Re: Things that don't evolve

It would seem to me that a case could be made that human reason does
evolve.
1. in our human population, there exists quite a diversity of levels of
reason (a la IQ and ability to abstract) and approaches to learning
(visual, aural, etc.). The mere existence of many such states invites
consideration of the operation of an evolutionary process. But more to
the point, to the extent that any of these "states" is preferrable at
any given time, for any reason, then there is "space" for the evolution
of the reasoning capacity and processes.
2. if there is any drift of any sensory capability up or down, or
emergence of some hitherto latent sensory capacity to any significant
(however small) degree, the reasoning would need to evolve inextricably
for that sensory resource to be of any benefit.

Also, we are a bit too constrained in our own narrow time frame to be
able to apply tools that would measure or make us aware of longitudinal
multi-generational "drift" of reasoning processes, so that would appear
to invalidate any conclusion that human reason is static.

Or so it seemeth to me... JimA

David Opderbeck wrote:

> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 23:49:41 2006