702 réponses à ce sujet

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. It is relvent.

 

Not to the point at hand.

That is what the reaper want to stop.

No, it's not. They want to stop synthetics from eradicating all organic life, according to that glowing idiot serpent. 

We have many examples of a roughly similar conflict on a smaller scale through different circumstances occuring, often because the Reapers cause it. Like the Zha'til, who they turned on their organic masters. 

If they wanted to prevent it they would do something about it. They don't, because they don't care. 

Ask your self this, why would synthetics is a technologicl singularity attack organic? Why would synthetics care for organics if they have evenything they need.
Synthetocs don't even have the same needs as organics....Why would they ever fight over anything but yet do?
Not how it wasthe quarians who attack first of rennoch in all times.

I've asked myself similar things many times, concluding that the Catalyst is talking sh*t that should be ignored.

2.Ok, do you know the reason why the reaper use it? Can the reaper comb all of space and find all organics and any that will be by themselves with no mass relays?

I know why they created and then left the Mass Relays, I've roughly detailed several times now.

To guide civilization down a rough path of using them as their basis of galactic travel, so they are easier to predict and to destroy once the Relays are shut off. 

Their actual control ins't as absolute as has been made out. They don't control evolution, for example. 

[balance5050]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Right, species select partneers that have qualities conducive  to survival. 

Breeding.

Evolution is about breeding, not survival: you can survive all you want, but without breeding it's an evolutionary irrelevance. Breeding is what evolution is carried by, and breeding occurs even with high levels of technology.

And who breeds...The one who can servive.....By defualt it's still about  servival of the fittest. They are to only ones left to breed.

Son, the world isn't a warzone. We aren't even in a resource-scarcity scenario. We live in a world where even fifty years ago a cripple who couldn't walk could not only survive, but become the most powerful alpha-male in the world.

Technology has increasingly supplemented the physical requirements that used to be an evolutionary factor for humans. Can't run fast? We have bikes and cars. Can't fly? We invented planes. Don't have a fur coat? We'll give you clothes. Sick? We have medicine for it.


Evolution was once confused with survival of the fittest because we thought that only the fittest survived. Past a point, this simply isn't true: otherwise, we'd live in a world with super-beings. We don't. We live in a world where tools reduce the need for inherent biological strength, and evolution has more than a few alternatives as well. Numbers, for example: the most prolific species on Earth isn't the mighty human, but bugs that simply breed really, really fast. Teamwork is another: not simply in pack animals, but also in symbiosis: you can't digest everything you eat, but the bacteria in your stomach do it far better than you.

How about you stay focused on how it relates to the game you silly willy walnut head?

Modifié par balance5050, 21 mai 2012 - 07:23 .

[Malditor]

dreman9999 wrote...
]That's an evolution of thinking not of genectics....That like using how  a person way of thinking from child to adult is proof of evolution.

They changed a way of thinking which is leading to a change in their physical structure which will be passed on to through generations of births. Musculature changes = genetic evolution.

[Dean_the_Young]

dreman9999 wrote...

That still goes to the level of the fittest...It's just what fittest is changed with use.The fittest get the best mates while the rest get whats left over.

'Fittest' has specific connotations and uses in regards to capabilities and strengths. The word you are looking for is 'attractive', which in now way indicates relative levels of ability to survive on one's own.

[Taboo]

mauro2222 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

But it is true....Evolution is based on needs. If you have no needs, no evolution happens. That's my point.

Natural selection leads to the adaptation of species over time, but the
process does not involve effort, trying, or wanting. Natural selection
naturally results from genetic variation in a population and the fact
that some of those variants may be able to leave more offspring in the
next generation than other variants.

I wish we could stress to people that it just happens...

Alas...

[mauro2222]

dreman9999 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

You do understand that Shark haven't evolved for eons, right?

WTF?

No of course, they are the same individuals that the dinosaurs met.

So there you go, things only evolve if it's to adapt for survival.

That's my point.

Sarcasm in my post... Attention Robinson Family, sarcasm in my post.

[Dean_the_Young]

balance5050 wrote...

How about you stay focused on how it relates to the game you silly willy walnut head?

Silly willy shiney walnut head to you, mister.

But hey: Dreman starts tangents. At least he's not copy-pasting his previous posts like he used to.

