>>None of which changes my answer. To “devolve” is a value judgment. To “evolve” means to change. The fact you don’t approve of the change is irrelevant.<<
But the answer I was replying to was your statement that vestigial organs are proof of evolution. They are not.
“Evolve” doesn’t mean just to “change” it means “develop gradually, esp. from a simple to a more complex form”. Vestigial organs would be evidence of the opposite.
“Devolve” isn’t a proper use of the word in this context, of course. It means to transfer power to a lower (governmental) level. Perhaps the best word might be “entropy”. One definition of entropy is: A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
Very good arguments. I think we are tangential, but let me address your points as best as I can:
>>But the answer I was replying to was your statement that vestigial organs are proof of evolution. They are not.<<
I really meant evidence of more than proof.
>>“Evolve” doesn’t mean just to “change” it means “develop gradually, esp. from a simple to a more complex form”. Vestigial organs would be evidence of the opposite.<<
But you apply a very limited view of “to develop.” We no longer have tails, but have vestigial attachments for one. Certainly a tail is more complex than a flat butt, but for us it was no longer needed. At points along the continuum, what was to be Homo Sapiens I am sure it appeared “we” were losing more than gaining. But it is a complex process and it is hard to gauge the evolutionary forces against which we are now pitted.
>>. One definition of entropy is: A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.<<
It is one definition, but I don’t think it applies to Homo Sapens nor other evolutionary paths.