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
Mutate, yes. But not in individuals. Adapt, no.
Requiring “living” draws the category in a way that is not useful.
A more useful distinction is learning or not learning.
You are completely missing my point. It has nothing to do with group versus individual selection. That debate is largely settled via kin selection, in any case.
I am correcting your misunderstanding of how the mechanisms of biological evolution work. What I am saying is not controversial, it’s simply a fact. Individuals have genomes that don’t change (or the changes, such as in cancerous cells, do not get passed on) Its populations that have genomes that vary, one to another. The distribution of that variation will change over time. The changes in genomes occur from parent to offspring, in the gametes.
Alan Fox wrote: “people don’t evolve.”
What is human evolution then?
Again, Alan, I’m not speaking *only* “in the biological sense” sensu strictu. I explained why above.
Thus, even if you limit ‘evolution’ to ‘populations of human beings,’ there are a significant number of cultural evolutionists who *do* argue that “people do evolve.” From a biological standpoint, one may disagree, but that doesn’t take away from the evolutionism outside of biology, which is crucial to the discussion as I have carefully framed it here in this thread.
One example:
I’m looking for examples of “things that *don’t* evolve,” not of things that do. Please don’t suggest “cars evolve” because that’s not an answer to the question. If you don’t have any other answers that’s fine too.
I’d say not. Cell lines evolve, and that evolution can take place within the body of one individual (really: in one individual cell colony). Hence cancer. We can talk about ‘a’ genome for a multicellular individual because the cells do not depart extremely from the composition of the zygote. But they do depart. Likewise, we can talk of ‘a’ genome for an entire species, but we really mean some kind of consensus sequence.
But a genome is best defined IMO as the genetic content of one cell. A single instance does not evolve (though can change), whereas a lineage of such genomes does, through a series of cellular reproductions and intermittent ‘organismal’ ones.
Individuals learn. That is why we can speak of individuals evolving.
It is important to be careful when using analogies and metaphors. Not all attributes carry from one implementation to another.
Gregory
We are talking past each other so I’m dropping out of the thread. I’m not going to have much time if any for moderating either but I hope Lizzie or Neil will oblige as needed.
Oh, I see. We have found one “evolutionismist” who wants to say all sorts of things evolved, namely Gregory. But only one such person.
O.k. Alan, then for the sake of getting back on topic, I’ll take it as a fact (and chalk up another ‘Wikipedians are idiots’ case). I’ve heard the ‘individuals don’t evolve, only populations evolve’ discussion many times. You’re still remaining in the biosphere alone.
Now, can you please return to the OP’s main question? It is meant to be broader than just biology. This should be clear already.
petrushka, yes, I agree with the importance of ‘learning.’ This links to the cybernetics and systems discourse, as well as the feedback that you’ve mentioned. But it seems we’re not there yet in this thread. You’re jumping ahead until we can clearly establish *if* there are “things that don’t evolve” and agree on what those things are.
The list still stands at only 1 (or two if one says that “individual living organisms” don’t evolve). Is there nothing else that “does not evolve”? Do you have suggestions petrushka?
Evolution is an attribute of populations. Populations evolve or not.
Populations whose characteristics do not change as a result of feedback do not evolve.
Stop right there. Your aim in this thread, you claimed, was to hear what we thought didn’t evolve in our own fields. Why are you telling us what you think evolves in our fields? (And what do you think are the odds that you will understand our fields better than we do?)
Your refutation makes no sense. Neither competing levels of selection nor evo-devo say anything about individual organisms evolving.
Here you simply didn’t read the exchange carefully. I did not refute Alan; I qualified his response, saying that some particles could be considered to be evolving, but that some clearly don’t. And the example I gave was of photons, not protons. Photons do not evolve.
Constancy of physical constants is not a presupposition for doing natural sciences, and is in fact an area of active investigation within physics.
He’s certainly giving that impression.
