• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does EVERYTHING evolve?

T'ai Chi

Penultimate Amazing
T
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
11,219
Self explanatory.

Do people think everything evolves? Not just biological life, but the universe, the laws that govern it, the shape of the universe, etc. ?

Either in a selection sense, or just in a sense of change over time.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Self explanatory.

Do people think everything evolves? Not just biological life, but the universe, the laws that govern it, the shape of the universe, etc. ?

Either in a selection sense, or just in a sense of change over time.
Click to expand...
Your posting style doesn't seem to have evolved much. Perhaps we need to wait a few thousand years to see an improvement.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Do people think everything evolves? Not just biological life, but the universe, the laws that govern it, the shape of the universe, etc. ?

Either in a selection sense, or just in a sense of change over time.
Click to expand...
"Change over time" isn't evolution. A child doesn't "evolve" as it grows into an adult. To qualify as evolution you need some kind of selection.

Could this apply to the universe as a whole? I've no idea, but at least one physicist thinks this could be the case.

[when a black hole is formed] space and time do not collapse to a point but rather into a (four-dimensional) tube which opens into an entirely new region of space and time. The singularity "bounces" back out into a big bang. This means it is entirely possible that our own universe was created when a black hole was formed in another universe.

Lee Smolin's hypothesis of cosmological natural selection makes the assumption that each universe created in such a way possesses slightly modified versions of the mass fields of its "parent" universe. This concept is of course borrowed from Darwin, and is analogous to mutation of genes in modern evolutionary theory. There is some conjectural support for this in both string theory and quantum gravity. The change in the mass fields would be due to the intense energies and small scales reached within a black hole. By a simple extrapolation it is easy to see that universes which generate more "offspring" will ultimately become more numerous. A universe with no stars and consisting entirely of hydrogen gas can produce only one offspring because it can produce no black holes. All it can do is collapse back in on itself in a "big crunch", a reverse big bang, to generate a singularity. Given enough universes, some would by chance possess the matter fields necessary to generate stars and thus black holes. Since these would produce far more offspring, they would become far more numerous than universes without stars. (There is no known mechanism that "kills off" universes and so there is no actual parallel to "natural selection" in the theory of cosmological natural selection. It is for this reason that it is now technically referred to as fecund universes.)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I think Tai needs to define "universe" and "evolution" in his terms before we can properly answer his question. The question itself exposes his ignorance on both.

Sometimes the term "evolve" is used to describe processes that aren't "alive". So we need to know what Tai is thinking when he is thinking of evolution. Evolution in biology terms, or more figurative terms??

If there is a selective pressure and living things change due to those pressures, then there will be evolution. Sometimes there is change for other reasons, but that doesn't always result in evolution.

Now, I will stop there, because I know anything I write to elaborate will be ignored.

Instead, I will answer that rocks don't evolve. They can be changed depending on what the rock is made of (there can be wearing down due to water, oxidization, crushing, etc.). Pretty much anything that isn't live doesn't evolve. The Universe may change, but space, planets, etc. are not alive. So the "universe" does not "evolve" in a biological process kind of way. The universe does change though.


Why are you looking for "absolute" and generalized answers Tai? Can you not wrap your head around anything else?
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure this thread will unroll quite quickly. By a peculiar twist of English etymology, I'd have to say it will devolve, unfortunately.
 
Why the anti-T'ai chi atttitude? Just wondered what you all know that I don't.
Sorry if this question devolves the thread.

Karl Quigley
 
T'ai Chi said:
Self explanatory.

Do people think everything evolves? Not just biological life, but the universe, the laws that govern it, the shape of the universe, etc. ?

Either in a selection sense, or just in a sense of change over time.
Click to expand...
You really need both for evolution, but no, not everything evolves in the biological sense. That requires procreation, which is not present in a great deal of the universe.
 
KarlQuigley said:
Why the anti-T'ai chi atttitude? Just wondered what you all know that I don't.
Sorry if this question devolves the thread.

Karl Quigley
Click to expand...

Ask him a question. One that he does not like. Then see how he responds. Or how he does not.

Or ask him his opinion on the subject of one of his threads. Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.
 
T'ai chi

I think the ancient martial art of T'ai Chi is an absolute pile of rubbish. What do you think?

I was also wondering what your thoughts were about everything evolving?

Regards

Karl Quigley
 
T'ai Chi said:
Self explanatory.

Do people think everything evolves? Not just biological life, but the universe, the laws that govern it, the shape of the universe, etc. ?

Either in a selection sense, or just in a sense of change over time.
Click to expand...

Everything evolves in the sense that natural selection affects all phenomena. Don't know if that applies to what seem to be universal laws and constants though.
 
Dragon said:
Your posting style doesn't seem to have evolved much. Perhaps we need to wait a few thousand years to see an improvement.
Click to expand...

lolyv0.gif
 
No. Many things do not evolve.

There is popular confusion of the nouns 'change' and ' evolution'.

Much change does not require an evolutionary process.
Some evolution displays little or no change.

It's a sloppy language problem, rather than a scientific one.
 
Evolving -- Everything ... or Nothing?

T'ai Chi said:
Self explanatory.
Click to expand...
Explain.
T'ai Chi said:
Do people think everything evolves? Not just biological life, but the universe, the laws that govern it, the shape of the universe, etc. ?
Click to expand...
What shape of universe do you prefer?
T'ai Chi said:
Do people think everything evolves?
Click to expand...
What people? Are you one of those people?
T'ai Chi said:
Either in a selection sense, or just in a sense of change over time.
Click to expand...
Over who's time?

It's woo :)
 
T'ai Chi said:
Self explanatory.

Do people think everything evolves? Not just biological life, but the universe, the laws that govern it, the shape of the universe, etc. ?

Either in a selection sense, or just in a sense of change over time.
Click to expand...

Some things do and some things don't and some exist in an intermediate state until you open the box.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom