Coleman Smith

I have noted that in discussions about evolution most of the discussions center on the origins of life. There are other evolutionary objects that both preceded life and succeeded it.

Two models of non-living evolved systems are the evolution of the periodic table and memes.

The evolution of elements by primordial subatomic particles followed by elements of ever increasing complexity preceded the evolution of living material by billions of years and was a condition precedent to life.

The evolution of memes and their influence on social organization is a ‘non-living’ system that is associated with life but is not ‘alive’ in any classical sense.

One of the most influential mematic systems is religion.
One can take any religion and trace it back to it predecessors and trace the evolution from simple to more complex forms.

I find it rather amusing that in this sense the creationists have evolved.

Coleman Smith
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The assertion that the universe is surround in grape jelly is more creditable than the assertion that we are the immortal pets of some deity.

For further reading see:

Periodic Table : http://pearl1.lanl.gov/periodic/default.htm
Journal of memetics : http://jom-emit.cfpm.org/
Links Memetics : http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/rl_memes.htm
The Christian Meme : http://www.christianitymeme.org/
Memetic Publications on the Web : http://users.lycaeum.org/~sputnik/Memetics/

Doubting Didymus

Well, I agree with you about memes, but not about the elements. Atoms do not replicate by any means I know of. The elements may have changed over time, but that is not quite what is meant by 'evolution' these days. Its one of those words that has been stolen by pedantic biologists forever.

Jobar

CS, I agree that memes may provide a non-living example of an evolving system, but calling nucleosynthesis (the stellar process which produces the elements) evolutionary is a distortion of the concept, I'd say.

In main-sequence stars, hydrogen is fused into helium. After all the readily available H in a stellar core is used up, the star leaves the main sequence and contracts until gravitational pressure initiates helium fusion; when the helium is used up, the process continues in a well-understood fashion until iron is produced. Iron is the most stable element, and cannot produce energy through fusion; elements beyond iron require energy input to be produced. This energy usually comes from supernovas, although there is some evidence that processes near black holes and neutron stars may power nucleosynthesis.

Anyway, there is no selection going on in nucleosynthesis. Perhaps the stair-step growth of nuclei could be considered 'mutation' but I think that is a distortion of the normal meaning of that word.

Secular Pinoy

Another system that can be considered as an "evolutionary system" is the copying of texts. Before Gutenberg-type printing came about, manuscripts and other texts are reproduced by hand, usually by monks. Any mistakes in copying could potentially get passed down, making a distinct lineage of its own. Not just copying mistakes but also additions in the text, such as liner notes written in the margins, can also be integrated into the text by later copyists who are unaware of the addition.

Even with modern photocopiers there is the possibility of inheriting acquired characteristics (who said non-biological evolution has to be darwinian?) such as dirt and dust in the machine during printing, a crease in the paper and probably dogears and staples.

I think the central idea for evolutionary systems (both biological and non-biological) is the concept of nested hierarchies. Modern individuals, organisms, manuscripts, etc. can be sorted into a lowest level hierarchy, such as sub-species, which are sorted into species, which are sorted into genera, and so forth. Chemical Elements, I far as I'm aware, cannot be sorted into nested hierarchies.

Both Gould (Dinosaur in a Haystack?) and Eldredge (The Triumph of Evolution) point out this feature of nested hierarchy in biology, and that a similar hierarchy can be found in manuscript copying (Eldredge), and not found in rocks (Gould).

Undercurrent

I also object to the characterisation of nucleosynthesis as "evolution", at least in any Darwinian sense. There are very strict quantum mechanical restrictions on what elements can exist, and pretty much any element that can exist, does exist. Contrast this with the biological realm, where there are relatively few restrictions on the morphology an biochemistry of organisms, and only a tiny fraction of possible states are occupied.

callmejay

I'm not so sure about memes, either. Memes evolve in some senses, but in another sense, it's not fair to call it evolution since a person may seriously change a meme by a process that is much more involved than random transcription error. If I completely change a meme (say a sentence, or a philosophical idea) by restating it better or by coming up with a new way to look at it, than it's not really evolving, it's being changed drastically.

To me, "evolution" requires very very incremental changes which aren't in themselves directed but end up pointing in a direction because of unrelated circumstances (i.e. survival of the fittest.)

TomboyMom

I think that meme theory is a helpful metaphor for thinking about how ideas develop and spread. It is a useful way to look at religion, in particular, and why some religions are more "successful" (i.e. popular) than others. Widespread religions, such as christinaity and islam, are no less silly than religions with fewer adherents, such as judaism or zoroastrianism, but the former contain attributes which tend to make them more successful at "reproducing", that is, at gaining converts. Mormonism is an example of a really silly sounding religion which propogates effectively, and for that reason is enormously successful in this sense.

Doubting Didymus

Secular Pinoy, your point about written texts foming a phylogeny is very well taken. I will keep it in mind. This phenomena would apply particularly strongly to books with a large and widespread population, especially the bible, where a positive selection process on the part of the scribes would improve the chances of better copies of being copied again, over copies that are poor and would make difficult and inferior work for the new copy. Even a kind of speciation might be expected to occur in this case.

However, I do not agree that this would apply to photocopies, if only because replication fidelity is not high enough to last many generations. Digital computer files stand a better chance, but in that case fidelity is TOO high for us to ever see the evolution meaningfully happen.

rem

Languages also 'evolve' over time. They can even be traced back through heirarchies like families and groups and 'kinds' (hehe). Not only grammatical structure changes over time, but change also occurs down to the level of spelling. There are mutations, or corruptions and slang that get introduced as well. Languages can even share words with non-related tongues. They also go extinct. It's not an exact analog to living evolution, but there are many similarities.

Also, there is Tierra, a neat computer evolution simulator that works on artificial copy errors in RAM with self replicating programs running in a virtual machine, though that's probably not what you were looking for.

rem

Coleman Smith

Two of the disconcerting aspects of posting in IIB is that there are folks in here who actually know what they are talking about and many of them are a lot smarter than I am.

It is difficult to over come this disadvantage.

Jobar, I agree that nucleosynthesis is not evolutionary.

My thought was that in the primordial soup before the occurrence of solid matter the plasma went through changes as it cooled resulting in the formation of subatomic particles and then atoms which resulted in the formation of the elements followed by macro structures such as the stars and then galaxies.

I may be incorrectly describing the process as a form of evolution because, as has been aptly pointed out, the biological model has become the default. To try and claim that evolution may not necessarily involve all of the processes associated with life and still be evolutionary is probably a special pleading, and therefore of doubtful merit.

Perhaps I am a victim of the placebo and have being seeing information in the clouds that is just not there.

I am aware that there are mathematical rules for the formation of matter that are deterministic and they bear no relationship to mutation and selection as seen in the current biological model of evolution.

I will defer to those in the field, and with draw my assertion regarding the development of the universe from its primordial state to what we see today as an evolutionary process.

Secular Piony example of the morphysis of text is well taken.


CallMeJay’s objection to considering memes as being subject to evolution because they can be modified is troubling. The practice of medicine, animal husbandry and horticulture all involve the modification of living systems which we agree are the products of evolution. The fact that these systems can be modified hardly exempts them as evolutionary products.

I think each one of you for your responses.

I have learned from your input.

Now I think I will crawl back to the political forum where there are no objective facts to stumble over and folks seem to be impressed as long as you can write 10 paragraphs including words like quid pro quo and a few French terms.

I do better there.

Coleman Smith