Yes...that attitude can unfortunately develop in some types...usually characterized by their deleterious comments sprinkled with insults and self-aggrandizements.


Argue your belief with the reference source. It is they and not me that once again reveals your propensity for self-destructing your own arguments by making statements that are incorrect or simply not true.


Yet another example of self-destructing your own arguments.

Ever hear of Stromatolites...custodian of Earth's oldest fossilized organisms...you know, "Stromatolites", those accretionary layers now turned into rock formation that were originally produced by those little prokaryotes you keep disparaging in favor of the eukaryotes?

Prokaryotes showed up first for work in the early Archaean Period compared with that which appeared later on (the eukaryotes) in the Proterozic Period.



"Death" stops all "tweaking" and that includes any continued development of an organism's genetic code.

Have a listen to yourself. What organism at any stage of its life...would develop coding to program its own suicide to occur after a certain time period of its development because to do so would be beneficial to it or its progeny?

Death by its very finality runs counter to Darwinian or any other variant of evolutionary theory regarding organism development and progression.

What organism first decided to add "death" to its genetic code which enticed other organisms to push close so they could add it through their membranes thinking "Oh WOW...now that looks like a fun thing to do to ourselves and our kids"!


So you keep saying...but again...at every turn...your comments and insults have been met with citations from the scientific and related communities in demonstration that it is not me who such sources keep revealing as being less than accurate...as anyone who wishes to verify for themselves can track.


You clicked on the link...

Respectfully (but becoming more difficult to maintain with each insult you post) submitted,

Giornale

Sorry, it still looks as if you are asking why we die.
Or are you asking why some organisms become extinct?
I'm afraid that I don't follow what you mean.

However, I wouldn't agree that organisms are 'always striving to be "better"'. Organisms simply adapt, where necessary, to their environment. If they do not fit their environment, then they are likely to die off; if they do fit, then they are likely to survive.

Any mutation, which enables an organism to fit better, will be able to reproduce. Those mutations, which prevent organisms fitting into their environment, will die out. That is the meaning of survival of the 'fittest'.

There may be some active striving and struggling and aiming for perfection ~ but not in this specific context.

No...


With all due respect...no again...because the question is confined to the early organism level pursuant to Darwinian principles of how life evolved...which simply stated follows a line of ascension (from simple to complex) of what they were...we became and are.

Why "we" die would then be the result (again according to Darwinian principles) of the development of early "suicide" coding in primative life forms long before humans came to be.

So the question as phrased (no need to repeat again) remains...

Hope that clarifies...and all I have time for (sorry).

Respectfully submitted,

Giornale

My favorite hitchkiker line:

It's Marvin, he phoned to wash his head at us.

As for the fellow with the long winded responses, all I can say is that we all have our own superstitions. You aren't going to convince anyone with your half-hearted explanations. but you are free to believe whatever you wish to believe.

I for one am quite happy with my beliefs, and lack of your beliefs.

As I read today regarding Rick Santorum, and his daughter with the genetic illness:


It's fun to theorize about what created life, etc. But it's quite another thing to take your chances on your beliefs. So the next time you have an illness, why not take the God test, and let God decide your fate.

Why is any life born, if only to die?
Why did any life evolve, if only to die?
Why did early simple organisms die?
Why does death exist?
Why does life exist?

I don't know.

Not all life evolves into more complex life. There are still simple organisms, today, which perfectly suit their environment.

Where and when organisms, simple or otherwise, cease to suit their environment, they are in danger of dying out.

Thus, Darwin's theory allows for living, changing and dying out.

We live, we die. And until then there's ice cream.