With respect, Allan, you may have missed the very careful distinction I was trying to make between the DNA representative in the cells of one individual as opposed to the gene pool. Fair enough, I ought to add a caveat that it applies most strictly in sexually reproducing eukaryotes but I think it is still largely correct. I did mention cancer in that comment. The opportunity for genomic change is around gamete formation.
I am sorry I have no more time today.
ETA epigenetic mutations can happen but how do they get in the gene pool? Bacteria and horizontal gene transfer sure as a special case. Symbiogenesis sure as a special case.
That’s fine Alan. I’ll be busy in the next days too. If you want to explain why you think we’re “talking past each other,” that would probably help. My suggestion is that it is because you were not willing to consider the various ways the term ‘evolution’ is applied and used *outside* of biology, while the question from the OP that I was asking is interdisciplinary, not limited to a single field such as biology.
Just to endorse Alan’s point: posters of OP’s on this site are not allowed to edit, delete, or move other people’s posts. It seems to be difficult to implement this restriction in the software, so it is a rule that I ask all posters to stick to, as a condition of access to posting OPs.
Thanks.
Joe and Steve,
Nope, couldn’t be further from the truth. I’m not personally advocating that “all sorts of things evolved.” What I’m searching for at TSZ is examples of “things that don’t evolve.” Do you have any to offer? You’ve offered 1 so far.
Please don’t be afraid to speak outside of your evolutionary biology speciality, Joe. It may be that there are many non-biological things that “don’t evolve”. Would you agree with that possibility? In fact, I’ve met evolutionary biologists (I used to share office space with them) who would reject *any* usage of the term ‘evolution’ outside of biology. Is that a position you share? Iow, Stellar Evolution, Cosmological Evolution, Cultural Evolution, Anthropological Evolution, etc. – these are all considered illegitimate by some biologists (especially evolutionary biologists). At least, that’s been my personal experience in discussions with colleagues. Steve mentioned photons but some evolutionary theories include photons.
I don’t think we’ll get very good results if the thread reverts always to biology. petrushka, Lizzie, Allan Miller and Gordon Davidson have each given examples not limited to biology. But they have yet to explicity (except for Allan re: physical constants) provide examples of of “things that don’t evolve.”
It’s fine to consider the various ways a term is used.
But it seems rather silly to ask fo a list of things that “X” when yo know there will be confusion amout the meaning of X.
It is also rather irritating for you to come to a site that is primarily concerned with attempts to teach creationism in high school biology and inject internecine squabbles from other fields.
Lizzie,
Ok Lizzie, thanks. Now I know and will accept those rules.
Yes, the ‘gradual’ is important in this context, because all one has to do is shift the time scale to femtoseconds or the space scale to the Plank level. If one gets away from the ‘millions of years’ fetish of the creationists, the discussion becomes much more specific (and imo more fruitful and less antagonistic).
So, then davehooke, what in your opinion are a few examples of “things that don’t evolve” according to definition 2 (or in your language, “things that do not change”)?
The same question seems relevant for Gordon Davidson, who wrote:
What then does the ‘almost everything’ *not* include? Or, what is something that doesn’t change? This is exactly the question I’m looking for some feedback on.
Also, for your definition 1 with a very long list, davehooke, can you possibly find an appropriate generalisation for all of those “things that don’t evolve” that you listed? Elvis Presley, Dr. Who, Lawyers, Clowns, Magicians and 19-yr-old-girls are all human beings, rather than artefacts. Human beings are said to ‘evolve’ (Anthropological evolution / neo-evolutionary anthropology).
Would you accept the classification “human-made things” do not ‘evolve,’ as suitable shorthand for your list, minus the persons and things/periods like ‘1975’?
petrushka,
Actually, this topic I find to be exceedingly relevant even if it is under-recognised in regard to the topic of teaching creationism in schools. Again, petrushka references biology, but the conversation is much larger than just biology, peace be upon it, and must be understood and faced as such if any progress is hoped for.
