Re: Things that don't evolve

Please toggle your memory Dave - 'have been defined' (passive voice) is wanting. Otherwise, it seems that you're simply buying into what Dawkins says. Just like for D. Dennett, for Dawkins everything evolves. If evolution is really a 'theory of everything,' such thinking about 'memes' is exactly what the theory calls for. I'm intent to dispell that notion. It seems that others at ASA are ready and willing to identify things that don't evolve either.
   
  Arago
  
 
  "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." - Chinese Proverb
   
  
"D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
      "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

                                
---------------------------------
Make free worldwide PC-to-PC calls. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger with Voice
Received on Fri Mar 17 16:23:48 2006