188 réponses à ce sujet

[Amberion]

EHondaMashButton wrote...

Amberion wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

In ME1, Sovereign specifically described the Reapers as the "Pinnacle of Evolution" and the "End of everything."

In ME2, we discover that Harbinger and the Collectors were using humans to create a new Reaper, and we learn that the Reapers are actually hybrids of organic and inorganic life. Harbinger even specifically refers to the process as ascendence and perfection.

In ME3, we learn that The Catalyst does the Cycle to allow organic life to continue while allowing the old life to ascend and be preserved as Reapers. The Destroyer on Rannoch even says "It is not something you can understand." This directly references and adds clarity to what's been said and hinted at in the past. While the original purpose of the Cycle may have changed at some point, the point about the reapers creation and existence has been consistent from day one.

in ME1, Sovereign was full of it. He was trying to scare Shepard and company. He did an awful lot of lying.

In ME2, Harbinger does call it ascendance and perfection, but you have to consider the source. Neither Harbinger or Sovereign are unbiased. They may THINK they're the pinnacle of evolution, but in fact they are a dead end. They stopped evolving, they stopped changing, and as such, they're being left behind. If the galaxy were ever to build a civilization uncontested, the reapers would come back, and they'd be annihilated. Why? Because they DON'T IMPROVE. They CAN'T. Evolving, improving, changing creatures will always win out over time. That's why the reapers have to cull the advanced civilizations every 50k years. Not just because of the risk of AIs wiping out life, but because if they wait any longer, they run the risk of someday coming back in and getting their clock cleaned by a civilization more advanced than they are.

They're an evolutionary dead end, and they know it. They use 'perfection' and 'ascendance' as an indoctrination trick to make their job easier.

Harbinger and Sovereign are biased, but the guy who runs this whole operation for millenia isn't?  He says "we" when referring to the reapers.  Why trust him any more than Harbinger or Sovereign.

You can't. The truth is, Shepard has no reason to trust the Catalyst, but time is running out. Shepard is dying, s/he is bleeding out, not thinking clearly, grasping at straws. Not a great state to be in for making decisions of galactic import. Some people wonder why Shepard doesn't argue more with the Catalyst? There isn't time for that, and Shepard is too weak and groggy to think clearly. The only thing to do is make a decision, because otherwise everything is lost.

[Siripho]

I trained originally as an evolutionary ecologist and so could bore you endlessly with a large vomit of stuff about the subject.

I shall not, however, as it is of absolutely no relevance to the ending.

Evolution simply means change. As such we can assume that this is what the shiny little fella means.

[JBONE27]

EHondaMashButton wrote...

Oh my goodness.. I guess everyone just gave up on dealing with you.

Concept 1: Mutations are already in place, natural selection weeds out the ones that don't have them. Bacteria don't just see an antibiotic and whip out a mutation to deal with it. 99% of bacteria die and the ones that survive become the new 100%.

You didn't discount anything about antibiotics. Our antibiotics are copied from proteins expressed by fungi and plants. Of course bacteria would already have ancient mutations to deal with them.

Concept 2: Scientists induce mutations all the time using radiation and chemicals. Most mutations are unfavorable, some are favorable. Survival of the fittest gets rid of the ones that don't have the favorable mutation.

Your argument ignores the entire existence of an entire branch of engineering

http://en.wikipedia....ing#Agriculture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto

I'm not even going to get into your confusion on random and purposeful mutations. You're making up terms. There are externally induced mutations (radiation, chemicals, viruses), random errors in replication (cancer, genetic diseases), and inherently "loose" processes that favor shuffling of DNA (Meiosis -look it up)

All of these can result in favorable or unfavorable mutations.

None of this makes any sense when you throw in synthetics with DNA.  Bioware should've known better.

One minor correction.  Most mutations are not unfavorable, they are benign.  Auburn hair, heterochromia, and not having wisdom teeth are all examples of fairly common benign mutations.

[Richard 060]

Siripho wrote...

I trained originally as an evolutionary ecologist and so could bore you endlessly with a large vomit of stuff about the subject.

I shall not, however, as it is of absolutely no relevance to the ending.

Evolution simply means change. As such we can assume that this is what the shiny little fella means.

Lapsed palaeontologist here - unfortunately, the 'new DNA' quote doesn't really help the matter.

Either it's a really ham-fisted metaphor (clumsy, since it doesn't really fit how 'synthesis' plays out), or whoever wrote the scene is going by the 'Pokémon' school of 'evolution', whereby lifeforms transmogrify radically, following a pre-determined path.

In other words, very much NOT evolution as actually occurs in real life.

I've gone into it in more detail elsewhere, and might repost it somewhere for posterity, but 'synthesis' is riddled with flaws. For example, it really doesn't take into account the nature of EDI and the Geth as AI programs that just happen to make use of physical forms out of practical convenience. Nor does it extend to ALL life (notice how plants and the like are unaffected in the cinematic), which begs the question "what exactly was it trying to accomplish, and for how long?"

Again, I'm not going to bore people with specifics - I'll probably repost my earlier 'thesis' (it was pretty damn long!) in a seperate thread.

[Siripho]

Richard 060 wrote...

Siripho wrote...

I trained originally as an evolutionary ecologist and so could bore you endlessly with a large vomit of stuff about the subject.

I shall not, however, as it is of absolutely no relevance to the ending.

Evolution simply means change. As such we can assume that this is what the shiny little fella means.

Lapsed palaeontologist here - unfortunately, the 'new DNA' quote doesn't really help the matter.

Either it's a really ham-fisted metaphor (clumsy, since it doesn't really fit how 'synthesis' plays out), or whoever wrote the scene is going by the 'Pokémon' school of 'evolution', whereby lifeforms transmogrify radically, following a pre-determined path.

In other words, very much NOT evolution as actually occurs in real life.

I've gone into it in more detail elsewhere, and might repost it somewhere for posterity, but 'synthesis' is riddled with flaws. For example, it really doesn't take into account the nature of EDI and the Geth as AI programs that just happen to make use of physical forms out of practical convenience. Nor does it extend to ALL life (notice how plants and the like are unaffected in the cinematic), which begs the question "what exactly was it trying to accomplish, and for how long?"

Again, I'm not going to bore people with specifics - I'll probably repost my earlier 'thesis' (it was pretty damn long!) in a seperate thread.

Yeah, this is all true but it sort of misses the point I was making.

'Evolution' as a word does not just refer to biological evolution.

The way you act, or the way you think, or the manner in which you arrange flowers in a tea-cosy can evolve.

If tomorrow people decided to merge themselves with vacum cleaners it would most certainly be an evolution, just not in the biological sense.

Unless, of course, that has been the noble aim of those countlesss fellas who turn up at hospital claiming to have 'fallen' into their household appliances...

[Richard 060]

Siripho wrote...

Yeah, this is all true but it sort of misses the point I was making.

'Evolution' as a word does not just refer to biological evolution.

The way you act, or the way you think, or the manner in which you arrange flowers in a tea-cosy can evolve.

If tomorrow people decided to merge themselves with vacum cleaners it would most certainly be an evolution, just not in the biological sense.

Unless, of course, that has been the noble aim of those countlesss fellas who turn up at hospital claiming to have 'fallen' into their household appliances...

I got that - that's what I meant by a 'clumsy metaphor', since it's not 'evolution' in the literal sense. It's that way of talking about a 'gradual change over time' that most people mean when they use the word.

But if the Catalyst isn't talking about the evolutionary process proper, why bring up DNA, a key element of the very same?

Unless, of course, the 'new DNA' reference is just another metaphor, and 'synthesis' is something entirely different.

But the point still stands that it's not great writing to describe something as the 'final evolution of life' in a manner that could imply biological evolution, when you're actually talking about a 'general improvement or development'.

Again, the entire scene drips with clumsy use of language, and woeful mis-application of real science - and not just evolution, either.

[Siripho]

Richard 060 wrote...

Siripho wrote...

Yeah, this is all true but it sort of misses the point I was making.

'Evolution' as a word does not just refer to biological evolution.

The way you act, or the way you think, or the manner in which you arrange flowers in a tea-cosy can evolve.

If tomorrow people decided to merge themselves with vacum cleaners it would most certainly be an evolution, just not in the biological sense.

Unless, of course, that has been the noble aim of those countlesss fellas who turn up at hospital claiming to have 'fallen' into their household appliances...

I got that - that's what I meant by a 'clumsy metaphor', since it's not 'evolution' in the literal sense. It's that way of talking about a 'gradual change over time' that most people mean when they use the word.

But if the Catalyst isn't talking about the evolutionary process proper, why bring up DNA, a key element of the very same?

Unless, of course, the 'new DNA' reference is just another metaphor, and 'synthesis' is something entirely different.

But the point still stands that it's not great writing to describe something as the 'final evolution of life' in a manner that could imply biological evolution, when you're actually talking about a 'general improvement or development'.

Again, the entire scene drips with clumsy use of language, and woeful mis-application of real science - and not just evolution, either.

I understand absolutely what you mean and I don't think that we are actually disagreeing here.

However, you could also interpret a 'final evolution of life' to be just that - a final change after which evolution will no longer occur. I'm guessing that a human-vacum-cleaner hybrid would have difficulty with a lot of biological functions, nevermind the natural outmanouvering of parasites by combining genes via sexual reproduction...

It is difficult for me to enter into the whole scientific mumbo-jumbo of the end piece as I am one of those sad individuals who believe it isn't actually happening at all and any argument about its accuracy is, therefore, moot.

[EHondaMashButton]

Carfax wrote...

You and the others triggered this debate by using antibiotic resistance as an example when you made comments like this:

How the hell do you think bacteria become resistant to man-made antibiotics

You cited this as an example of how RANDOM mutation could cause an organism to evolve or adapt a beneficial trait that wasn't previously there to begin with.

However, as the article I linked to said, antibiotic resistance predates man made biotics, and so this is a flawed example.  Also noteworthy, is the fact that this resistance comes at a cost, by reducing or inactivating regular cellular functions.

Random mutation states a mechanism, not a date of occurence.  The basis of the theory of evolution is that the organism already had the mutation before being tested. You made up your own interpretation of the theory of evolution and are attempting to disprove it.

Also, you linked a blurb, you clearly don't even have full access to that journal.  If you did, you'd know the background, and we wouldn't even be talking about this.

Vancomycin  - discovered in the 1950s by Eli Lilly.  Isolated from Streptomyces orientalis, a bacteria
Tetracyclines- discovered in the 1940s. Isolated from  Streptomyces aureofaciens, a bacteria. 
B lactam - discovered in 1920s-40s. Commonly known as the penicillin family.  Isolated from  Penicillium notatum, a mold.

Antibiotics are largely compounds we STEAL from bacteria/fungi.  

These are weapons bacteria/fungi use against each other on a daily basis.  They've already been using these compounds against each other for thousands of years.  Of course they will have some pre-existing defenses against them.  

You don't understand the theory of evolution, the concept of genetic mutation and recombination, or development of pharmaceuticals.  And stop citing Nature papers you don't even have full access to.

Carfax wrote... 

Concept 2: Scientists induce mutations all the time using radiation and chemicals. Most mutations are unfavorable, some are favorable. Survival of the fittest gets rid of the ones that don't have the favorable mutation.

Have these mutations been observed to lead to an enormous increase in information, that would be required for the theory of evolution's assertion concerning multicellular life evolving from unicellular life.

Yes. Volvocine algae.  

http://www.nature.co...larity-14433403 
http://www.pnas.org/...106/9/3254.full 

This one is probably the only one you'll be able to digest without a background in biology.

http://www.eurekaler...a-hvg021909.php 


Enjoy your crow good sir.

Carfax wrote...  
How do we go from bacteria to human beings?  

Very slowly.  

Carfax wrote...  
Any examples?

 

Yes. Mitochondria are evidence for evolution from bacteria:

Endosymbiosis and the existence of organelles - we have mitochondria. Plants have chloroplasts. See below
Organellar genes - organisms have copies of organelle DNA in their chromosomal DNA.  

I have access to this article, not sure if you do
http://www.nature.co...ll/nrg1271.html 
http://www.nature.co...nrg1271_F1.html 

Mitochondria reside within our cells and are similar in size and shape to prokaryotes (bacteria). 
Mitochondrion have a double membrane. The outer layer is like a eukaryotic membrane (us); the inner layer is like a prokaryotic membrane (bacteria)  
Mitochondria contain circular DNA like bacteria and replicate independently of your DNA 
Mitochondria propogate by binary fission like bacteria.
Mitochondra and their DNA are only inherited from the mitochondria in your mother's eggs.
Mitochondria contain ribosomes that are structually related to prokaryotic (bacteria) ribosomes than eukaryotic ribosomes (the rest of you) 

I don't think I can teach you all this over a couple forum posts. People get PhD's in evolutionary biology.  But lets be serious, you're not gonna read all that data because you've already made up your mind.   And I don't have 3.8 billion years to show you.  

Evolution doesn't even have to invalidate religion.  I believe in God. I also believe in gravity.  Just sit down now, you're making all of us look bad.

================================================================================


Keeping this on topic, the closest thing to synthesis would be endosymbiotic theory and claiming that beam somehow injected us with the synthetic equivalent of mitochondria which then hijacked our DNA like a virus.  But thats an immense stretch, and it kinda steals Midochlorions from Star Wars.

Modifié par EHondaMashButton, 09 avril 2012 - 04:10 .

[Carfax]

EHondaMashButton wrote...

Random mutation states a mechanism, not a date of occurence.  The basis of the theory of evolution is that the organism already had the mutation before being tested..

Are you speaking generally, or of this particular example? 

These are weapons bacteria/fungi use against each other on a daily basis.  They've already been using these compounds against each other for thousands of years.  Of course they will have some pre-existing defenses against them.

OK I'll concede this point for now. 

Yes. Volvocine algae.  

http://www.nature.co...larity-14433403 
http://www.pnas.org/...106/9/3254.full 

This one is probably the only one you'll be able to digest without a background in biology.

http://www.eurekaler...a-hvg021909.php 

I asked if it had ever been observed that mutation could lead to enormous increases in genetic information necessary for multicellular life to evolve from unicellular life, and you give me links that POSTULATE the multicellular divergence of a particular species of algae millions of years ago..

In other words, nothing was observed, but there is plenty of speculation as always.  If your links had contained an example of modern single celled algae turning into multicelled algae, then I'd have to eat crow.

Thats the problem with evolutionary biologists.  For them, one of the basic tenets of Science (observation) has been replaced with speculation.

Very slowly.

 

Again, there is no observable evidence of any single celled organism mutating into a multicelled one despite numerous attempts by Scientists to make it happen, and yet you are nevertheless convinced that it did happen, yet you cannot prove or show any evidence for it.

Even if you crunch the numbers, which many mathematicians have done, and see the ridiculous odds arrayed before you, I'm sure you wouldn't even blink would you?  

Yes. Mitochondria are evidence for evolution from bacteria:

Endosymbiosis and the existence of organelles - we have mitochondria. Plants have chloroplasts. See below
Organellar genes - organisms have copies of organelle DNA in their chromosomal DNA  

Again, more assumptions and gross oversimplifications.  There are plenty of issues with the assumption of endosymbiosis, many of which can be seen here.

I don't think I can teach you all this over a couple forum posts. People get PhD's in evolutionary biology.  But lets be serious, you're not gonna read all that data because you've already made up your mind.   And I don't have 3.8 billion years to show you.

 

Actually I did read most of your links, although admittedly a lot of it went over my head.  I'm not trained or educated in the field of biology, and molecular biology in particular is one of the most complex Sciences.. 

Evolution doesn't even have to invalidate religion.  I believe in God. I also believe in gravity.  Just sit down now, you're making all of us look bad.

I have not one single religious bone in my body.  In fact, I have nothing but scorn for religion.  I'm a Deist like Einstein, in that I believe in a transcendent, impersonal Creator.

