Many words have different meanings; sometimes very different. The context is required to determine what they mean. On this forum "evolution" is used as a short form for "biological evolution" and,specifically, the way in which they changed over time. This involves the selection of imperfect replicators. (I think it can be shown that this doesn't have to be restricted to things we call "living" but that is a detail.)
Granted, which is why I qualified what I meant when I said 'computers have evolved':-
quote:
Yes, computers have evolved, they have changed over time.
Though perhaps the second comma should have been a semicolon?
Computers can not undergo biological evolution
Of course they can't.
The central point of my original post was that first we make an observation (we find fossils, we find discarded computer components) we then make an inference (life on earth has changed over time, computer technology on earth has changed over time), then we need a theory to explain this change (there were several phases of life and several catastrophes, Noah's being the last. Life has changed through a natural process of variation, heredity, fecundity and selection. Computers were all created at the same time and a supernova magically ordered them to appear like they changed throughout time. Computers were the tools of a tool using society of organisms).
There is no offspring heredity, reproductive fecundity or struggle for survival with computers, so the lampoon of the Theory of Biological Evolution fails.
If you use words carelessly you fail to communicate properly. Semantics are the heart of communication.
Agreed, which is why I conceded the term 'computers evolve' (since individual computers don't do much evolution) with 'computer technology evolves'. Still, the point remains, we cannot draw a comparison with Bio Evolution since the aliens don't have the same information that Darwin did.
If you use words carelessly you fail to communicate properly. Semantics are the heart of communication.
Its such a great point I'm repeating it. The OP was equivocating. He was trying to say that the observation of an event (the change of life on earth over time, or Evolution) is the same as the theory as to how that change occurred (or the Theory of Evolution). My post was a polite method of illustrating this equivocation.