Survival of the Stable

How much of the things around us are stable enough to deserve a name? Are humans one of these things? Dawkins gives us certain classes of entities “such as rain drops, which come into existence at a sufficiently high rate to deserve a collective name, even if any one of them is short-lived.” (Dawkins, Pg. 12). Rain is just one of several examples, including rocks, galaxies, and even soap bubbles, which demonstrate stable patterns of atoms. None of them have changed for billions of years, and will probably stay the same for billions of more years. Their atoms have not found the need to change therefore, are completely stable. Of course, I am not sure how old these things are. For all we know, it might have taken the rock`s atoms much more time to find a stable pattern, than the time that is it has existed as what we call a rock. This theory of stableness, also explains why things tend to be the way they are. Dawkins states that: “Salt crystals tend to be cubes because this is a stable way of packing sodium and chloride ions together.” (Dawkins Pg. 12). What I want to know is whether or not these things have stopped evolving. I am certainly aware that in the state that things are right now, there is no need to change, but if conditions on earth were to alter, will these so called stable atoms eventually evolve? For example, “In the sun, the simplest atoms of all, hydrogen atoms, are fusing to form helium atoms, because in the conditions that prevail there the helium configuration is more stable.” (Dawkins Pg, 12). But what if the way that the sun gets to these atoms were to change? Then the “helium configuration” would not be stable anymore. In this case, there will probably be a need for change, or evolution, in order to restore the stable pattern.