you heard of the process of reversing the trend of evolution back to the primitive stage? This process is called De-evolution.

[Image Source]

The process of de-evolution (or devolution) can be seen as backward evolution.

Would we get to the peak of evolution, where humankind for example, ceases to evolve, and starts de-evolving?

If humankind can achieve de-extinction, why do we think we cannot achieve de-evolution? You may have heard of the de-extinction of the Pyrenean Ibex that had long gone into extinction (If you haven’t, you can read it here). 

But we’re not just looking at de-extinction, but de-evolution. Like modern man (Homo sapiens sapiens) for example, returning back to; say, Ramapithecus, or one of the species of Australopithecus. Now, that sounds weird, so also is the theory of evolution to some people.

[Image Source]

Proponents of de-evolution

The idea of de-evolution was majorly spear-headed by 

• Alpheus Hyatt (Paleontologist)
• Carl H. Eigenmann (Paleontologist)
• Anton Dohrn (zoologist)
• Ray Lankester (zoologist and biologist)

Prior to the theory of de-evolution, there had been a theory of irreversibility, which was in serious disharmony with the theory of de-evolution. It states that:

An organism cannot return exactly to its former state, even if it is placed in the condition similar to the one it previously lived – Dollo’s theory of irreversibility [paraphrased by me]

Judging by this theory, then the theory of de-extinction would have no base. But this theory of irreversibility has been argued by evolutionists that it is more like an assertion of improbability of evolutionary trend following exactly the same path and having the same condition twice.

If this be the case, then the theory of de-evolution is not totally ruled off.

But the question is, how do we prove that humankind hasn’t already started de-evolving? Permit me to site this example: There has been a characteristic swing in human height as time passes through millennia. From fossil study (paleontology), one of the direct ancestors of modern man; the Australopithecus was pegged at 3.5feet in height. But through the same fossil record, we’ve uncovered “dinosaur-sized” men of over 36feet in height. Amazingly these gigantic men lived after the age of the primitive men. But nowadays we have humans pegged at the average height of 5 to 6feet. Is this swing in height not a practical prove of de-evolution?

[Image Source]

This trend can also be linked to degeneration biology. But just like evolution, will this process of de-evolution be a natural process, or will it be triggered by some external factors?

Ray Lankester’s book on Degeneration has some of the answers to this. He made a particular exposition after experimenting with Sea Squirt to find out the trend of regression in its life cycle. He said:

Higher life forms which existed in the past have over the time degenerated into simple life form. If it was possible to evolve, why shouldn’t it be possible to de-evolve? – Ray Lankester

Well, in my own opinion, whether humankind is evolving or de-evolving, we should just make the most out of this life. That is the only thing posterity will remember.

Thanks for reading

References for further reading: Ref1, Ref2, Ref3