Just like the ideology of ‘naturalism’ claims that *everything* is ‘natural,’ the ideology of ‘evolutionism’ says that *everything* ‘evolves.’ As you have seen recently, I am questioning the ideology of evolutionism openly and directly here at TSZ.
As such, I have a simple challenge for people here:
What are examples of things that don’t ‘evolve?’
It’s a very basic and straightforward question. But it’s one that shows itself to be very difficult for people who are or consider themselves evolutionists to answer due to the ideological exaggeration of evolutionary theory (biological, cosmological, cultural or otherwise) into the belief that everything evolves, i.e. into ‘evolutionism.’ Those who are not ‘evolutionists’ (whether theists or atheists) usually find it easier to answer and thus to circumscribe the meaning of ‘evolution.’
For the more philosophically minded (in case they would like to nit pick the question), please don’t get caught on arguing about what is a ‘thing.’ Alternatively, the question can inquire the reader to tell us about “that which does not evolve.”
Two qualifications:
1) Don’t waste energy doing disciplinary dancing. It’s meant as an interdisciplinary question re: evolutionism, as broadly interdisciplinary as imaginable. It could be humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, applied sciences, performance arts, music, sports, cuisine, dancing, religion, politics, language…whatever you can imagine in the realm of knowledge. Please just state clearly and coherently what it is that you think “does not evolve” in a given realm.
2) It is not an acceptable response to ask me to define ‘evolution’ as a prerequisite for you before you can possibly give an answer. I know what I mean by ‘evolution.’ What I’m interested in is what you mean by it and if you limit its linguistic usage in *any* ways. Thus, what I’m looking for is what you think “does not evolve,” according to your language.
In case there might be a theist or two commenting, let us also take off the table the belief that “God doesn’t ‘evolve’,” because some people here don’t accept that as being important one way or another and because this is not about an intra-theology dispute.
Context: This question is posed with the assumption (based partly on TSZ’s raison d’être against UD) that *everyone* here is actually an ‘evolutionist,’ with the exception of the IDists who occasionally visit. Those who would wish to openly deny being ‘evolutionists’ are welcome to do so. It should likely be easier for them to answer the single question of this thread.
The easiest way to disprove my claim (which does obviously seem outlandish to some) that the ideology of evolutionism is indeed problematic is to come up with many examples of that which does not evolve and thus to prove that evolutionary theory actually is *not* exaggerated, as I am claiming it is. I’m predicting that no more than 5 significant examples of “things that don’t evolve” will be contributed on this thread. A more likely result would be less than 3.
Evolutionists tend to be very weak on this question or avoid it entirely, so there is a decent chance that nobody at TSZ will even respond to this thread with positive examples. That, of course, would also prove a point about the ideology of evolutionism being problematic.
Thanks for your participation TSZers,
Gregory
p.s. if you are clearly not interested in answering the question and simply seek diversion, your post will likely not remain in the thread; otherwise all people of good will are welcome
Comment moved to guano. I know Gregory seems to have an extraordinary knack of ruffling feathers but rules is rules!
Individual living organisms.
You guys have zero sense of humor.
Elementary particles. They interchange, of course, but don’t ‘evolve’. Same for the physical constants.
But most things made of them tend to evolve, largely because of the arrow of entropy. Why you think people having an expectation of evolution in complex systems is ‘problematic’ is less clear. You see it as a threat to some political status quo or something?
What doesn’t evolve? Anything living that does not pass on a genotype to descendants. For example if one gets cancer, and is treated by chemotherapy, the cancer cells evolve (unfortunately). But if someone else later gets a cancer of the same type, there is no reason why those cancer cells will have any of the resistance to chemotherapy that your cells developed.
Things change. Stone gradually weathers, for example. But that too is not evolution, except in some vague metaphorical sense.
I think Gregory will find almost no scientist who meets his definition of “evolutionism”. I am an evolutionary biologist, and would therefore also call myself an “evolutionist”, but my views are not an example of his definition of “evolutionism” so I am not an “evolutionismist”.
Great straw man he has there.
Lizzie’s rules, Thorton, sorry. Your comment can still be found
‘Biological evolution’ is about two things: One, replication. Two, variation which has an effect on the likelihood of future replication.
‘Non-biological evolution’ is a fancied-up synonym for the general concept of ‘change’.
To a first approximation, ‘biological evolution’ does not and cannot apply to inanimate objects, because they don’t tend to replicate in the first place, let alone replicate-with-variation. That said, in an environment which includes intelligent agents that like to create inanimate objects, it’s arguable that something analogous to ‘biological evolution’ would apply to the objects created by those agents.
What evolves? In the technical biological sense, populations with individuals who inherit characteristics, where alleles (or an equivalent) change frequency over time.
In other usage, anything (such as an object, system, individual, or process) that changes gradually over time. For example, a solar system, Peter’s political views, democracy, a neighbourhood.
Whether a value judgement is implied depends on context. Often no value judgement is implied at all.
Many people at this website are “evolutionists” in the first sense.
Is English your second language?
Moderators are not supposed to have a sense of humor.
Personally, I was going to wait until Gregory discovered that he did not have the ability to move comments to Guano.
Non-Evolvable Things [content restored by Lizzie]
Non-Evolvable Things
Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens
Brown paper packages tied up with strings
These are a few non-evolvable things
Cream colored ponies and crisp apple streudels
Doorbells and sleigh bells and schnitzel with noodles
Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings
These are a few non-evolvable things
Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes
Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes
Silver white winters that melt into springs
These are a few non-evolvable things
A non-scientist
With a dumb claim
Makes me shake my head
I simply list those non-evolvable things
And then laugh out loud instead!
That made me chuckle!
Not a metaphor, Joe. Just a different (and earlier) sense of the word.
I’d like to say that creationists don’t evolve, but of course they do. ID, for instance.
They don’t evolve with respect to a gain in knowledge of science in general, and biology in particular, however. In the science realm they simply remain unfit–unless they adopt the actual theories and models that work in order to do some science, all the while denying the obvious conclusions.
Glen Davidson
Well, since “evolution” in its original sense is an “unwinding” of a previously-existing program, biological evolution is not “evolution” in that sense. But of course I meant biological evolution.
The nails in my backyard fence rust. I would not call that “evolution”, but I would not find fault with somebody who did. I would not use “evolution” for the aging process, but I would not find fault with somebody who did. I would say that a person’s knowledge evolves (as a way of describing the learning process). I would say that culture evolves, though I would not talk of it in terms of memes.
The differential equations that describe the dissipation of heat, are often called “the evolution equation.”
The word “evolution” is a perfectly ordinary word. There cannot be a problem using it in an ordinary way. When used with biology, the word instead gains a technical meaning.
Perhaps “evolution” has a technical meaning in other disciplines, and perhaps there are problems with that technical meaning. If Gregory believes so, then it is up to him to make the case. I’m inclined to doubt that this is an appropriate place for making that case.
😀
And I counted sixteen, going on seventeen, non-evolvable things there.
Plus Allan’s seventeen makes 34.
Plus Alan’s 600 billion trillion (and that’s just counting the ones that live *in* humans)
Quantitative predictions not Gregory’s strong suit.
Which raises the question… 😕
There’s stellar evolution and (related) chemical evolution. Still, on reflection maybe I was a little hasty in saying ‘most things’ evolve.
But languages, societies, music, one’s understanding …
Biological evolution is kind of learning. Populations change, the direction of change steered by feedback.
Change steered by feedback is a defining characteristic of evolution.
Of course, there’s the older sense of the word: unfolding. But that is a nit archaic.
In this context I take “evolve” to denote replication with heritable variation and selection (etc.). Given that definition most things don’t evolve, although most things change in other ways, and oftentimes bear their histories into the present.
Skinner often noted the analogy between operant learning and natural selection.
That would fit the analogy between biological evolution and learning.
Analogies and metaphors have limits, so one needs to be careful when saying societies evolve, or technologies, and so forth.
Is that a threat, Gregory? Else, what do you mean by that?
So has Gregory found anyone here who falls prey to the
?
Any evolutionismists present? I haven’t noticed any.
Gregory?
Debatable in some cases; in part it depends on how you choose to use the word “evolve”. The time development of a quantum state is often referred to as its evolution, so I think it’s reasonable to talk about the time evolution of a neutrino as it oscillates.
That’s pretty nitpicky, however, and some particles at least clearly don’t evolve, e.g. photons.
Stars. You may have heard of “stellar evolution”, but while it’s the same word that occurs in “biological evolution”, it means something quite different. Biological evolution refers to change between generations of organisms (and specifically excludes aging — the normal sequence of changes an individual goes through during their lifetime). Stellar evolution, on the other hand, refers to the sequence of changes an individual star goes through within its lifetime (and does not include the changes between generations — or populations, as they’re called).