[Tom Lehrer]

dreman9999 wrote...
That's an evolution of thinking not of genectics....That like using how  a person way of thinking from child to adult is proof of evolution.

There are over 400 SPECIES of shark alive today. There have been thousands more that have died out. They have been evolving this means their DNA has chnaged too. Some LOOK similar on the outside but they have changed greatly over time.

[balance5050]

mauro2222 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

You do understand that Shark haven't evolved for eons, right?

WTF?

No of course, they are the same individuals that the dinosaurs met.

So there you go, things only evolve if it's to adapt for survival.

That's my point.

Sarcasm in my post... Attention Robinson Family, sarcasm in my post.

Also a bunch of Crocs and Alligator havent evolved for millions of years either.

[llbountyhunter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Right, species select partneers that have qualities conducive  to survival. 

Breeding.

Evolution is about breeding, not survival: you can survive all you want, but without breeding it's an evolutionary irrelevance. Breeding is what evolution is carried by, and breeding occurs even with high levels of technology.

And who breeds...The one who can servive.....By defualt it's still about  servival of the fittest. They are to only ones left to breed.

Son, the world isn't a warzone. We aren't even in a resource-scarcity scenario. We live in a world where even fifty years ago a cripple who couldn't walk could not only survive, but become the most powerful alpha-male in the world.

Technology has increasingly supplemented the physical requirements that used to be an evolutionary factor for humans. Can't run fast? We have bikes and cars. Can't fly? We invented planes. Don't have a fur coat? We'll give you clothes. Sick? We have medicine for it.


Evolution was once confused with survival of the fittest because we thought that only the fittest survived. Past a point, this simply isn't true: otherwise, we'd live in a world with super-beings. We don't. We live in a world where tools reduce the need for inherent biological strength, and evolution has more than a few alternatives as well. Numbers, for example: the most prolific species on Earth isn't the mighty human, but bugs that simply breed really, really fast. Teamwork is another: not simply in pack animals, but also in symbiosis: you can't digest everything you eat, but the bacteria in your stomach do it far better than you.

what your describing isnt evolution. its the opposite actually because it makes humans weaker.

[balance5050]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

How about you stay focused on how it relates to the game you silly willy walnut head?

Silly willy shiney walnut head to you, mister.

But hey: Dreman starts tangents. At least he's not copy-pasting his previous posts like he used to.

His tangent are always game related and do tie in to his original point though, your thing was just... random and had nothing to do with the game at all.

Modifié par balance5050, 21 mai 2012 - 07:27 .

[mauro2222]

balance5050 wrote...

Also a bunch of Crocs and Alligator havent evolved for millions of years either.

No, really. You guys are worthy of lots of facepalms.

[Malditor]

dreman9999 wrote...
That still goes to the level of the fittest...It's just what fittest is changed with use.The fittest get the best mates while the rest get whats left over.

Not necessarily. Someone who mates with another because they are "hot" doesn't mean that person is the fittest. That person could have all sorts of genetic problems, carrier for heart disease, cancer, etc. While that "ugly" person nobody wants to do it with may have the best genetic set up for long life and health.

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...
But it is true....Evolution is based on needs. If you have no needs, no evolution happens. That's my point.

Evolution isn't based on needs. Needs implies there's a predetermined and specific condition that can come about. 

Which is false. 

Evolution is random. Mutations occur randomly. Those who are most suited to surviving environmental pressures survive, whilst those who aren't likely die out, or move. 

We have no needs, as humans with technology enough to solve most life-threatening problems, all those that threaten the species as a whole. But we will evolve, because the process is random.

Predators who have existed as the perfect hunting machines for millions of years and had success for it don't need to change. But they do, because evolution is random. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 21 mai 2012 - 07:30 .

[balance5050]

mauro2222 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Also a bunch of Crocs and Alligator havent evolved for millions of years either.

No, really. You guys are worthy of lots of facepalms.

Go face palm yourself then, we'll be discussing literary interpretations.

[mauro2222]

llbountyhunter wrote...

what your describing isnt evolution. its the opposite actually because it makes humans weaker.