[quote=mbas400][i]"As for the fellow with the long winded responses....[/i] [/quote] Responding to complex subjects with almost endless tangential branches requires comparable responses to do any response justice. This is especially the case when addressing evolution since there is just not one, monolithic, theory to consider there but dozens ranging from the bottom of the sea to space. If less was submitted and/or with no citations...would you then be criticizing brevity as a sign of something that would better fit the often heard mantra of [i]"doesn't have an answer"[/i] from evolution proponents? [quote=mbass400][i]"You aren't going to convince anyone..."[/i] [/quote] I maintain no such illusion. [quote=mbass400][i]"...with your half-hearted explanations"[/i][/quote] Isn't there a contradiction in there somewhere when on the one hand you complain about the length (long-windedness) of my entries but then turn around and call them "half-hearted"? Why would I bother with a "long-winded" response if I was "half-hearted" about it? You are very much mistaken. A "half-hearted" response would be, if attempted at all, very brief and without bothering to cite supporting documentation. And besides, there is a lot of "open space" due to utilizing the "quotation" formatting, etc., so if you simply ran all the sentences together, even maintaining a few paragraphs, the "long-winded" responses would not seem nearly so. [quote=mbass400][i]"As I read today regarding Rick Santorum, and his daughter with the genetic illness...[/i] [/quote] First off, I share your opinion about those withholding medically appropriate treatment (with few excetions) on the basis of religious beliefs or for that matter [u]any[/u] reason. Secondly, given the overall context of your comments and "just for the record"...there [u]is[/u] no injunction (biblically speaking) against accepting the majority of medically appropriate treatments. Now...just to be sure there is no "double standard" at work here..."on-the-flip-side" do you also vocalize criticism of those who forbid a medical procedure that is [u]not[/u] based upon [u]any[/u] religious belief [u]at all[/u]? [quote=New York Times][i]"The parents who objected to their children being inoculated are among a small but growing number of vaccine skeptics in California and other states who take advantage of exemptions to laws requiring vaccinations for school-age children... "Children who are not vaccinated are unnecessarily susceptible to serious illnesses, they say, but also present a danger to children who have had their shots... "...an increasing number of the vaccine skeptics belong to a different group — those who object to the inoculations [u]because of their personal beliefs, often related to an unproven notion [/u]that vaccines are linked to autism and other disorders.[/i][size:8pt]((underline added, specific paragraphs from the total article selected for quote)) [/size][/quote] So then...did not [u]their[/u] children also have [i]"...no choice being born to a nutjob family and deserves the best medicine has to offer (from your quote)"[/i] even though religion played no role in their parent's decision? So...what do you have what to say about and to them? Is your criticism of them and the basis for their decision as [u]strident[/u] as it is for those who make such decisions based upon their religious beliefs? Mine is. [quote=mbass400][i]"So the next time you have an illness, why not take the God test, and let God decide your fate."[/i] [/quote] Once again so as to maintain a lack of the old "double-standard" of criticizing religious faith but not its opposite...let's equally apply your "test" as follows: [quote][i]"So the next time [u]you[/u] have an illness, why not take the [u]Darwinian and evolution theory test[/u], and let [u]adaptation[/u], [u]natural selection[/u] and [u]survival of the fittest[/u] decide [u]your[/u] fate."[/i] [/quote] Respectfully submitted, Giornale

Life hasn't died out, so to make assumptions about what will inevitably happen in the distant future based on what we see now would seem to be premature.

We are always evolving. It could be that what we perceive right now to be a "permanent ending scenario" is not that at all. Maybe the way things are have given us an advantage for this period of time - and in the future something else will happen which will then change things again.

It could be like people evaluating our skin color many thousands of years ago and saying "Well clearly this life form isn't going to make it because with that skin color they'll never survive X or Y." - but then we evolved to handle that situation.

Or maybe it could be that very situation which then spurs us to our next level of growth. Maybe this will be what impels us in future years to develop an ethereal presence instead of a carbon based one.

My children have had most of the available vaccines, but not all ~ and I wasn't happy about filling up my new-borns with drugs and chemicals.

I was, and am, wary of the MMR. It wasn't available when my eldest was little, and there was no controversy when my middle child was little, but by the time my daughter was born, it was actually recommended that children of parents with Ulcerative Colitis should not have it. That included us.

Then they changed their minds ~ but I didn't and I would not allow her to have it until she was 16 ~ old enough to make the decision for herself.

I am entitled to receive annual flu vaccines, but have always refused. I am wary of much medication, even though I have to take regular doses of various pills and potions.

So I must be a 'nutjob'.

Ah well, such is life ~ and I'm going off-topic:)