Mind you, there are differences between different generations of stars — the later generations contain more heavy elements, since they form from the remains of previous generations of stars (which spent their lifetimes fusing light elements into heavier elements). But while this is closer to the biological meaning of evolution, the process (and results) are still quite a bit different.
My real point here: just because you see the word “evolution” applied to many different things, does not mean there’s some grand all-encompassing ideology claiming them all as its territory. If you define “evolution” narrowly, as I’ve done here, it applies to very few things: organisms, viruses, some kinds of computer programs, … If you define it broadly, it could apply to anything that changes (which is almost everything). It needn’t have any philosophical baggage attached, unless you insist on attaching it.
You people are failing to conform to Gregory’s stereotype. Shame on you.
It might be worth pointing out that in biology there is an important difference between development, which refers to the change in an organism over time, and evolution, which refers to the change in a population over time.
In that sense “stellar evolution” is “stellar development”.
But the simple fact is that “evolution” has a number of different meanings. Just because one is an “evolutionist” in the sense of holding to the view that biological evolution occurs and accounts for the adaptation and diversification of biological populations down lineages from a simpler universal common ancestor doesn’t mean that one is also an “evolutionist” about anything other subject in which the word is used in some other sense.
But I completely agree that evolution is a learning algorithm. My first banning from UD was for saying that.
Here’s a summary of answers to the question of ‘What are examples of things that don’t evolve?’ so far:
Category 1) Individual living organisms. – Alan Fox
Similar to this, Joe Felsenstein said “Anything living that does not pass on a genotype to descendants” and Neil Rickert said “the aging process.”
This doesn’t count in my view because there is an on-going debate between Individual selection vs. Group selection and the relatively new notion of eVo-deVo. So, even though I may agree with Alan, Joe and Neil as a ‘group selectionist’, as an ‘individual selectionist’ or ‘selfish gene’ person, the claim is rejected. Being part of an evolving biological population, but not individually ‘evolving’ still counts as evolution if *all* living things are evolving (e.g. Dobzhansky’s nothing/everything in light of evolution statement). That is what biological evolution means, as I understand it; all biological entities are evolving as individuals *and/or* as groups. [Aside: If you want to start a different thread about Individual vs. Group Selection please be welcome, but that isn’t the main topic of this thread and doesn’t belong here.]
Category 2) Elementary particles. – Allan Miller / Protons – Steve Schaffner
These were suggested but then refuted by each other. Steve Schaffner responded to Alan with Quantum evolution and Allan Miller later responded with Stellar evolution. In the context of those evolutionary theories, elementary particles and protons do ‘evolve.’
Category 3) Physical constants. – Alan Miller
Yes, I would agree with Alan about that. Physical constants (or Natural Laws) do not evolve. This is part of the ‘unity of nature’ presupposition for doing natural-physical sciences.
Neil Rickert also added “differential equations that describe the dissipation of heat,” but then qualified it by saying it is sometimes called “the evolution equation.” But do ‘equations’ (e.g. in mathematics, physics or chemistry) themselves actually ‘evolve’? I would argue no they don’t, at least not from the perspective of Platonic mathematicians.
Category 3) is a success on the topic of “What are examples of things that don’t ‘evolve’?”
Category 4) The nails in my backyard fence rust. – Neil Rickert
Allan Miller responded to this: Chemical evolution.
Category 5) “Most things don’t evolve”?
“I take “evolve” to denote replication with heritable variation and selection (etc.). Given that definition most things don’t evolve” – Reciprocating Bill2
Can you please give some concrete examples, Reciprocating Bill2? Are you suggesting that anything non-biological, anything outside of the biosphere, anything not studied by biologists does not ‘evolve’? Your response sounds a bit like Joe’s above, but I don’t want to misinterpret you.
Category 6) Stars. – Gordon Davidson
That falls under the category of Cosmological evolution, since Gordon didn’t accept Stellar evolution on the grounds that it differs from biological evolution, a point which Lizzie addressed as ‘Stellar development.’ There are even those who speak of “a population of universes evolving by natural selection”. Certainly stars are part of universes, so they too are said to ‘evolve.’
Several interesting comments have also been made as commentary, which I’d like to bring up again later. For now, I’d just like to develop the list: what are examples of things that don’t ‘evolve’ according to you?
