I am not arguing that death does not optimize evolution. Or that death exists. .You agreed that death is not a necessity. We are in agreement. I am not arguing any other points.
You're not, yet you then go on to all the below verbosities for ... what?
It would be a fallacy of equivocation if I am using two differant definitions of death. I am open to an explanation of your thoughts on that.
You use the same word "death" to describe the human notion of death, and the concrete "real" events that the human notion "death" refers to. They're two different things and you argued them as though they were the same.
What did i describe if not evolution.
Evolution is a very specific biological process. You can't walk into a field where conventions have been agreed on for decades if not centuries, and misname those conventions expecting others to automatically understand your new arbitrary language.
Is rocks to say liquid not the same randomess of chance.
You mean to argue evolution as an instance of mere permutation of matter, IOW just a probabilistic process. But what's the point? It's like if I got into an argument over how to most efficiently get to Mars orbit given very specific parameters, and started arguing that heliocentric equations are "fake" because you could just as well describe orbital dynamics from an earth-centric POV. Which you can, but it just complicates things for no good reason. Evolution isn't about rocks changing into liquid.
Evolution is nothing more than a discription of chance interactions. Natural selection was added by chance as was death.
No. If you want the conventional definition of evolution the biological process, you can open a textbook and see for yourself how it's not just chance interactions resulting in phase changes..
The finite resource argument only tells us what happens when we run out of resources it dons not stop evolution.
It doesn't matter. It's not a viable evolutionary path. If you're going to seriously make this argument you need to start showing data. And start a new thread, cause this doesn't have much to do with the topic, and I'm not interested (I slept thu bio classes and don't really regret it).
The same random process whould just start over.
It didn't. Despite old age existing in a small number of species.
I am not arguing that death does not exist or is necessary if evolution goes far enough. Death is only necessary for evolution to keep going past a certian point as evolution is now.
What? You gotta be less vague. I don't know what you're talking about.
q\\YOur point of evolution getting ready to take off again in the next ten years or so certianly does not require death.
My point, not just selective parts of it, was that death is an essential part of optimized natural evolution. And it's not "my" point, it's history, data. I don't care about philosophical arguments for their own sake.
Evolution could find a way to take place within and make changes with in a living being without death.
Again you're saying evolution and meaning something else than the established meaning of Evolution. Why encapsulate a set of phenomena inside a word for the sake brevity, when what it is you're trying to describe by that word is neither what the word conventionally means nor clear to anyone but you, since you've never explicitly described what you mean? No one but you knows what you mean by "evolution". It's not the textbook meaning of the word, that's all I can tell.
I don't care about biology and there's much better people/things to learn it from. I recommend you just read the literature on the topic yourself. What you're arguing isn't novel in anyway, just mistaken. You don't need me or even a human to see how. Just open a book or good reference website and see for yourself.
Evolution could find a way to take place within and make changes with in a living being without death.
This is not "evolution"
