Re: Logic + universal evolution

From: Wade T.Smith (
Date: Fri Aug 10 2001 - 01:39:24 BST

  • Next message: John Wilkins: "Re: Logic + universal evolution"

    Received: by id BAA11864 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 01:42:05 +0100
    Subject: Re: Logic + universal evolution
    Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 20:39:24 -0400
    x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas
    From: "Wade T.Smith" <>
    To: "Memetics Discussion List" <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Message-ID: <[]>
    Precedence: bulk

    Hi John Wilkins -

    >Interestingly, the word "evolution" was used independently by geologists
    >and mineralogists, and by astronomers. The term "stellar evolution"
    >predates the biological sense, and in this case it is appropriate.

    And they're probably right to use it so.

    However, it always bugged me, mostly because 'evolution' had come to mean
    the creation of species, and stellar evolution was about the lifespan and
    processes of stellar existence- one may as well say that one 'evolves' as
    one changes from baby, to adult, to antique- since stars 'evolved' from
    youth to old age in their stellar range of lightyears.

    But, so far, no star has replicated and produced a different star. (Not
    that they could. Yeah.)

    Words.... If only there _were_ a morphic resonance, maybe we'd all use
    the same ones....

    - Wade

    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 01:46:23 BST