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

In response to Pim van Meurs
<I would disagree that suns do not evolve. Certainly losing energy may not
<be a defining factor of 'evolving'. In fact most suns go through quite a
<nice evolution. So I have to disagree with your obviousness statement
<when it comes to suns and evolving.

Then define 'evolution'. If it is 'change' then virtually everything
changes. Rocks are eroded, pears decay, our bodies turn to dust eventually.
The universe itself expands. Perhaps diamonds don't change without human or
catastrophic intervention - but then again, they are being pelted with
atomic and subatomic particles such that on some level they do change. Our
bodies are completely replaced atomicly every couple of years.

Evolution has to be defined more narrowly than change or basically the
question has no meaning.

If 'evolve' means 'leads to a different state' - then some things may not
evolve. But then carbon can change to diamonds and the elements of the sun
evolve by continually having atomic reactions that create different atoms.
The atomic reactions themselves progress as time goes on and the sun changes
colors and temperatures over time. In this definition, perhaps diamonds
don't evolve. Perhaps the earth's core doesn't evolve. Is it evolution for
water to change to vapor to change to water again? I think if you asked a
dozen educated people, the consensus would be 'no'. Webster's gives 'derive'
as a synonym. Vapor derives from water and water from vapor - but this
general a context is not what I believe most people understand 'evolve' to
mean.

When Darwin described it (at least as I remember learning it), the new
species evolved when the creature could no longer procreate with the old. It
was then unique - I'm sure you will correct me if I am misinformed. In this
definition, then the sun would perhaps evolve, since it becomes a new
chemical composition that cannot go back to being the previous one.

If, as was mentioned by people other than me, evolve means to become more
complex - then the sun doesn't evolve - depending again upon a definition.
What is 'complex'?

To decide if there is something which does not evolve - 'evolve' must be
clearly defined. And the group should agree on the definition. And that may
make the question impossible to answer.

Debbie Mann
(765) 477-1776

-----Original Message-----
From: Pim van Meurs [mailto:pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 9:31 PM
To: Debbie Mann
Cc: Asa
Subject: [SPAM]]RE: Are there things that don't evolve?

I would disagree that suns do no evolve. Certainly losing energy may not
be a defining factor of 'evolving'. In fact most suns go through quite a
nice evolution. So I have to disagree with your obviousness statement
when it comes to suns and evolving.

I am not sure what you mean by 'law of entroy does exist in a closed
system', the law of entropy exists whether or not the system is closed.

What correlation do you see between 'increase in complication' and
'decrease in entropy'.
Mathematically? Intuitively? Logically?

You wrote earlier: "Evolution bothers me theoretically because it defies
the law of entropy"

But theoretically it does not do such a thing at all. That's mostly a
creationist strawman.

Debbie Mann wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
Received on Sat Mar 25 22:46:07 2006