I’m certainly in agreement with you and everyone else here in the cause of cleansing creationism from schools. But one also must cleanse the sources of those teachings, which is mainly the churches, mosques and synagogues, and organisations like CMI, CRS, ICR, AiG, the DI, etc. And the people in those institutions need ‘safe’ outlets, not just direct resistance telling them they’re stupid and backwards and anti-sciences, even if some of those terms apply aptly in (however) many cases. Iow, what is needed is for them to see and realise that the ideology of evolutionism is not as scary as some religious leaders and non-biologists think it is.
But this can only be said with integrity if the numbers of ‘universal evolutionists,’ iow, those who think *everything* evolves, is actually quite small. Well, is it small or not?
This thread is part of a way to recognise that evolutionism *is* a problem, but that it is an unnecessary position to hold, indeed, that it is philosophically unsustainable when looked at closely for what it actually is. (And this means no disrespect to Joe for being an evolutionary biologist, or to other biologists on this list. The conversation, though it includes biology, is much bigger than biology properly bounded ever possibly could be.) If Joe thinks there are no ‘evolutionists’ here, then so be it; the basic question of this thread looks at “things that don’t evolve” and asks for answers.
Humour me then, will you, petrushka, by providing some examples of “things that don’t evolve”?
The list is still at only 1 thing, unless davehooke accepts the label I proposed, which would finally make 2.
Oh, and to Steve who claimed photons “don’t evolve” – apparently there are people who disagree: http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6429
People can use the word “evolution” outside of biology (or models of biology) to mean that things change. But that description of change as “evolution” is not an example of a misapplication of the concept of biological evolution — it’s just a different, and vaguer, use of an English word.
As to whether there are things that don’t change (physical constants, for example) that is a good question for a physicist or a philosopher of science. But it is of no relevance to the discussion here. We have found no one here, or maybe just one, who misuses the concept of biological evolution by applying it to, say, weathering of rocks.
(I am not afraid to get outside my field — I do that every day. But I am hesitant to waste people’s time here).
Thanks!
Biblical flood arguments.
Timecube guy.
Symmetry.
Latin. It did, but it doesn’t.
My conviction that this post of yours will go nowhere useful.
Also, we wouldn’t say a binary (on-off) switch evolves, even though it changes, because the change, to only one other state, is sudden not gradual.
No I would not. Individual human beings and classes of them are not biological populations. They evolve in the sense of definition 2 (gradual change over time), not definition 1 (the biological theory of evolution). Also, 1975 is part of the list, so suitable shorthand can not exclude it!
You are a post-doctoral researcher, yeah?
I gave the generalisation already. Anything that isn’t:
A population where the individuals inherit characteristics and alleles change frequency over time.
So to recap:
We’ve got someone arguing for “evolutionism” and claiming that everything evolves yet refuses to define “evolves”.
Every of the non-evolvable examples given is then hand-waved away as “off topic”, “a distraction”, or not fitting the definition.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Seems rather intellectually dishonest to me. I wonder what the point is?
Of course it’s small. It’s probably non-existent. And even if it had members, that wouldn’t make it an “ism” it would just make it a group of people who used “evolve” in a rather broad, or, alternatively, heterogeneous way, not any kind of ideological movement.
You are seeing a problem where absolutely none exists.
Why was the bulk of my post erased leaving only the title?
Sure it was a bit whimsical but it also made a point. The objects sung about in My Favorite Things are examples of things that don’t evolve.
I know this is a Nutjob Idea Protection area but too much is too much. I’d appreciate if my on topic post was returned intact.
This was my thinking when I offered ‘fundamental particles’. They flip, if they change at all, and I tend to feel that some form of incremental succession of states is implicit in the term ‘evolution’, wherever applied ***. Evolution, not revolution.
*** One could, of course argue that the process is successive and incremental when states are sampled over the femtosecond scale. But ‘stasis’ is the norm (albeit dynamic, eg in the atomic nucleus a continual flurry of proton-neutron pass-the-parcel conversions makes no difference over billions of years).
That’s quite a presumption made from someone just guessing to someone who studies it closely. An ideology doesn’t have to become a ‘movement,’ Lizzie. But the view that *everything* evolves is quite obviously an ideology.
