Re: [asa] Cosmological Evolution?

Bill Hamilton wrote:
  "I agree that 'process' and 'change' are imperfect synonyms for 'evolution'."
   
  This is great, then we agree! Could you please go further now and say why you agree with this? Why are these two concepts imperfect synonyms for evolution?

  As for the Oxford Compact on-line dictionary def'n of 'evolution', you say that 'stellar evolution' (i.e. closely related to 'cosmological evolution') means: "2 gradual development" and "4 a pattern of movements or manoeuvres."
   
  Please excuse that I'm still doubting how this qualifies as a kind of 'cosmological evolution.' Things in space and over-time develop and move, gradually (as opposed to?), and there are patterns? Doesn't such a def'n seem philosophical rather than scientific?
   
  Arago
  

Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
  
--- Gregory Arago wrote:

> “The cosmos is certainly ‘changing,’ but I wonder why people (esp.
> cosmologists) would use the concept of ‘evolution’ to describe that/those
> change(s).” - Arago
>
> ¨Bill Hamilton replied: “Howard Van Till in his book, "The Fourth Day..."
> describes the process of stellar evolution, wherein a star begins by fusing
> hyhdrogen into helium, and when the hyhdrogen is depleted, burns helium,
> fusing it into a heavier element (I forgot which). This process continues,
> yielding ever heavire elements, which are thrown off -- through boiling off
> or through novas -- to make them available to other stars or for planet
> formation. It is an orderly process which generates all the elements of the
> periodic table -- thus enabling the raw materials for life to be available.
> One dictionary definition of evolution is "1. A gradual process in which
> something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."
> (American Heritage online Dictionary) So I don't think "evolution" is off the
> mark.” (bolding mine)
>
> Thanks for your response Bill. It helps me to understand your position
> regarding how the raw materials of life became available.

Actually it's Howard Van Till's position (and probably that of the astronomy
community as a whole)

What follows is a
> linguistic analysis of your paragraph about why you don’t think ‘evolution’
> is off the mark. It may not count as a ‘scientific’ response, but it is
> analytical nonetheless.
>
> In your first three sentences you use the word ‘process’ 3 times – ‘the
> process of stellar evolution,’ ‘process continues’ and ‘an orderly process
> which generates.’ The dictionary you quote adds the word ‘change’ and the
> idea of ‘complexification.’ I won’t address the latter concept (and certainly
> won’t here touch the word ‘better’), but the previous two (i.e. ‘process’ and
> ‘change’) let me suggest are imperfect synonyms for ‘evolution.’

I won't touch the word 'better' either. And I agree that 'process' and 'change'
are imperfect synonyms for 'evolution'.
>
> If ‘evolution’ were synonymous with ‘process’ and with ‘change,’ then
> everything involved in a process would be ‘evolving’ and everything changing
> would also be ‘evolving.’ From my pov that gives way too much credit to a
> theory originally coined by a botanist/biologist/naturalist and it stretches
> the definition of evolution outside of science (proper) into a metaphysical
> realm (which is what people are charging i+d with). Surely there are
> processes that should not be described as ‘evolving’ and changes that are not
> ‘products of evolution?’ ‘Evolution’ is rather a particular type of process
> or a particular type of change, but it is not all processes or all changes.

Agreed, but see the definition of evolution below
>
> Please excuse the delay in response to this thread.
Hey, I've delayed a while too.

I should have provided the Oxford Compact online dictionary's definition of
evolution:

noun 1 the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to
have developed, especially by natural selection. 2 gradual development. 3
Chemistry the giving off of a gaseous product or of heat. 4 a pattern of
movements or manoeuvres

As you can see 'evolution' has several definitions. I think 'stellar evolution'
falls under definition 2 or 3.

>
> New Year's cheers,

Same to you
>
> Gregory Arago

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 5 14:20:14 2007