Evolution

[Edwardo Piet]

Little Rik, your thread isn't about evolution. It's about your own misconception of it.

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.

What is driving evolution?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

No.

[Angrboda]

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?

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?)

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?

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.  

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.

Uranium is an inanimate substance yet there life in it.

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

[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.  

[Angrboda]

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?

If vibrations are not in fact alive, then yes, I've seen many vibrating dead things as all things are then essentially dead.  Besides begging the question, this again doesn't differentiate between the Yoga view that the vibrations are alive and the Christian view that God is alive and He is making the vibrations do what they do.  In order for your view of evolution to hold, you need to be able to distinguish the former from the latter.  Stringing together a bunch of adjectives that might describe vibrations doesn't do it.  As can be seen in the vibrations that are water waves, which are caused by an application of an exterior force, wind, it's possible that the vibrations are an effect of the interaction of otherwise constant forces, as in how a window shudders in the wind.  In that case, vibrations would vibrate because of the interaction between potential vibrators, not because of anything internal to the vibrations themselves.  So, no, this only shows that you, once again, are the fool.

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?)

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.

Dog... ma.....

Outside this universe as has already been demonstrated by thousand of NDEs consciousness does not need a body but within this universe it does.

Since you declined to answer the clairvoyance objection, that makes your claim here false.

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.

If it can't be compared, then why are you comparing it to that?  You're filled with contradictions.  You're claiming now that radioactivity doesn't behave like the life of conscious things, therefore it is like the life of conscious things!  You make no sense.

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.  

You claimed that more evidence of life was available the higher up the evolutionary scale you go.  Besides not answering the question put to you, this is just more irrelevant twaddle.

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.  

Like I said, you didn't demonstrate jack shit.  Not only do you claim that the behavior which indicates life in uranium is different from the behavior that indicates life in things we know possess it, thus leaving you without a valid point, your claim that uranium was alive was based on unsupported dogma about some equivalence between the presence of energy and the presence of consciousness.  Supporting one bit of dogma with another bit of dogma gets you nowhere.  You're just arguing in a circle.

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.

More irrelevant twaddle.  What in fuck are you trying to say here?  The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not demonstrate that uranium was "alive."

[Amarok]

Lol still no evidence vibrations are living things and no evidence that the vibration need an outside source accept by false analogy  . And NDE don't prove shit .

[Whateverist]

It’s lucky that MK knows he can’t be fooled by “false spirits”.

If I was a false spirit, making people believe they can't be fooled by my kind would be my go-to strategy.

[Amarok]

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

Actually animals and plants diverged from something that was neither

And Rik seems to think evolution is just utter random chaos without mechanism or a pattern of alteration.

And Rik continues to show his ignorance that goal oriented evolution like theories have been theorized tested and dismissed . Evolution has not goals just gravity has no goals .

[robvalue]

It’s lucky that MK knows he can’t be fooled by “false spirits”.

If I was a false spirit, making people believe they can't be fooled by my kind would be my go-to strategy.

Exactly.

Claiming to be able to so easily see through these spirits is either elevating yourself to amazing power levels, or else saying these are pathetic shitty little spirits that no one should worry about anyway.

[Whateverist]

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

Actually animals and plants diverged from something that was neither

And Rik seems to think evolution is just utter random chaos without mechanism or a pattern of alteration.

And Rik continues to show his ignorance that goal oriented evolution like theories have been theorized tested and dismissed . Evolution  has not goals just gravity has no goals .

*my bold*

One of the key problems with intuitional 'science' is the predictable manner in which it keeps making the same mistakes.  Rik is obviously a latter day advocate of Lamarckism.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Uranium is an inanimate substance yet there life in it.

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

Wait! Little Dik thinks that "half-life" implies "life"? Seriously? We need a word for the reverse of education.