When we hear about altruism in nature (e.g., dolphins spending energy to
support a sick individual, or a meerkat calling to warn others of an
approaching predator, even though this puts the alarm sounder at extra
risk), it's tempting to think that those behaviors arose through natural
selection that favors the survival of the species — that natural
selection promotes behaviors that are good for the species as a whole,
even if they are risky or detrimental for individuals in the population.
However, this impression is incorrect. Natural selection has no
foresight or intentions. It simply selects among individuals in a
population, favoring traits that enable individuals to survive and
reproduce, yielding more copies of those individuals' genes in the next
generation. Theoretically, in fact, a trait that is advantageous to the
individual (e.g., being an efficient predator) could become more and
more frequent and wind up driving the whole population to extinction
(e.g., if the efficient predation actually wiped out the entire prey
population, leaving the predators without a food source).

And example of that are parasites and harmful bacteria or viruses.

Modifié par mauro2222, 21 mai 2012 - 07:31 .

[LaZy i IS]

Malditor wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
]That's an evolution of thinking not of genectics....That like using how  a person way of thinking from child to adult is proof of evolution.

They changed a way of thinking which is leading to a change in their physical structure which will be passed on to through generations of births. Musculature changes = genetic evolution.

No. 

[balance5050]

The Night Mammoth wrote...
Evolution is random. Mutations occur randomly. Those who are most suited to surviving environmental pressures survive, whilst those who aren't likely die out, or move. 

We have no needs, as humans with technology enough to solve most life-threatening problems, all those that threaten the species as a whole. But we will evolve, because the process is random.

Predators who have existed as the perfect hunting machines for millions of years and had success for it don't need to change. But they do, because evolution is random. 

LOL, evolution is not random it is only the preserverance of succesful genes. Tigers developed stipes over time because it made them better hunters, etc.

Modifié par balance5050, 21 mai 2012 - 07:31 .

[llbountyhunter]

mauro2222 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

what your describing isnt evolution. its the opposite actually because it makes humans weaker.

When we hear about altruism in nature (e.g., dolphins spending energy to
support a sick individual, or a meerkat calling to warn others of an
approaching predator, even though this puts the alarm sounder at extra
risk), it's tempting to think that those behaviors arose through natural
selection that favors the survival of the species — that natural
selection promotes behaviors that are good for the species as a whole,
even if they are risky or detrimental for individuals in the population.
However, this impression is incorrect. Natural selection has no
foresight or intentions. It simply selects among individuals in a
population, favoring traits that enable individuals to survive and
reproduce, yielding more copies of those individuals' genes in the next
generation. Theoretically, in fact, a trait that is advantageous to the
individual (e.g., being an efficient predator) could become more and
more frequent and wind up driving the whole population to extinction
(e.g., if the efficient predation actually wiped out the entire prey
population, leaving the predators without a food source).

And example of that are parasites and harmful bacteria or viruses.

thank you.

[balance5050]

llbountyhunter wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

what your describing isnt evolution. its the opposite actually because it makes humans weaker.

When we hear about altruism in nature (e.g., dolphins spending energy to
support a sick individual, or a meerkat calling to warn others of an
approaching predator, even though this puts the alarm sounder at extra
risk), it's tempting to think that those behaviors arose through natural
selection that favors the survival of the species — that natural
selection promotes behaviors that are good for the species as a whole,
even if they are risky or detrimental for individuals in the population.
However, this impression is incorrect. Natural selection has no
foresight or intentions. It simply selects among individuals in a
population, favoring traits that enable individuals to survive and
reproduce, yielding more copies of those individuals' genes in the next
generation. Theoretically, in fact, a trait that is advantageous to the
individual (e.g., being an efficient predator) could become more and
more frequent and wind up driving the whole population to extinction
(e.g., if the efficient predation actually wiped out the entire prey
population, leaving the predators without a food source).

And example of that are parasites and harmful bacteria or viruses.

thank you.

[The Night Mammoth]

balance5050 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...
Evolution is random. Mutations occur randomly. Those who are most suited to surviving environmental pressures survive, whilst those who aren't likely die out, or move. 

We have no needs, as humans with technology enough to solve most life-threatening problems, all those that threaten the species as a whole. But we will evolve, because the process is random.

Predators who have existed as the perfect hunting machines for millions of years and had success for it don't need to change. But they do, because evolution is random. 

LOL, evolution is not random it is only the preserverance of succesful genes. