tesla writes:
i thought the question was, what is the TRUE definition of evolution.
You forgot to read the question in context of Phat's OP. He was referring to biological evolution.
do stars evolve?
has the earth evolved?
man has evolved?
the ocean currents have evolved?
the universe has evolved?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Maybe
Yes
if it evolves..isn't it evolution?
No. The term evolution, or more specifically biological evolution, refers to a nondirectional change in allele frequency of a population or species over time due to selective pressure. If you're talking about stellar evolution, it's a directional change in the state of a planetary system or star due to the initial composition and status of the planetary system or star. Two entirely different things.
evolution then would encompass more than the biological sense in a "true" definition.
Again, it depends on which "evolution" you are talking about. The only reason I use the word "evolution" for both biological and stellar change is due to the limitation of the English language. They're two entirely different things.
Biological evolution is directional while stellar evolution have inevitable results.
the same elements that make up the earth and universe are present in the make up of biological things, and the same forces (strong force etc) are holding together these elements in biological things, as it holds things together in non biological things.
You are commiting the fallacy of composition. Look it up and try to see why I said that.
the term "alive" is applied only to the biological things, because of the complexity of the environments that the elements exist in.
Actually, as we look more and more at biological systems, we've realized more and more that the line between biological and nonbiological things aren't so clearly defined.
ie: if you take biological ,material and examine its base composition, what is found? carbon..i dunno the rest. carbon based i do know.
And...?
now, the arrangement of the carbons and other elements work together in a complex fashion, therefore, it is "alive"
There are plenty of complex forms of carbon based molecular arrangement, and most of them are not "alive". You need to be more specific.
under this observation, the laws that apply to non living things, apply to living things. but must be scrutinized by individual environments (conditions).
Yes and no. Yes, it's true that living things are subject to the same "laws" as everything else. No, it's not what you're referring to.
so to say evolution of biological things is the most common understanding of the word evolution not a lie, but that a true definition of evolution would be attributed to things that "evolve"
Again, you're just using the word "evolution" to describe 2 entirely different processes. This is due to (1) the limitations of the English language and (2) your unfamiliarity with this subject. A layman, more often than not, depends too much on words. Trust me, people who are more educated on these topics don't depend so much on words or semantics. We try to see past the words and actually look at the concepts and mathematics.