Re: Things that don't evolve

It's easy to try to define matters to fit preconceived notions. But
"evolution" once referred specifically to embryonic and fetal
development. "Organic evolution" is usually a matter of natural change,
but what happens naturally can be accelerated by selective breeding.
Prolific egg layers survive better and have more offspring in current
farming techniques. But it is different than GM, which does what seldom
or never happens naturally. However, there are natural consequences to
human intervention.

If you want to deny that changes in society that are not consciously
planned can be called evolution, that is a possibility. But it is not
necessary. Changes with results that continue and form the basis for
later changes seem to fit the notion of evolution. What merely varies
cyclically, for example, is hardly to be so labelled. Some changes in
society's ramifications are deliberate, but these often have unintended
consequences, which are not deliberate.

Do ideas change? What I get from Plato is not what Augustine got from
him, and not what Aquinas got. The certain consequences that Thomas
derived from Aristotle can no longer be rationally held, for there are
more than 4 or 5 elements, and no element has a natural place. Can I
understand Aristotle and his medieval followers? To some extent, but not
as the ancient Greeks and medievals did, for I am without their
commitment. I'd say that physics has evolved, even though we can go back
to earlier ideas.

Now, if instead of leaving definitions somewhat indefinite, you want to
precisely define some basic terms and develop the consequences fairly
rigorously, we'll have something rather different than a rambling
discourse. It may well be worth doing.

I have come to my 4th contribution, so in response to an earlier post
from David, I'll only say that /consensus gentium/ is not universally
adopted. What a biblical Christian proves on the basis of assumptions
will be different from that of others lacking or denying them. Indeed,
among brethren claiming scriptural authority there are differences. Are
there sacraments or ordinances, and even what do sacraments entail?
Dave

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:45:55 -0500 "David Opderbeck"
<dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
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
Received on Fri Mar 17 17:50:11 2006