So far, I count only 1 example given of something that unequivocally *does not ‘evolve’*: Physical Constants and Equations.
p.s. reminder, posts not staying on topic will not remain visible
Yes, it made me chuckle too. Unfortunately, it’s not on topic: “not interested in answering the question and simply seek diversion”
We’ll get to that, Joe. I’m still interested in building TSZ’s list of “things that don’t evolve”.
This is helpful, Lizzie. I was thinking the same thing (re: eVo-deVo) before reading it. I’ll pick up on your “doesn’t mean that one is also an ‘evolutionist’ about anything other subject in which the word is used in some other sense” after the list is more developed. Can you also add to the list of “things that don’t evolve”? I’m curious to hear what you place in the ‘non-evolving’ or ‘non-evolvable’ category.
Glen, I don’t mind the humour here, but please try to stay on-topic and perhaps give a serious example of “things that don’t evolve”. I’m not taking sides with creationists/evolutionists, but your example could have just been ‘people don’t evolve.’ And I don’t think that’s really what you were implying, were you?
Gregory,
Do not edit other’s posts. Apart from by request or to correct obvious HTML errors, this is strictly against site rules. Do not delete comments. If you feel a comment breaks the rules of this site you should move the comment to guano (page 57).
ETA I have temporarily changed your role to that of contributor pending input from Lizzie.
ETA to correct “ovious” spelling error 🙁
Well, I’d say in the narrow biological sense, the things that can evolve are populations of self-replicators, This includes populations of populations of selfreplicators, because the populations themselves are self-replicators. So the human populations replicates itself just as human beings replicate themselves.
In a slightly broader sense, I’d say that anything that self-replicates with heritable variance in reproductive success can evolve. This includes virtual life (e.g. some computer algorithms) and also patterns of brain activity.
Even more broadly, we could say that any system with iterative feedback loops evolves in that sense, so chaotic systems “evolve”, and can evolve adaptively, resulting in the maintenance of homeostasis. So in that sense, sand-dune patterns evolve, and standing vortices.
At it’s most broad, I’d say that systems evolve to maximise their persistence over time.
But I don’t see that any of these things have anything to do with “evolution-ism”. They are just things that can be effectively described by non-linear dynamic models.
This has nothing to do with group selection. Genomes of individuals do not change. The genomes of populations change over time.
If so, then your view is wrong. Given the number of times you’ve asserted that other people are wrong/ignorant/whatever about your particular specialism, I trust you won’t object to being declared wrong about a specialism which is not yours?
Not sure why you’re capitalizing the ‘V’s in “evo-devo”. And if you think the debate between “individual selection” and “group selection” is an indication that an individual life form can evolve, or that any biologist thinks an individual life form can evolve, you think wrong.
If that is indeed your understanding of what ‘biological evolution’ means, your understanding is wrong.
I call bullshit. Since when do elementary particles replicate themselves with heritable variations?
“Presupposition”? Heh. Okay, you are a Creationist. Which explains why you are so grossly wrong about what this ‘evolution’ thingie is.
Alan, I was told by another Moderator that I could not move comments to Guano. I looked for that option and didn’t find it. Can you link to the site rules for authors/contributors? My intention was to keep the thread on-topic, not to break site rules. I have copies of the deleted posts, if they should be re-posted in Guano.
This comment should also be moved to Guano.
1. In the sense of the biological theory of evolution, the list is huge. Anything that isn’t:
A population where the individuals inherit characteristics and alleles change frequency over time.
The list includes
– Ventriloquists
– Elvis Presley
– Postman Pat
– Hello! magazine
– Turly, Madly, Deeply
– A Parliamentary Affair by Edwina Currie
– 1975
– Jazz
– The Magic Roundabout
– Bonn, Germany
– The “Dear Son” Nationwide Advert
– 1970s softcore German pornography
– Margi Clark
– The FA Cup
– The Our Tune section of Simon Bates’ radio shows.