We’ve had this problem before, Lizzie, re: Darwinism. You denied it had/has any ideological meaning. I provided evidence. So you said you’re a ‘Darwinist’ if that refers to ‘science’ but not a ‘Darwinist’ if that refers to ideology. I’m trying to help clarify the difference between science and ideology, so it would definitely help if you’re interested in that too.
There’s an easy way to solve this, which is the purpose of this thread. A repeat from above:
For anyone who does not accept ideological evolutionism, who does not think that *everything* evolves, this should be rather easy and uncontroversial. No pain, no problem, little hesitation. What’s your answer, Lizzie – what are examples of ‘things that don’t evolve’?
What would really help is if you’d define your terms like ‘evolve’.
Just like Creationists, you insist on keeping things vague and undefined so you can just go “NUH UH!” to any answer you’re given.
Not sure why you think such childish rhetorical shenanigans are going to make your case.
If we list things that evolve and explain why we place them in that category, we are effectively listing things that don’t fit that category.
I don’t we have a particular disagreement. I just think that restricting evolution to those changes that occur between generational instances of multicellular colonies is incomplete. Most multicelllular colonies reproduce by sex, which creates the population that population geneticists usually talk of when they say ‘evolution is a population phenomenon’. They may talk of asexual ‘populations’ as well, but they are very different beasts. The cell line inside an organism is an asexual population, though not very mobile.
Possibly eccentrically, I tend to think of it (evolution) as change in lineage: descent with modification, and not change in population composition per se. The fact that competitive and noncompetitive winnowing of descendant lines takes place certainly shapes the lineages that remain, but even if every lineage survived and was independent of a population, evolution would still have taken place in any lineage that had changed. Cell lineages occur on both sides of the ‘organism boundary’.
davehooke:
Alright, o.k. – binaries, e.g. numbers, relations, functions.
These are examples of “things that don’t evolve.” Does anyone disagree?
Binary switches, if in the artificial sense of having been made by persons, at least don’t have natural evolutionary origins. Natural binary switches of course could be argued as parts of a cosmological evolutionary process.
Binaries fit quite closely to ‘Physical Constants’ or ‘Laws of Nature.’ Let us count is as example 2 of “things that don’t evolve” in this thread.
Symmetry – another example, though if fits within the broader category already named above re: Platonic ideas. There can be dynamic symmetry, of course. Just as there can be dynamic equilibrium. But as a geometrical, mathematical, physical, architectural, musical, artistic and/or aesthetics principle, we can say that symmetry does not evolve.
Does anyone disagree?
Don’t make it more complicated than it is. I’m saying that, given my definition of “evolve,” objects that don’t replicate with heritable variation don’t “evolve.” Given that definition, stars and astronomical objects don’t evolve, geological features don’t evolve, automobiles and medical techniques and symphonic compositions and (insert endless list of human artifacts) don’t evolve.
These objects and processes do change and sometimes advance through other processes (developmental unfolding, human artifice, change through physical processes etc.) and bear that change, and perhaps a record of their histories, into the present.
Moreover, any given object my bear witness to several levels of such change. So, for example, an individual person evidences a history of biological evolution, the history of the culture within which they are enclosed and the impact of their own personal history.
I do think there is somewhat of an analogy between cultural evolution and biological evolution, particularly with respect to technology and similar innovations vis our ways of making our livings and “the ratchet effect,” but it is a very imperfect analogy.
Mine isn’t the only definition of “evolve,” however, Other definitions will pick out other phenomena.
thorton,
Just re-read the OP, see 2)
Thanks for this! I’ll return to it again soon.
More childish rhetorical games.
Depending on how you define “evolve” the set of “things that don’t evolve” goes from null to everything in the universe.
I’ll ask again. Why do you think such childish rhetorical shenanigans are going to make your case?
Also, are you the one who has been deleting my posts and changing their content without my knowledge or permission? An honest answer please.
Anyone going to own up to changing the contents of my post and leaving the post there in my name?
The only other time I’ve ever seen this done is by the slimy POS creationist Sal Cordova, and even his fellow Creotards called him on it.
