6
   

is death the cause of evolution

Forums:
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
martinies
 
  1  
Sun 12 Apr, 2015 06:16 pm
@FBM,
Yes death prevents adaptation of one thing and therefor allows it in a more convenient thing to the event circumstances. The death of the dinosaurs led to an opening for the mammals . Life only shapes life when death has given it life its direction. Death is the main player as the fossils in rocks point to that from fish skeletons to human skeletons.
FBM
 
  1  
Sun 12 Apr, 2015 06:45 pm
@martinies,
There is no logical or scientific reason that I can find to consider the death of organisms to be more important to evolution than the life of those animals and the mutations they accumulated and passed on by reproduction. It seems to me that you're trying to wedge in some sort of supernatural agent where none is needed. The fossil record provides equal evidence for life and death, as well as gradual change over time. To single out death as primary suggests a rather biased perspective. There is no apparent logical reason to cherry-pick death from among all the other things.
martinies
 
  1  
Mon 13 Apr, 2015 01:20 am
@FBM,
All im saying is that there is and underlying unmoving part of nature which shows up as death and relativity in the moving and on going event of the univeres and the life forms that are in that event. Some might call the unmoving thing god.
Setanta
 
  2  
Mon 13 Apr, 2015 01:27 am
@martinies,
You just don't get it--you saying something doesn't make it true. Just because you say there is an "underlying unmoving part of nature" doesn't mean that there is. You don't offer even a bad reason or faulty logic to underpin this claim. You apparently think that saying it is enough. It is not.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Mon 13 Apr, 2015 02:28 am
@martinies,
martinies wrote:

All im saying is that there is and underlying unmoving part of nature which shows up as death and relativity in the moving and on going event of the univeres and the life forms that are in that event. Some might call the unmoving thing god.


What evidence do you have for this underlying unmoving part?
martinies
 
  1  
Mon 13 Apr, 2015 03:03 am
@FBM,
This unmoving part of nature shows up as the cause in spooky action at a distance. Einstien was always looking for the unmoving thing in nature and it was right under his nose as the spooky in spooky action. But he didnt recognise it as he wasnt looking for something that exists as nonlocation.
FBM
 
  1  
Mon 13 Apr, 2015 03:14 am
@martinies,
You need evidence to support that claim, though. I've never seen anything that suggests what you say.
martinies
 
  1  
Mon 13 Apr, 2015 03:37 am
@FBM,
Can you see how time and space would become localised version of nonlocality with the presents of matter in nonlocality.
FBM
 
  1  
Mon 13 Apr, 2015 03:55 am
@martinies,
I'm afraid not. I don't see where you're coming from there. Can you point me to some research that's been done in that area?
martinies
 
  1  
Mon 13 Apr, 2015 04:02 am
@FBM,
Well locality came from somewhere. Its got to be nonlocality if only by logic. Matter being local in timespace. So matter into nonlocality = matter plus timespace.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Mon 13 Apr, 2015 04:15 am
@martinies,
You can just as easily make the claim that life is the shaper of life forms. Without it to there would be nothing to evolve.
martinies
 
  1  
Mon 13 Apr, 2015 05:54 am
@rosborne979,
My point here is death acts on life to make it change form. Life cant really act on death in th same way. Well in the case of a mans soul maybe.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Mon 13 Apr, 2015 08:14 am
@martinies,
martinies wrote:

Well locality came from somewhere.


Why?

Quote:
Its got to be nonlocality if only by logic.


That's the point. It's not logical.

Quote:
Matter being local in timespace. So matter into nonlocality = matter plus timespace.


Again, you're not really making scientific sense. I understand that English isn't your native language and would never chastise you for that, so what I'm asking is if you can provide a link to some sort of empirical research that helps explain what you're talking about. Working with purely a priori concepts can lead to anything, like angels dancing on the heads of pins. Please point me to something empirical. I'd appreciate it.
martinies
 
  1  
Mon 13 Apr, 2015 08:54 am
@FBM,
What I am saying is observable in that an indistinguishable and non moving thing death acts on and changes moving forms of distingishable life in an on going event.
FBM
 
  2  
Mon 13 Apr, 2015 08:56 am
@martinies,
Are you familiar with the reification fallacy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy) You're treating death as though it were an entity acting upon other entities. Death is the breakdown of a system, not an active agent.

Since you have ignored my request for a link to empirical work done on this topic, is it safe for me to assume that you don't have any?
martinies
 
  1  
Mon 13 Apr, 2015 09:27 am
@FBM,
Fbm what your saying is correct if there is no stationary god. But if there is a stationary god then it is correct as I have put it. You cant in probability be more than 50% right. And I in probabilty cant be more than 50% wright. Most of the population believe in god in some way or other so my argument is probably more popular than yours.you cant say there is no god because god in opinion is a probabilty.
martinies
 
  1  
Mon 13 Apr, 2015 09:48 am
@martinies,
Evolution is good either way god or no god.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Mon 13 Apr, 2015 09:53 am
@martinies,
martinies wrote:

Fbm what your saying is correct if there is no stationary god. But if there is a stationary god then it is correct as I have put it. You cant in probability be more than 50% right. And I in probabilty cant be more than 50% wright. Most of the population believe in god in some way or other so my argument is probably more popular than yours.you cant say there is no god because god in opinion is a probabilty.


Argumentum ad populum. And where did I say that there is no god? You're all over the map, man. Can you stay on topic? I'm asking if you can link me to some work that has been done on your idea. I'd like to get a better idea of what you're talking about.
martinies
 
  1  
Mon 13 Apr, 2015 10:10 am
@FBM,
No fbm I was thinking of the statistics of religion so many cant be wrong.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Mon 13 Apr, 2015 03:14 pm
Death is one of the forces behind natural selection and thus evolution. Survival of the fittest means the death of the not so fittest.
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » is death the cause of evolution
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 06:22:33
▲ ▼