– Snoopy
– Space hoppers
– Leggings
– TV cop shows
– The Word
– Casualty
– Long gloves
– Eurodisney
– Come Dancing
– Faeces
– Songs of Praise
– Australian TV programmes
– DIY
– Richard and Judy
– Children using the telephone
– Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ole Oak Tree
– Maths teachers
– Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York
– Jilly Goolden
– Vivienne Westwood
– Dogs with disproportionately large genitals
– Germaine Greer’s post
– Michael Portillo’s lips
– TV series The Choir
– BBC Radio 2
– The 1960s
– Insurance companies
– Car stickers
– Cricket
– Student backpackers
– Public schoolboys
– Blue Peter
– Caravans
– Last of the Summer Wine
– The Bay City Rollers
– Telephone chat-up lines
– Baby talk
– Films with subtitles
– Men’s public toilets
– Being a teacher
– New Year’s Eve
– People who don’t know how to argue
– People who dress up as mascots
– Weather forecasters
– Teletubbies
– Celebrities doing jobs for which they are not qualified
– Portsmouth
– Muzak
– Chris Evans
– Spike Milligan’s house
– Soap operas
– Hunting
– Gentlemen’s clubs
– Housework
– Celebrity parties
– The fact that dog’s don’t live long enough
– Kissing on both cheeks
– Mathematics
– Posh tea
– Jeffery Archer
– Soppy love songs
– Uninformed journalists
– Cyclists
– Bill Bailey’s TV debut with a mind reading dog
– The revamped theme tune to The Bill
– The 1980s
– Chris de Burgh
– Corporate Fast food
– Extended warranties
– Cat lovers
– “God Save the Queen”
– Ken Livingstone
– Builders who mock Janet Street-Porter’s accent
– BBC Radio 1 DJs
– Stephen Bailey and other design gurus
– Cockney culture
– Wigs
– Lawyers
– Smoking bans
– Section 28
– Cooked apples
– Golf
– Bed and Breakfast
– The crown jewels
– Cheese footballs
– Eating in cinemas
– Politicians
– Rap music
– Tonsils
– Student drama
– Protest raps
– Nautical fashion
– P.E. teachers
– Children’s TV presenters
– Big Mouth Billy Bass
– Ben Elton
– Media training
– 24 hour news channels
– Late-night review shows
– New Age
– Australian Questioning Intonation
– Room 101
– People who force holiday reps to entertain, even though they have no talent
– Internet chat rooms
– Novelty underpants
– Men with colds
– Shielding the ball in football
– Shopping for clothes
– Robert Kilroy-Silk
– Horses
– Static electricity
– Cirque du Soleil
– Starbucks coffee houses
– Carved vegetables
– Abuse of handicapped parking privileges
– George Carey, The Archbishop of Canterbury
– Maybugs
– Loud music in restaurants
– Plastic wrapping
– Marzipan
– Anne Robinson
– Winter
– Cross country running
– Zoos
– Doctor Who
– Miss World and other beauty contests
– Powerboats
– Shirley Bassey
– Babies in restaurants
– Christian rock music
– Concrete
– Merchandising
– Actors
– Pointless tourist attractions
– Footballers who complain
– Announcers (mostly female) who shout at the end of a sentence
– Directors who make fast cuts
– Cowboy boots
– Britney Spears
– Baby on Board stickers
– Queuing
– Out-of-date magazines
– Trisha
– Cocaine
– Tracey Emin being drunk
– Clowns
– Ice cream vans
– Traffic calming measures
– Barney the Dinosaur
– Rude and incompetent restaurant staff
– Drivers who wait at green traffic lights
– Bad liars
– Detox diets
– Skiing holidays
– Small evening bags
– Male yoga teachers
– Open-air theatres
– Hecklers and comperes
– London buses
