RE: [SPAM]RE: Are there things that don't evolve?

Replying to Gregory Arago
"Perhaps, after several people shared their knowledge about thermodynamics
and entropy, you would be willing now to help put the thread back on track."
by combining the various replies I have recieved:

If evolution is defined using the 'by complication' and not the 'by descent'
definition, and acknowledging that the law of entropy does exist in a closed
system, then we must have 'something which does not evolve'.

The most obvious thing which does not evolve is the sun, and other suns,
which lose energy continually.

'Increase in complication' and 'decrease in entropy', while not synonomous,
definitely have a correlation.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Gregory Arago [mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca]
  Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 8:06 PM
  To: Debbie Mann; Asa
  Subject: [SPAM]RE: Are there things that don't evolve?

  Hello Debbie,

  Nice to 'meet' you at ASA! Perhaps, after several people shared their
knowledge about thermodynamics and entropy, you would be willing now to help
put the thread back on track.

  Can you give an example or examples of things that don't evolve? Are there
things that don't evolve?

  Recently, we have had a few more contributions about things that *do*
evolve.

  "'Evolution' in the context of science courses usually involves only
organic evolution. However, it should be clear to all that language
evolves." - Dave Siemens

  But there is still a seeming reluctance to discuss things that don't
evolve, perhaps due to the distasteful idea of anti-evolutionism in American
science and religion discourse. Clearly when Ted Davis says evolution
functions as a 'theory of everything,' he is not endorsing Dawkin's atheism.
Perhaps it would help if Ted himself would address the topic and discover if
he could come up with an example of something, anything that doesn't evolve?
Or is there really nothing that doesn't evolve?

  At the same time, David Opderbeck claims TE's don't advocate evolution as
a 'theory of everything' because evolution "speaks only to observable
natural mechanisms." Perhaps evolution should be considered as only a
naturalistic phenomenon. Maybe non-natural (e.g. cultural, social, ethical)
or non-physical things, as was suggested earlier, are examples of things
that don't evolve? How might it help us to distinguish evolution from mere
change - or are they functionally equivalent synonyms?

  David writes: "perhaps you can say everything "evolves" if by "evolves"
you just mean "changes." Even here I think we'd have to exclude God from
this, unless one wants to endorse open theism. But if we use "evolves" that
broadly, it doesn't seem to be a meaningful term anymore."

  JimA used the phrase 'change by complication' - in that case, could a
person suggest that 'change by simplification' is an example of something
that has changed, but not evolved?

  Regards,

  Gregory Arago

  Debbie Mann <deborahjmann@insightbb.com> wrote:
    Thank you for all your responses. Wayne, I like your comments about 'why
do things evolve upward?'. In the same thought process as 'The Clockmaker'
argument, it seems totally illogical that they do - unless there is a
'Programmer'. ... It just doesn't make sense to me that things evolve upward
unless God is directing things.
    ...
    I could accept downward diversification with the natural selection of
traits in beings that were less advanced than the master parent race.

    Debbie Mann
    (765) 477-1776

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
  Make Yahoo! Canada your Homepage Yahoo! Canada Homepage