Regardless, you're correct that a belief in a Creator doesn't have to be antagonistic with evolution as a principle. 

However, when you include the darwinian aspects of evolution such as random mutation and natural selection and claim they are completely responsible for the enormous variety of Life thats presently on planet Earth, you have lots of explaining to do because that assertion comes with lots of baggage.

Modifié par Carfax, 09 avril 2012 - 10:28 .

[mmm buddah23]

The goal of evolution is to adapt to our  current surroundings perfectly, and since those are always changing, evolution is ongoing. Simple. So in a sense, become cybernetic would be the apex, because that means we could self modify to all current situations, instead of having to wait millenia. People that dont believe in evolution need to be slapped, what you think happened? POOF we just suddenly existed?

Modifié par mmm buddah23, 09 avril 2012 - 10:35 .

[EHondaMashButton]

JBONE27 wrote...

One minor correction.  Most mutations are not unfavorable, they are benign.  Auburn hair, heterochromia, and not having wisdom teeth are all examples of fairly common benign mutations.

Yea, thanks for pointing that out.  We have tons of junk DNA and redundant  code.  I got caught up trying to explain that mutations aren't always benefcial or goal directed, and swung too far the other way, overstating the negative.

[EHondaMashButton]

Keeping on topic, I've revised my interpretation of space magic.  

The concept of combining synthetics and organics could work, if we think of synthetics as nanomachines operating in symbiosis within our cells like benign viruses.  

And say they scanned our DNA and stored it digitally (possible. see human genome project),
and assembled a new DNA that includes codes for both organic and synthetic
(possible. digitally created bacteria and gene swapping between host/parasite exists).   

But the whole particle beam/reaching everyone thing is still space magic.  

But I could accept the beam instructing the reapers to disperse themselves as nanomachine "spores" on us like the Genophage mission.

Write it up Bioware, I think there's a way out of this

******* Off topic for Carfax ************

Carfax wrote...
Are you speaking generally, or of this particular example?

Both. 

Carfax wrote... 
I asked if it had ever been observed that mutation could lead to enormous increases in genetic information necessary for multicellular life to evolve from unicellular life...

What you're asking for is a time machine and an infinite lifespan to observe the change.  But I'll indulge.  I don't feel like looking up algae, but yeast should do.  

http://www.wired.com...ticellularity/ 
Full article:   http://www.pnas.org/...109/5/1595.full    

Enjoy your crow

Carfax wrote... 
Again, there is no observable evidence of any single celled organism mutating into a multicelled one despite numerous attempts by Scientists to make it happen, and yet you are nevertheless convinced that it did happen, yet you cannot prove or show any evidence for it.

Even if you crunch the numbers, which many mathematicians have done, and see the ridiculous odds arrayed before you, I'm sure you wouldn't even blink would you?

Ah yes... no observable evidence.... We have already dismissed your claims (see above) 

When the odds play out over 3 BILLION years, you're bound to hit the jackpot.  And if the mathematicians have calculated the odds, where's your citation/source.

Carfax wrote...  
Again, more assumptions and gross oversimplifications.  There are plenty of issues with the assumption of endosymbiosis, many of which can be seen here.

Its oversimplified because this is a forum.  It would take stacks and stacks of papers to show you the evidence.
And speaking of evidence, you demand all this evidence yet you just linked me to some guy's blog.   A blog that says:  Phylogenetic studies only show that some mitochondrial genes have a homology with bacterial genes and only show common descent. 

So he admits mitochondrial and bacterial genes have common descent and wants to argue that mitochondria and bacteria are cousins instead of parent-child.  Fine.  Doesn't argue against evolution.  And the things he claims lack evidence, he just didn't do any research on.

Real-life modern example of  endosymbiosis: 
http://www.plosbiolo...al.pbio.0030121 

Real-life modern example of Human to bacterial gene transfer
http://www.eurekaler...u-gaa021111.php 

Real-life modern example of  viral to human gene transfer
http://www.uta.edu/u...ist-reports.php 

Carfax wrote...  
Actually I did read most of your links, although admittedly a lot of it went over my head.  I'm not trained or educated in the field of biology, and molecular biology in particular is one of the most complex Sciences..