– Fussy make-up artists
– Education
– Notting Hill
– Once-in-a-lifetime experiences
– Banter
– Gillian McKeith
– Magicians
– Schmoozers
– Call centres
– Adverts which do not mention what is being sold
– American English
– Science fiction
– Random firework displays
– Moths
– 19-year-old girls
– Bad nightclub etiquette
– The Royal Variety Performance
– The honours system
– Bono
– Obsession with crime
– Politicians who falsely claim they are in touch with modern culture
– Space travel
– Male world leaders
– The music of Frank Sinatra
– Paul Merton and Ian Hislop
– Traffic Wardens
– All cars, including but not limited to:
Alfa Romeo Carabo
Bugatti EB110
Dome Zero
HTT Pléthore
Lamborghini Aventador
Lamborghini Countach
Lamborghini Diablo
Lamborghini Murciélago
Lamborghini Reventon
Lamborghini Veneno
Mitsuoka Orochi
MTX Tatra V8
Renault Twizy
Oullim Spirra
Spyker C8
Spyker C12 Zagato
Vector M12
Vector W8
Vector WX-3
Zender Fact 4
Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale
Devon GTX
Donkervoort D8 GT
Enzo Ferrari
Ferrari LaFerrari
Fulgura
Gillet Vertigo
Joss Supercar
Lotec Sirius
McLaren F1
McLaren M6GT
McLaren MP4-12C (doors are not hinged at the roof, unlike most butterfly door designs)
McLaren P1
Mercedes-Benz CLK-GTR
Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren
Mosler MT900
Nissan R390 GT1
Panoz Esperante GTR-1
Saleen S7
SSC Aero
SSC Tuatara
Stealth B6
Toyota Sera
Ultima Mk. 3
Ultima Sports
Ultima GTR
Manta Cars Montage
Alfa Romeo Tipo 33
Alfa Romeo 33/2
Chevron B70
Ferrari 512M/S
Ferrari 330P3/4 & 412P
Lola T70 Mk3B
Porsche 917
Bertone Mantide
BMW i8
Ferrari P4/5 by Pininfarina
Isuzu XU-1
GT by Citroen
Lotus M250
Mazda Furai
Mazda Kiyora
Mazda RX500
Mazda Taiki
SEAT Fórmula
Saab PhoeniX
Subaru Advanced Tourer
HU-GO
Mercedes-Benz 300SL
Autozam AZ-1 (a Kei car)
Bricklin SV-1
Bristol Fighter
DeLorean DMC-12
De Tomaso Mangusta (engine compartment)
Gumpert Apollo
Isdera Commendatore 112i
Melkus RS 1000
Mercedes-Benz 300SL
Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG
Pagani Huayra
Suzuki Cara (badge engineered AZ-1)
AMT Piranha
Bradley GTII
Dare DZ
Eagle SS Mk1
Fiberfab Aztec 7
Foers Ibex
GP Talon
Innes Lee Scorpion K19
RPB GT
Replicar Cursor
Sterling Sports Cars Sterling Car also known as Nova in UK
Cimbria and Neria (US versions of same car, made in diff years – later became the Eagle SS in the UK)
Manta Cars Mirage, which has two-part split doors where the top half is a removable gullwing door and the lower half is a scissor door
Chaparral 2D
Chaparral 2F
Howmet TX
Lola T70 Mk3
Mercedes-Benz 300SLR
Nimrod Aston Martin
Opel Astra V8 Coupe
Peugeot 905
Alfa Romeo 33.2
Aston Martin Bulldog
Isdera Commendatore 112i
Jiotto Caspita
Kia KV7 – normal doors up front, rear doors are gullwing
Mazda Ryuga
Mercedes-Benz C111
Mercedes-Benz C112
Opel Astra Xtreme (based on the racecar listed above)
Opel ECO Speedster
Volvo YCC
Tesla Model X
Adler Typ 10 2.5 Litre (1937–1940)
Alfa Romeo Romeo 1 and 2
Austin FX4 — the classic London black cab
Austin 7 – many two-door versions
Autobianchi Bianchina Transformabile
Bentley State Limousine
Bugatti Atlantic (1937)
Bugatti Type 57 (1934)
Bugatti T57 Aerolithe (1935)
Buick Roadmaster 1st generation (rear), 2nd generation (front)
Cadillac Eldorado Brougham – (1957)
Cadillac Fleetwood (1st generation) Note: Zoom in on the rear door and possibly the second.
