Re: [asa] Cosmological Evolution?

Greg,
One reason why 'process' and 'change' are not synonyms for 'evolution' is
that there are more definitions to the latter. Four were given earlier,
but they did not cover the earlier usage, its reference to embryonic and
fetal development. While 'development' seems closer to the meaning, the
evolution of gases does not seem to fit any of the terms very well. But
'development by internal forces' seems to fit reasonably well for both
biological and cosmological evolution. In contrast, 'change' does not fit
biological evolution well because there is an OEC theory of change that
has God introducing new genes into creatures from time to time. This
would at least give an appearance closer to what is expected by
evolutionary theory.

Let me add that I'm a little disappointed with your response here. There
are times when you seem to parse differences minutely, but here you lump
things together. At least in taxonomy, a lumper and a splitter are not
going to be the same person.
Dave

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 14:20:02 -0500 (EST) Gregory Arago
<gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> writes:
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.