Did the universe evolve?

[Just thinking]

Evolution is a kind of process. The kind of processes by which the universe as we know it got here, and most if not all of the non-biological aspects of this universe, were not evolutionary.

Please define this process and show specifically how (in its strict definition) it only applies to biological organisms.

PS: And if you start that definition with something like ... "the process by which living organisms over time ..." then you have done nothing but circled around to using the example to be its own definition.

 

[Just thinking]

... the process by which the earth became able to support life was not evolution. The process by which a glass of ice melted was not evolution. The process by which the electroweak force separated into the electromagnetic and weak forces was not evolution. The process by which the visible universe became dominated by matter as opposed to antimatter was not evolution.

I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it.

You can give me your definition (or source) of evolution (as I have done in an earlier post) and show me how it applies only to biological life. I am simply suggestiong that there is more than one kind of evolution -- and I am not in support of arguing that the way the universe evolved is the same as that of living organisms. I have never made such a claim.

 

[Just thinking]

Let me refer you back to what got this thread started, namely, Iamme's speculation:

"Maybe it's a stretch to consider such a thing that there were competing energies and particles and the best ones ...the ones that could work, won out."

This is the sense in which he means "evolution", which parallels biological evolution of species. And in THIS sense, it's more than just a bit of a stretch, everything we know indicates that it's absurd and wrong.

If you read my posts you will see that I pretty much agree with you on that.

 

[drkitten]

Please define this process and show specifically how (in its strict definition) it only applies to biological organisms.

Already done. "Descent with modification."

This definition is supported by noted educational establishments such as Cal-Berkeley,Vision Learning.U. Maryland, and Charles Darwin himself.

Originally written by Charles Darwin
AS this whole volume is one long argument, it may be convenient to the reader to have the leading facts and inferences briefly recapitulated.

That many and serious objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through variation and natural selection, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give to them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely, that all parts of the organisation and instincts offer, at least, individual differences—that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of profitable deviations of structure or instinct—and, lastly, that gradations in the state of perfection of each organ may have existed, each good of its kind. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed.

(Origin of species, XV. Recapitulation and Conclusion)

Italics are mine. See also chapter VI, "Difficulties of the Theory of Descent with Modification."

It does not by definition apply only to biological system -- it can easily be shown, for example, that crystal growth also has properties of "descent with modifications"; by introducing a particular seed crystal into a solution, I can influence the form of the final crystal based on properties of the seed. However, neither elementary particles, nor universes, nor melting ice displays "descent with modification" -- and therefore none of them are "evolutionary."

 

[Just thinking]

Already done. "Descent with modification."

Good ... now please point out where I indicated that this was the type of evolution the Universe has experienced, or that this is the only definition of evolution.

 

[SpaceFluffer]

meiow

 

[Ziggurat]

If you read my posts you will see that I pretty much agree with you on that.

In that case, none of us think Iamme's orignial suggestion has any merit, and this is just semantic squabbling (pretty much the most boring kind of argument you can possibly have). Which means it's time for us all to move on.