Chevrolet Master 2-door (1935)
Chevrolet Master Deluxe 2-door (1935))
Chrysler Imperial Parade Phaeton
Chrysler Royal (rear doors)
Citroën 2CV early models (1948–1964)
Citroën H Van
Citroën Traction Avant (1934–1957)
Dacia Logan MCV
Delahaye
DeSoto cars in the 1940s (1946-48 S-11)
DKW 1000 S (1958–1961) (Front door)
DKW F7 (1937–1939)
DKW F8 (1939–1942)
Dodge cars in the 1930s & 1940s
EMW 340 (1949–1955) (Front door)
Facel Vega Excellence
Fiat 500 (approx. 1936-57)
Fiat 500 Spyder Bertone (1947)
Fiat 508 Balilla (1934–1939) (Rear door on 4-door sedans)
Fiat 518 Ardita (1933–1938)
Fiat 600
Fiat 1100 (1960) (Front door)
Fiat 1200 (1955) (Front door)
Fiat AR 55 Campagnola (1963)
Fiat Camareno 1100 (1932)
Fiat FS (1946)
Fiat Topolino (1936–1955)
Ford Model B (1932) (1932 V8)
Ford F-150 SuperCab (1997–present) (Front doors conventional with rear suicide half-doors)
Ford Ranger (2000–present) (Supercab version has two rear suicide doors)
Ford Thunderbird 4-door models (1967–1971)
Goggomobil (1955)
Honda Element (2003–present) (Has conventional front doors, with suicide half-doors in rear)
Hongqi CA 72
Hongqi CA 770/772/773
Hongqi CA 7650
Hongqi HQE
Jaguar MK4 (1946) (Front door)
Jowett Javelin (1947–1953)
Lancia Aprilia (1937–1948)
Lancia Ardea (1939–1953)
Lancia Augusta (1933–1936)
Lancia Aurelia (1950–1958)
Lincoln Continental 4-door sedans (1961–1969), 4-door convertibles (1961–1967)
Maybach Zeppelin
Mazda B-Series and Mazda BT-50 Freestyle Cab (2002–present)
Mazda RX-8 (2004–2011) (Has conventional front doors, with suicide half-doors in rear)
Mercedes-Benz 170 (1928–1948)
Mercedes-Benz 200t (1934)
Mercedes-Benz 500
Mercedes-Benz 540 (1938)
Mercury 4-door sedan (1949–1951)
MG TF (1953)
MINI Clubman — Has conventional front doors, with one rear suicide half-door
Nissan Titan — Extended cab models
Nissan Prince Royal- rear
Opel Kapitän (1938–1953) (Rear door)
Opel/Vauxhall Meriva (2010–present) (Rear door)
Packard 110 Sedan (1941) (Rear door)
Panhard Dyna
Peel P50
Peugeot 202 (1938)
Peugeot 203 (1948–1960)
Peugeot 301 (1935)
Peugeot 302 (1937)
Peugeot 402 (1938–1950)
Peugeot 402 Darlmat (1950)
Peugeot 601 (1940)
Pierce Silver Arrow
Praga Piccolo Furgon (1938)
Renault 4CV (1946–1961) (Front door)
Riley RM (1945–1955) (Front door)
Rolls-Royce Phantom
Rolls-Royce Phantom Coupe
Rolls-Royce Phantom Drophead Coupe
Rolls-Royce Ghost
Rolls-Royce Phantom I, II, III, IV, V and VI
Rolls-Royce Silver Dawn (front)
Rolls-Royce Silver Wraith
Rover P4 (Cars like the Rover 90 had conventional front doors, with suicide rear doors)
Rover P3
Rover SF12 (1946) (Both doors rear hinged)
Saab (Saab 92, Saab 93 and Saab 95/96 early models)
Saturn Ion Quad Coupe (2002–2007) (Has conventional front doors, with suicide half-doors in the rear.)
Saturn SC (1999–2002) (One rear suicide half-door on driver’s side)
Savage Rivale Roadyacht GTS (2009)
Singer SM1500 (1947–1954) (Rear door)
SEAT 600, SEAT 600 D (1957–1970)
SEAT 800 (1963-1968)
Škoda 1101/1102 (1946–1952)
Škoda Popular (1933–1946)
Spyker D12
Studebaker Champion (1939–1952) (Rear door on 4-door Sedans)
Subaru 360
Sunbeam-Talbot Ten
Sunbeam-Talbot 90 (Rear door on four door models)
Syrena early models
Tatra T57 (1931–1948)
Tatra T600 (1947–1952) (Front door)
Toyota Century Royal
Toyota Origin
Toyota FJ Cruiser (2006–present) (Conventional front doors, suicide half-doors in rear)
Tucker Torpedo (1948) (Rear door)
Vespa 400 (1960)
Volkswagen Kübelwagen (WWII German military Jeep-like vehicle) (Front door)
Wanderer W24 (1937–1940)
Zastava 750 (1956–1969)
ZAZ-965
– Bluetooth headsets
– Unusual spellings of common names
– Spitting
– The Australian cricket team from 1990 – 2002.
– Food packaging
– The verb ‘to party’
– Tipping
– Interviews with members of the public
– People who use suitcases on wheels
– Shops that have escalators up but only stairs down
– Local TV news
– People who don’t have their money ready at the till
– Jobsworths
– Concert etiquette
– Fifty Shades of Grey
– Vending machines
– Giant charity cheques
– Knickers
– Glamping
– Waiters who pour a little bit of wine into your glass
– Football fans who leave early
– People who watch the same film over and over again
– Shoelaces
– Other pedestrians
– People who can’t tell the difference between bees and wasps
– Homeopathy
– Fireworks
– House guests
– Reviewers and critics
– Ladies’ toilets
2. In the sense of “change gradually over time”, given that change over a femtosecond can be regarded as gradual in the right context, then the only things that do not evolve are things that do not change.
