Re: Things that don't evolve

Isn't it just inaccurate to use the term "evolution" to mean "change"?
Doesn't "evolution" specifically mean "natural selection acting on random
genetic mutations?" That's why Dawkins had to invent something like "memes"
-- he needs the cultural equivalent of a "gene" that can be acted upon by
natural selection. So maybe here's another one: human reason doesn't
evolve. Reasoned decisions aren't always random and they are in some sense
beyond natural selection precisely because they are purposeful and
reasoned. Unless there's no such thing as free will.

On 3/17/06, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> 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* <http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/>
>
>
Received on Fri Mar 17 16:46:49 2006