Does the entire universe have a survival instinct?

[baywax]

Evolution of the universe is not the same thing as evolution of biological entities. Period.

The word has a different meaning when used in either context and it doesn't equate.

Switching between the meanings in the way you have done previously serves only to confuse and it isn't clear which version your referring to. A discussion cannot continue like this unless you are very clear what you mean.

You can push this all you like but unless you prove you understand the differences between the two and show the context you are using them in, your posts are meaningless.

Sorry... I do not see the distinction... biological evolution is a process of chemical changes and adherence to physical laws in the same way universal evolution is bound by the same principals. Furthermore... biological units are part and parcel with the universe and therefore cannot be singled out as being "different" or separate from the evolution of the universe. Is this a case of "biopomorphism"?

Also..
please site references describing what you see as the big difference between bio-evolutionary processes and non-bio-evolutionary processes.

 

[JaredJames]

In biology, evolution is change in traits of a population of organisms over time (due to a number of mechanisms and processes). In other contexts, the term evolution can mean any gradual directional change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_(disambiguation)
Note at the bottom of this page, there are a number of different uses of evolution. They are all separate, they are not the same thing and cannot be used as such.

For biological evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Note that in the below definition, biological evolution has its own definition. Biological evolution is not the same as evolution in terms of the universe. In a broad sense you can use definition 1 to cover everything from the universe to biological processes, but you cannot use the biological definition for other entities. You appear to be doing the latter rather than the former.

Evolution
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.a. The process of developing.
2.b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
3.a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
3.b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution

 

[Evo]

Also..
please site references describing what you see as the big difference between bio-evolutionary processes and non-bio-evolutionary processes.

Why would he need to do that?

You first need to define what you mean by survival instincts and explain how you could apply that definition to the entire universe.

 

[baywax]

Why would he need to do that?

Just for clarity.

The various uses of the term do not change the fact that through motion, chemical changes, time and the laws of nature all things evolve whether they be "living" or not.

Any confusion between my use of the word and a function of the universe (including life) resides in jarednjames mind, not in what I've pointed out.

But, if I must accommodate jarednjames confusion then jarednjames can suggest some alternate terms that will make the discussion clearer and to his understanding.

 

[JaredJames]

I've given you the definition's of the word, if you can't identify the difference between the different forms of evolution then I see no further point discussing this issue if I can't be sure you fully understand such a basic concept.

 

[Galteeth]

I think perhaps the OP would find the anthropic principle useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

 

[Galteeth]

for the notion of evolution in cosmology, See also Smolin's fecund universe theory

 

[baywax]

I've given you the definition's of the word, if you can't identify the difference between the different forms of evolution then I see no further point discussing this issue if I can't be sure you fully understand such a basic concept.

I understand your concern regarding the use of proper terminology to describe specific states, events and conditions and I respect those parameters.

Perhaps we could identify the type of evolution being discussed by using hyphenation... ie: bio-evolution, social-evolution, star-evolution, galactic-evolution and universal-evolution.. and so on.

For my own purposes I tend not to trumpet the differences between life and non-life. Living matter is made up of the same materials as non-living matter and is ruled by the same physical laws as non-living matter. So, the claimed distinctions between life and the rest of the universe seem arbitrary. Sure, life is a demonstratively more complex system than say that of a sun. But a sun is pretty impressive in its "fine tuning" as well.

You could say life is unique in its ability to reproduce but once a sun dies and goes into super nova, this process is the start of a whole "generation" of new suns, its not biological reproduction but it is similar to regenerative "life cycle".

As much as I do not want to draw analogies between the living and the non-living groups of matter in the universe, I tend to see them as closely related due to the fact that they are governed by the same laws and are composed of the materials. It's only the functions of life, the scale and complexity of those functions that appear unrelated to the the events taking place in the realm of the "inanimate" universe.

Whatever naturally selected adaptations result from specific combinations of Adenosine Thymine Cytosine or Guanine that make us stand up and say... "that's evolution!"... the same exclamation applies to how a sun forms from a nebula, which consists of dust particles and hydrogen gas. Gravity pulls this material together into globules, which gradually expand as they convert their constituent hydrogen into helium during nuclear reactions. Its all physics and chemistry.

Its pretty obvious, though, that if someone starts talking about the "genealogy" of a group of stars, the analogy and metaphors have gotten out of hand.

I guess I'm just looking at the propensity of all things to evolve and how that evolution tends to work toward the survival or "self organization" of whatever it is that is evolving. Not in every case... but generally speaking.

 

[baywax]

for the notion of evolution in cosmology, See also Smolin's fecund universe theory

Thank you Galteeth, I'm already looking at these great references.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Thank you Galteeth, I'm already looking at these great references.

Let's pick this up after you've had some time to digest, and can point us toward specific references for discussion. Thanks :)