The more I think about this incredibly dishonest and disgusting action the angrier I become.
In context, “a switch doesn’t evolve” refers to the process of using it, not the origins of the switch. It is the immediate process of switching a binary switch that doesn’t evolve2 (evolve in the sense of “change gradually over time”).
Other things that do not evolve2 include the process of an electron changing from one energy state to another. It is a quantum jump, sudden not gradual. There are no intermediate steps. The process of an electron changing from one energy state to another did not evolve1 (biological, as in theory of evolution) either.
Those are not synonyms.
We do not know for sure that some physical constants do not change over time.
The laws of nature do not appear to evolve2.
In context, “a switch doesn’t evolve” refers to the process of using it, not the origins of the switch. It is the immediate process of switching a binary switch that doesn’t evolve2 (evolve in the sense of “change gradually over time”).
Other things that do not evolve2 include the process of an electron changing from one energy state to another. It is a quantum jump, sudden not gradual. There are no intermediate steps. The process of an electron changing from one energy state to another did not evolve1 (biological, as in theory of evolution) either.
Those are not synonyms.
We do not know for sure that some physical constants do not change over time.
The laws of nature do not appear to evolve2.
It is not the switches that evolve in a simulation, but their configuration.
Okay, I’ll try again.
461 of the things in davehooke’s list do not evolve.
I could tell you which I exclude, but that wouldn’t be any fun(tm).
Here’s where I have an issue with this thread: Gregory defines what is an acceptable response thus:
Then Gregory groups the responses people have given into six categories, and dismisses all but one category as being incorrect “in my view”, finishing with
I find this deeply problematic.
My original post was rather snarky, but it was on topic. It’s deletion was a severe breach of site rules.
Finally, individual organisms do not evolve. To say:
betrays a profound ignorance of evolution.
…a glass of water on a desk
…sugar in a sugar bowl
…butter in a dish
…a blade of grass
…windows in a house
…the bricks/cinderblock in a house
…an asphalt road
…a book
…a movie
…a song
…and so on and so forth…
Well, can you give me an example of someone you think holds this view, and why you think it constitutes an ideology in that case?
Well, if you want to talk about ideologies, then it would help if you could give examples of the people you think are practitioners of that ideology.
I’ve already answered this Gregory, and the answer, as I have already made plain, depends on the context in which the word is being used.
And as one common meaning is “change”, and as everything changes, it’s perfectly possible that by that definition, I could be one of your “everything evolves” people. But it wouldn’t be an ideology, just bland.
I’ve restored the content of your post, according to Neil’s capture.
I will now clarify the rules!
Creationist arguments against evolution. Same shit over and over again.
The inability of religionuts to stop thinking disagreement is “an ideology” and a “faith position” like their own.
Human stupidity in general.
I find this thread both baffling and irritating. Gregory asked what we think doesn’t evolve, based on our own language. I replied that, in my language as a particle physicist, some elementary particles do not evolve. This, I am told, does not count, because some other physicist, using the language of some other field of physics, treats photons as evolving. What the fuck? Just what is the question, Gregory? I thought it was, “What doesn’t evolve according to participants in this thread?” Based on your replies, however, it seems the question is either “What doesn’t evolve according to Gregory?” or “What does every single human on the planet agree doesn’t evolve?”
Similar problems are cropping up all over the thread. In the language of most evolutionary biologists, individual organisms do not evolve (although cell lineages within them may, and there are some gray areas). This offering you dismiss based on some blather that has nothing to do with the evolution of individuals, and that certainly has nothing to do with what I consider to be evolving in my language as a geneticist. Sheesh.
Thank you Dr. Liddle.
Steve Schaffner,
This thread isn’t about Gregory’s curisosity. He’s got no interest in people’s answers, this thread is just a way for him to vent his frustrations by trying to bring evolutionists “down to his level”, so to speak, by asserting they’re somehow part of a fundamentalist ideology. In so doing, he’s effectively conceding that ideologies are bad. The only sad thing is that the irony seems to be lost on him. Oh well…