Evolution

[Little Rik]

Why Einstein should say that the vibrations are alive?
It would be a stupid statement.
It would be like saying that the water is wet.
It is obvious that the vibrations are alive.

You're still contradicting yourself about the obviousness of life in matter.  If Einstein never said anything about it, why did you bring him up as an example of how I was contradicting science?

Einstein said that everything is vibration.

Vibrations move, they are energetic, vigorous, vibrant, sparkling and full of life so they are not dead.
The other option is that they are dead but have you ever seen something dead that does the above actions?
OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE THE FOOL NOT ME.  

To see life in a rock is not easy that is why we can say that is not possible to see life in matter but life is there anyway.
Certain minerals like uranium release energy and energy-consciousness are the two sides of the same sheet so matter is not dead therefore the vibrations that compose the matter are alive.

Using one bit of unsupported Ananda Marga dogma to support another unsupported bit of dogma gets you nowhere.  You're just running in place.  What reason do you have for believing that wherever there is energy, there is consciousness?  If you have no reason, then energy and consciousness aren't two sides of the same sheet.  I think this is an overly simplistic understanding of what Sarkar said, anyway.  His claim was that consciousness implied the existence of a suitable prakrti in each case observed.  Is a suitable prakrti observed in radioactive matter?  No.  Radioactive matter decays in rigidly fixed patterns, unlike the way things we know have consciousness behaves.  Simply equating energy and consciousness is little more than begging the question.  (See Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy, Ch. 1, What Is Dharma?)

FOOL.

1) Within this universe wherever there is a body there is a mind-consciousness.
It doesn't really matter whether this body is a human body or a rock (matter).
Consciousness and body always go hand in hand.
Outside this universe as has already been demonstrated by thousand of NDEs consciousness does not need a body but within this universe it does.
2) Radioactive matter can not in any way be compared to higher type of conscious life.
It is natural that a very low type of consciousness such as the one in the matter or radioactive matter in this case will act in a total different way and have different way of react.

One advise however.  
Reading too many Ananda Marga things may draw you closer to Sarkar and far from atheism with the consequence that you will upset your friend Min.  
I guess you never thought about that yog, did you?  

Going up and up in the evolution scale the more there is evolution the more there are visible evidence that vibrations are alive.

Such as?

There is a parallelism between vibrations and state of awareness so the movement and the sparkling life within a human body can not be the same as the one found in matter.
In matter the vibrations reflect the state in which this matter lie which is a latent-inactive-dormant stage.  

We humans are alive and we are made of vibrations.
As we come from previous life and this previous life goes back to pure matter then the evidence that life come from life is more than evident.
Only stubborn idiots believe otherwise.    

You're putting the cart before the horse.  Until you can demonstrate that vibrations are alive, there is no point in talking about what goes back to pure matter.

See above above but most of all wake up and grow up.  

Now let us talk about Abiogenesis.

It say.............the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances........or..........is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds............

Fool like you think that inanimate substances or organic compounds have no life in them but they do as has already been demonstrated.

You haven't demonstrated jack shit, douchebag.

Yes, I did by showing that there is life in matter such as uranium.  

Uranium is an inanimate substance yet there life in it.

Pure bollocks.  Tell me which of the following events carries the signature of life?

You want evidence?
Go to Hiroshima and ask the survival of the bomb whether there was life or not in the explosion.
I guess you never thought about that yog, did you?  

Fail again (as usual )

---

Oh, is that so?  

And this come from someone who could not even answer a single question from the OP.

Stunned again!  

The questions you ask don't tend to be worth answering. Learn some critical thinking LR! You're much too Chopra for my liking.

---

Seen as I know how it feels to not have my questions answered and it costs me very minimal time to do so:

Is evolution based only in body changes or involve consciousness as well?

Consciousness as well. Which is also part of the body.

Very well but instead saying part of the body I would say....connected to the body.  

What is driving evolution?

Causation. Same as with what's driving everything else.

No, no, no.
Causation does not answer why everything and everybody wish to go higher and higher in their evolution.
In this very moment you are on the forum to expand your knowledge and be a better learned and conscious human being so causation is pure BS.  

Survival only or involve also the need to reach some goal in life?

Natural selection. It's basically the process of elimination: That which survives, survives. And fitter organisms tend to be much more likely to survive, although that isn't necessarily the case.

But as a general trend, organisms evolve to be better at surviving simply by a combination of genetic variation + the fact that the less fit organisms tend to not survive and the fitter organisms tend to survive and so they're able to breed with each other, and that selects for fitter organisms. And that process just snowballs, very gradually, and very slowly, over time.

This is only part of the reason why.
You are here in forum not because you need to survive isn't it Hammy?
You are here because you want to go up and up in the consciousness scale.
You are aiming to go higher and higher even if unconsciously you deny that there is a goal.
Where would you go otherwise then?
Fall out the universe in the unknown?  

Are individual who are not able to survive lost for ever or will pop up in a different environment  most suitable to their capabilities to survive?

The organism at least in that form is lost forever.

Sure, but you are not the organism Hammy, isn't it?
Or you think that you are?  

Did Darwin and other really studied other possibilities other than whether evolution is driven only by survival?

It's not only survival it's natural selection as I described above. And yes biologists have studied many possibilities, genetic drift being one of them that some biologists think has more merit than others. There are also failed theories such as Lamarckism.

Survival and natural selection are all part of the physical aspect.
What about the consciousness aspect?
Obviously Darwin did not study that aspect.

Can a plant evolve into an animal, an animal into a human or plant stay plant, animal stay animal and human stay human?

Animals have evolved from plants and human animals have evolved from non-human animals. So yes that can, does and must happen.

I don't think you get it Hammy.
Here I am talking about whether the same form of consciousness can evolve from matter to plant from plant to animal and so on.
You on the other hand mean something different.
You think that the same consciousness can not live again once dead.
Is that so?  

If evolution exist is because there is a goal to reach or is all about random chances?

Neither. Neither a goal nor all about random chances. It's only a little bit down to mutation, it's mostly down to natural selection + time.

Thanks for your guess.
Does that means that you are here on the forum not to evolve mentally-consciousness but for other unspecified reason?
Is that the case?

Does evolution act like the gear of a vehicle that increase his speed as it change the gear?

No.

In this case you can explain why you left the kindergarten to go to the primary and from the primary to high school and maybe to the uni and so on.
Why didn't you stay in the kindergarten then?  



You deserve a 10 (10 is the top) for your effort but only a 3 because the wrong answers.
All in all not terribly bad.