Apologies then, I thought you were trolling, and was being an ass in return.  I'll try to link layman's articles.

Carfax wrote...   
However, when you include the darwinian aspects of evolution such as random mutation and natural selection and claim they are completely responsible for the enormous variety of Life thats presently on planet Earth, you have lots of explaining to do because that assertion comes with lots of baggage.

Mutations/Genetic drift is just one mechanism.  Would you feel better if I told you there are many other mechanisms responsible for genetic diversity?  There's also 

-Hybridization:  
http://blogs.discove...-bred-in-a-lab/ 

-Gene transfer between viruses/bacteria/eukaryotes (see earlier): i.e. Nature's own genetic engineering.  And the reason why your math/odds straw man is not applicable.  Because we share the same code, it is possible for genes that work in life X to be transferred to life Y, taking a shortcut around millions/billions of years of trial and error.  

At least we've established that we're not arguing over the origin of life (Which evolution does not attempt to explain).   So we're only talking about how life became so diverse/complex.  (which evolution does attempt to explain)  That is an enormous question, and I can't really cover it in a forum post, nor am I qualified.  The basic concept is that given enough time random gene shuffling in the setting of selective pressure can lead to something simple becoming something so complex that it looks like it was assembled by an individual, rather than a natural process.  This is known as the Watchmaker theory.  That something as intricate as a watch cannot possibly have originated from its parts without a person to design and assemble them.

I suggest you read these 2 books: 
http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/0393315703 
http://www.amazon.co...5111635-5293613 

To test this requires simulations.  Whether or not you accept the validity of simulations as evidence is up to you. 

Keep in mind we're talking about whether the concept is plausible, not whether or not it actually occurred.

Watch this vid:    

-Define  the building blocks of a clock (gears, hands, etc akin to cell structures)
-Define that parts naturally aggregate (magnets, akin to self assembly of proteins)
-Assign a genetic code that codes for & directs assembly of each part (any orientation, any gearsize, magnets anywhere )
-Start with pre-existing blobs of parts (ie start from a simple blob of nonsense parts)
-Mate the collection of parts and shuffle their genes (1 mutation per generation in this simulation)
-Apply an arbitrary level of selective pressure to select for the offspring that tells time the best

Run simulation a million times.
 
100 generations and you get a pendulum
600 generations and you get a clock w/ 1 hand
800 generations and you get a clock w/ 3 hands

Proof of concept  (emphasis on concept) that complex function can randomly evolve from simple parts given natural selection. 98% of the offspring failed. 2% were viable. And it took 800 generations to do it.   Note something  this simple would take 16,000 years in human reproductive cycle. Nobody is going to be able to directly show you evolution of man. You won't live long enough. 

**************Back on Topic*********************

Also reminds me to reiterate that there is no pinnacle of evolution.  Yes, you migt be able to achieve the most accurate watch ever. But you could still evolve a smaller, larger, or differently decorated watch whose fitness/appropriateness/appeal is subject to environment/setting/opinion and has no pinnacle.

Modifié par EHondaMashButton, 09 avril 2012 - 07:33 .

[Haristo]

JBONE27 wrote...

There is no ultimate goal in evolution.
 

We... don't... know...

we barely know and definitly don't understand our world. If a random spirit coming out of nowhere who created a gigantic army of civilization wiping synthetics tells me the ultimate goal in the Universe is to merge Organic and Synthetic into a single element... I may believe it.

of course if a weird prophet coming from nowhere tells me he met that random spirit... I may tell him to go **** himself with a spade.. 

[Tirigon]

Carfax wrote...


OK, so if all mutations are random, and random mutation is the engine that drives evolution, why haven't Scientists been able to create new organisms under controlled conditions in laboratories?

After subjecting fruit flies and bacteria to artificially high rates of mutation, Scientists have never observed neither bacteria or fruit flies become anything other than what they already were.....even after thousands or millions of generations.

Because, much unlike nature, scinetists didnt have a million years.

And bacteria evolve all the time, it is why antibiotica resistances are such a problem in hospitals.