hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/10/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ > From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) > > > { my general definition of evolution. } > > I strongly disagree with this definition of evolution. The problem with it > is that there are many different concepts associated with the word > 'evolution' and your definition fails to emphasize the biological concept > which this news group is primarily concerned with. The "natural flow > of things" is not accurate for this discussion. Quite true. The definition that I gave covers the full scope of the term "evolution". Biological evolution is but a subset of that, and I wanted to put this fact into perspective. I agree that astronomic evolution (as an example) is not relevant to net.origins (except perhaps in rare cases). Biological evolution does address a lot of theories and concepts, and I seriously doubt any reasonable definition of biological evolution can do justice to all of them. However, since you brought it up, I shall clarify my definition somewhat by restricting it to biological evolution only: biological evolution: the emergence and the development of self-sustaining, self-maintaining and self-replicating forms, otherwise know as life. Notes: 1. This definition, as a side effect, defines life. 2. It does include the "origin" of life because this topic is significant. Once again ... all comments, gripes, threats welcome. ___________________________________________________________________________ Live long and prosper, but don't evolve; you might get some people very upset! Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }