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

Others will no doubt chip in on this, but you've picked a perfect
example of a non-biological manifestion of evolution. Every star changes
dramatically throughout its life, over long periods of time; size,
nuclear reaction scheme, color, energy output flux and spectrum, etc.
Most are main-sequence stars, so called because they follow a common
pattern of evolution over their lifetimes. In that sense, stars do in
fact evolve.

Notably, this is distinct from the most common use in a biological
context because there is no trait inheritance passed along from one star
to another formative star. In a biological context, this trait
inheritance, and the potential for changes in these inherited traits is
central to the most common idea of evolution. In the biology realm, we
usually do not think of the changes from zygote to adult as constituting
evolution, though it does fit the simple change-over-time definition of
evolution. But this definition is pushed into disuse in light of the
more common understanding of biological evolution as involving passing
on mutations to succeeding generations. A given sun man indeed observe
the 2nd law of thermodynamics if isolated. But let it be large enough in
a circumstance that permits it to continue to sweep in matter from its
surroundings, and there might not be continuous energy loss. Just to
say, "Careful" not to confuse the 2nd law of thermodynamics with

Evolution basically is just change. It may be toward greater or lesser
complication (complexity), or it may even be essentially neutral with
respect to those parameters (as in a simple DNA transposition in a
"quiet zone" that manifests no observable consequence).

There may be broad correlations between complication and entropy as you
suggest, but in local specifics, there may be significant departures -
the nature of all things which have some statistical or probabilistic
characteristics. A structural simplification might result in greater
clarity of the substance comprising an eye lens. Is that an increase or
decrease in complication?

JimA

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.
>
>
>
> -----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
> <http://ca.yahoo.com/bin/set>
>
Received on Sat Mar 25 23:16:23 2006