Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA11864 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 10 Aug 2001 01:42:05 +0100 Subject: Re: Logic + universal evolution Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 20:39:24 -0400 x-sender: firstname.lastname@example.org x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <email@example.com> To: "Memetics Discussion List" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-ID: <20010810003925.AAA10755@email@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
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....
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