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

"Stellar evolution" is a well-recognized area of study in astrophysics. But stellar evolution is quite different from the biological variety. The course of biological evolution is highly contingent & depends strongly on environmental factors as well as the inherent features of organisms. Stellar evolution OTOH is pretty determninistic. I'm hard pressed to think of anything corresponding to natural selection for stars - among other things, stars don't reproduce. There are some environmental influences on stellar evolution, for how a star develops depends on the chemical composition of the interstellar material from which it forms, but the environment doesn't filter out some types of stars as it does for biological species.

If evolution just means "change over time" then there are lots of types of evolution. But it's not very profitable to try to force different things like biological evolution & stellar evolution into the mold of some all-encompassing evolutionary philosophy.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Jim Armstrong
  Cc: Asa
  Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 11:15 PM
  Subject: 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
Received on Sun Mar 26 13:46:37 2006