Re: Are there things that don't evolve?

I think that Greg is on the right track, but doesn't go far enough.
David's restrictive definition is currently in error because there are
many more mechanisms than random mutations involved. Hybridization and
lateral gene flow come immediately to mind, along with environmental
variation. Additionally, "mutation" usually refers to point mutations,
which may either delete a base or alter it. There are also longer
deletions as well as duplications, small and large--single bases,
stretches of DNA, entire genes, chromosomes, genomes.

One also needs to be sensitive to current usage. "Evolution" in the
context of science courses usually involves only organic evolution.
However, it should be clear to all that language evolves. Anglo-Saxon and
Norman French, the major inputs, are notably different from contemporary
English. Indeed, modern English, as exemplified in a facsimile of the
original KJV, will not be read with facility by most of us.

There are numerous other factors. An obvious one is context. An
unmodified term may function is a narrower context whereas modifiers are
needed in a broad context. Discussions inside a group adopting Christian
Science, Science of Mind or Creation Science will drop the modifiers.
Those looking on will insist on them, whether explicitly or tacitly
within the discussion. Language is an incredibly flexible and powerful
means of communication, so complex that attempts at machine translation
are still not entirely satisfactory. Specifying what speakers and hearers
automatically add to the sounds or squiggles is more complicated than
most of us realize.
Dave

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:09:09 -0500 (EST) Gregory Arago
<gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> 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.” – David
Opderbeck
 
It is hard to agree upon a singular or specific definition of evolution,
since the concept is applied in such a variety of situations and fields
of study. Undoubtedly, some of the places evolutionary theories are used
are false (just as can be said about ‘creation’ and ‘ID’), which is what
was implied to a huge audience in St. Peter’s Square, Rome on April 24,
2005, to the effect that we “are not some casual and meaningless product
of evolution.” Human reason is partly a non-physical thing and partly
something that must be connec ted with a physical entity via the human
mind/brain/heart. Thus, for physicalist evolutionists, who attribute
reason solely to physical causality, reason can be said to evolve as all
physical things do (except quartz!?). Does reason change; yes, perhaps it
does. But that was not the question posed in the thread.
 
“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 mo
re 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
 
In this short post Jim references ideas such as ‘evo process’ (while
David Campbell’s ‘process theology’ went untouched), ‘preference,’
‘benefit,’ ‘drift,’ ‘emergence,’ ‘sensory capability,’ ‘degree,’ ‘levels’
and ‘states’ as parts of related evolutionary vocabulary, while making
his human reason-is-not-static (i.e. therefore it evolves) argument.
Clearly the linguistics of evolution needs to be made clear one way or
another. Which concepts take priority in which circumstances and in which
disciplines or fields of scientific research? David O., for example,
seems to use the word 'random' pejoratively, but is there not a positive
sense of randomness too?
 
One thing is clear. There is a new generation of scholars that is
unwilling to allow evolution to persist with its monopoly over the
concept of ‘change-over-time.’ That is one reason I suggested this
thread, to help show that ‘evolution’ does not mean the same thing as
‘change.’ If people at ASA are willing to distinguish which things
actually ‘evolve’ from which things simply ‘change’ then we’ll be getting
somewhere new (or rather old). According to Dave, ‘mere’ cyclical
variation would still fit into the category of ‘change’ labeled so
broadly, but would NOT count as ‘evolution’. Does this not cover a whole
variety of things that don’t evolve?
 
“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.
 
I have come to my 4th contribution, so in response to an earlier post
from David, I'll only say that /consensus gentium/ is n ot 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 Siemens, Jr.
 
Several examples have been given of things that don’t evolve. The notion
of ‘unintended consequences’ from human decision-making will have to be
left out of the discussion for now. Scientists should respect the
‘science’ of other scientists if those scientists can back up their
claims using science, and perhaps with the help of philosophy sometimes
too (gasp!). Theologians, who have come to wholly accept evolutionary
theories into their worldview/psyche, will likely not take easily to a
suggestion that they *must* limit the ways in which evolution can be
applied. Need it be so? It seems as if they may have tied up their
conception of God, our Creator, so closely with ‘evolution’ that to draw
a boundary around usage of evolution would seem tantamount to limiting
God’s creative action. That said, however, it was therefore comforting to
me that George Murphy not long ago credited the IDM with at least
promoting further discussion about God’s creative action in the world.
 
As far as the main point I would like to express in this message goes, it
is crucial to first admit that I am not a physical/natural scientist.
This does not mean that I do not study physical things or that the things
I study are somehow un-natural. But it does mean that I operate
theoretically outside of the paradigm of evolution as defined by the
physical/natural sciences. That somehow makes it easier to confront
evolution elsewhere (i.e. where it actually also exists).
 
As a result, one conclusion is fundamental: evolution, when used as a
‘theory of everything’ (including to explain these words that I just
wrote here, as supposedly ‘evolving’ into existence) is a trag edy. There
is no complexity or ambiguity involved in saying this; it is plain and
simple, lickety-split. One shouldn’t be afraid to place limits on any
scientific concept, especially if considering that not to do so might
narrow or bias one’s thinking. There are other ways to approach the topic
of change than using evolution, that don’t carry such ideological baggage
or anti-theistic tendencies. Nevertheless, putting a body of definitive,
coherent, knowledge around such a belief is something easier to hint
about than to do in reality. So I ask for your patience and morale
support.
 
As an aside, I must say that I do hold a measure of respect for those who
are try ing to do something special with ‘intelligent + design,’ though
the inadequacies and faulty-ness of their supposed ‘science’ has been
revealed many times here at ASA. They have not been spared legitimate
scrutiny and that goes to show a healthy dialogue among Christian
scientists and those who are using ID to promote agnosticism. IDists have
tried to do something which was not attempted (“so far no serious
competitor has come forward” – Karl Popper, 1974, Unended Quest). They
have tried to overwrite C. Darwin’s contribution to science, and to
replace it with a theistic-science in the process.
 
It seems the question for sc ientists who are religious or theologically
inclined is simply this: who are you willing to follow as an authority on
the topic of evolution, in ALL its varieties, shapes and forms? Do you
subscribe to evolution as a ‘theory of everything’? If so, from where do
you get your ideas about evolution outside of natural(istic) science? Do
you accept the testimonies of Richard Dawkins (and his memes), Paul and
Patricia Churchland (and their philosophies of mind), Daniel Dennett,
E.O. Wilson, Michael Ruse, Eugenie Scott, Thomas Nagel, et al.? Or are
you willing to search for other possibilities in areas that have yet to
be explored?
 
In His Peace,
 
Gregory

Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:
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 t he 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> 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

Enrich your life at Yahoo! Canada Finance
Received on Fri Mar 24 14:02:22 2006