Re: Things that don't evolve

"Memes" have been defined, I forget by whom, as the items of information
that are transferred socially, as genes are transferred sexually. Both
are subject to alteration. Both may become dominant in a population.
Dave

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 06:12:55 -0500 (EST) Gregory Arago
<gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> writes:
Dave,

Whose or what theory of 'memes' might you be referring to?

As for change in society requiring different rules, can I assume you are
suggesting a conclusion #11 - social things are NOT examples of things
that do not evolve? Societies evolve because/just as they change.

Let's please stick to the logic of the basic question though: what are
examples of things that don't evolve? Even if people haven't, as Dave
suggests, thought matters through, perhaps this type of setting is a good
place to discuss them.

If there are things that don't evolve, then we are getting somewhere
toward placing limitations or boundaries on what evolutionary theory can
and/or cannot explain. The other alternative, is to accept evolution as a
'theory of everything.'

Gregory

"D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
Thanks for pulling these things together. However, I'm not sure that all
these matters have been thought through. For example, I read recently
that human beings are still evolving, specifically in the genes that
affect intelligence. So there is apparently greater understanding. This
means change over time in understanding--what have been called memes.

As to morality, change in society requires different rules. Some matters
remain, like "Do not murder" (misstated as "Do not kill"). But the
prohibition on interest had to give way. Also, there was no attempt
10,000 years or so ago to protect large mammals or the environment, but
ecology is currently one of the moral imperatives that have been
discussed on t his list and at ASA meetings.
Dave

Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
Received on Fri Mar 17 14:53:18 2006