No-one here disagrees with either list. No-one is refuting anyone else. There are simply two senses of the word and your equivocation is boring and will not lead to anything fruitful.
Lizzie, we’re on the same page as far as your comments go re: self-replication, populations, even systems thought, etc. (with the exception of ‘virtual life,’ which it is arguable if there is a ‘self’ there that can be replicated; let’s leave that aside for now). But I wasn’t asking about “things that *do* evolve,” to which you’ve answered. I was instead asking about “things that *don’t* evolve.” Can you add anything to the list?
As long as we are looking for categories of things that evolve or don’t evolve, we need to define evolution as a kind of learning.
We could narrow the term to biological populations, or we could broaden it to include any system that learns.
That is why GAs and such are considered models of evolution — evolutionary algorithms. The category of things that evolve is the category of things that learn.
It so happens that all of the things that learn are populations. Populations of organisms, populations of neurons, populations of computer program objects.
The substrates and details of implementation differ, but change and selection are required components.
Exactly.
There is no issue if terms are defined. There’s no problem if we qualify ‘evolution’ sensu strictu with ‘biological’ or substitute ‘change’ for evolution in general. A bit like design or intelligence.
The “move” option is not immediately obvious. Select “more options” select “move” select “move by ID” enter the ID of the post or page to which the comment is to be sent (57 for guano, 651 for sandbox) click and enter. The delete option should no longer be available but, unfortunately, it is still available. Neil may have assumed that the intended modification to the site software has already taken place.
I hope Lizzie will let us have her input and perhaps you would like to repost those deleted comments so that maybe Lizzie could rule on them.
I think all discussion on comment policy should take place in the sandbox.
Are you suggesting genomes don’t ‘evolve’? That would be a surprising answer.
But people don’t evolve. They may lose or gain weight, they get older, they learn and forget stuff. They change. But in the biological sense, the frequency and distribution of alleles change over time is in populations, not in individuals.
“There’s no problem if we qualify ‘evolution’ sensu strictu with ‘biological’ or substitute ‘change’ for evolution in general.”
That’s exactly why I was clear in the OP: The question “What are examples of things that don’t ‘evolve’?” is “meant as an interdisciplinary question re: evolutionism, as broadly interdisciplinary as imaginable.” Because biological evolution is a subset of the larger topic ‘evolution,’ such a limiting qualification is not what is being asked for in this thread.
It comes across as semantics to me. “Cars evolve” is a true statement in that cars, car design, car manufacture have all greatly changed in the hundred or so years since they first made their appearance.
The meaning is obvious from the context and where it isn’t the burden is on the person promulgating a concept to make the usage and context clearer.
ETA Car development has largely proceeded by trial and error, wherein there are parallels with biological evolution. Car designs that are unreliable or too expensive to produce or sell are weeded out.
Not suggesting, telling you.
Individual genomes are fixed for the life of the organism. (there may be certain exceptions that I am unaware of). The changes come in at reproduction. Mutations and other ways that the genome gets shuffled happen around meiosis and the production of gametes.. An individual’s genome is fixed for life.
Gregory,
I moved another comment of yours to sandbox as I think discussion about comment policy should be in sandbox.
Cubist I moved another comment of yours to sandbox because I think discussion of site rules is best kept together in one place.
Alan, I rarely go to wiki in such discussions, but here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome_evolution
Genomes mutate and adapt, don’t they? That’s part of evolutionary process.
In any case, Alan, I’m not siding with the individual selectionists or selfish gene theoriests against the group selectionists here. But there does still appear to be controversy (or at least differing opinions) *within biology* about this (Wilsons, Dawkins, Margulis, Shapiro, et al.). Is that not true?
In any case, I think it would be a distraction to the thread to discuss that here because this thread has a very narrow and simple mission:
I’d appreciate people keeping the focus on that question for the best results. You have offered one example so far, Alan. Do you have other examples?
Could we agree on this: everything not living does not biologically evolve? But that’s sort of semantic too because ‘biology’ is often classified as the study of life (biosphere).
Discussing the unit(s) of natural selection is not within the intended scope of this thread. Again, let me remind that this is not just a question about the biosphere, but about all of reality. ‘Evolutionism’ is not the same as evolutionary biology; that much should be clear enough already.