Hello, Sevrandy, we are glad you have joined the Fallout Wiki!
Learn more
For assistance, please feel free to reach out to our admins or join the Nukapedia Discord server. We look forward to working with you!
Swampfolk[]
To devolve is to degenerate over time - making the coined term very appropriate in the case of the swampfolk at Point Lookout. 
Some Assembly Required! 05:19, November 30, 2013 (UTC)
- Devolved is not a scientific term, evolve simply means to change over time. It doesn't mean the organisms got "better" or "worse." There is no such thing in biology. We could use other inaccurate terms and slang, too, why not use aint in our posts? We should try to keep things as accurate as possible. Sevrandy (talk) 22:34, November 30, 2013 (UTC)
We're not necessarily talking about technical scientific terms here. The game's loading screens specifically state that swampfolk are a result of radiation and inbreeding over time. This fits the definition of "devolve" and "degenerate" perfectly, whether you want to get technical or not. I'm also not sure where you're getting your information from regarding devolve not being a word. I hate to break it to you, but the word devolve is used both in a scientific sense, and it is referred to as a word instead of slang in the Dictionary. While you are correct in your assessment, I must point out that devolve is not used properly to define negative evolution. It is used to describe a state of deterioration/degeneration. Just because it has "...volve" in there doesn't inherently mean it's directly an influence in the study of evolution. Some Assembly Required! 22:39, November 30, 2013 (UTC)
- Devolve is a word, it simply isn't used correctly here. The term evolve is the correct term for the sentence. You can read the wikipedia article that explains why using the term "devolve" in biology is incorrect. Sevrandy (talk) 22:52, November 30, 2013 (UTC)
If you can contradict these two direct definitions, then I will allow for the term to be replaced (although I won't agree with "evolve" since they did not evolve into their current state).
- "To gradually go from an advanced state to a less advanced state."
- "To degenerate or deteriorate gradually."
Some Assembly Required! 22:55, November 30, 2013 (UTC)
- "To gradually go from an advanced state to a less advanced state." I do not know what dictionary you are using, but it is inaccurate. Sevrandy (talk) 23:10, November 30, 2013 (UTC)
That's not a good enough answer. Your hearsay over what I'm reading from a Dictionary of factual definitions just doesn't fly here. But, like I said, if you're able to contradict those two definitions, I will have the term replaced. Some Assembly Required! 23:12, November 30, 2013 (UTC)
- I provided sources. I also looked at the New Oxford American Dictionary. While devolve may be used to mean "to degenerate," it does not work in the sentence in discussion. This term could be used as follows, for example: the country devolved into small warring states. The term is not applicable in the sentence we are discussing. I may have found the citation you are looking for, however. This is what Michael J. Dougherty, assistant director and senior staff biologist at Biological Sciences Curriculum Study in Colorado Springs, had to say about human "devolution."
- From a biological perspective, there is no such thing as devolution. All changes in the gene frequencies of populations--and quite often in the traits those genes influence--are by definition evolutionary changes. The notion that humans might regress or "devolve" presumes that there is a preferred hierarchy of structure and function--say, that legs with feet are better than legs with hooves or that breathing with lungs is better than breathing with gills.
- I hope this is sufficient evidence that the term currently used is not correct. I also hope you do not mind that I shifted your reply backward, I believe it helps distinguish our messages, as it matches our previous comments. Not that anyone is actually going to be reading through this… Sevrandy (talk) 04:08, December 1, 2013 (UTC)
You didn't provide sources. You provided A source. And from Wikipedia. -.- Anyways, I'll go ahead and cut this short: I went ahead and changed the terminology to avoid future confusion. I hope it's to your satisfaction and that it reads out better than "devolve". Some Assembly Required! 04:18, December 1, 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, the above also explains why degenerated is incorrect. Sevrandy (talk) 04:16, December 1, 2013 (UTC)
Then what do you propose? Because "evolve" is also not correct. Just as a child born with no arm didn't evolve to not have an arm, the swampfolk did not evolve because radiation, a poor living environment and inbreeding caused cancerous growths and less intelligence. Some Assembly Required! 04:20, December 1, 2013 (UTC)
- I previously linked to dictionary.com as well. Evolved is the correct term. I will refer to two more bits from the above source:
- From a biological perspective, there is no such thing as devolution. All changes in the gene frequencies of populations--and quite often in the traits those genes influence--are by definition evolutionary changes.
- Chief among these misconceptions is that species evolve or change because they need to change to adapt to shifting environmental demands […]
- Another misconception is that increasing complexity is the necessary outcome of evolution. In fact, decreasing complexity is common in the record of evolution.
- As for intelligence, I have two points. One, are the people who live in a tribe in Africa that lacks even a basic education system somehow less evolved than a group of individuals that work at CERN? Are the people who live in the inner city, who are likely less educated and considered less intelligent, less evolved than the people who work at CERN? This argument was once used to support racism. Two, there is no "progression" or "regression" in evolution, so this would be irrelevant. Sevrandy (talk) 04:51, December 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Here is the problem that I'm seeing here:
- There is a difference between adaptation and evolution. Adaptation is what leads up to evolution, but it id the result of only decades/generations. For instance: If an animal is introduced into a colder climate and grows a thicker hide, that is merely adaptation. However, if that same animal is introduced into an ecosystem that has produced land predators as the dominant force, and the animal grows wings after hundreds/thousands of years to help survive the hostile environment, that would be evolution.
- There is absolutely no proof that the swampfolk evolved to look/act the way that they do now. The only definitive element produced are their cancerous growths, which Occam's Razor suggests would be a result of their radioactive homeland. By saying that they evolved would be speculation without evidence to back it up. So without evidence, no, "evolve" would not be the proper term here. Some Assembly Required! 05:02, December 1, 2013 (UTC)
I actually take that back. Thinking back on it, any mutation is still considered a form of evolution. So the real question here is whether or not "evolve" is really the most appropriate thing to say in this case. For instance, I wouldn't say "The NPC Jimmy evolved to have Polio." and I wouldn't say "The community of Redding evolved to have astigmatism.".
What seems appropriate to me is to play off of the obvious ailments the swampfolk have, with words like "deteriorate" and "degenerate" being more appropriate as they call attention to their blights caused by a hostile environment. Some Assembly Required! 05:15, December 1, 2013 (UTC)
- I don't mean to interject, but what's wrong with the second sentence you provided? Its scientifically accurate. Stars and Stripes (talk) 05:52, December 1, 2013 (UTC)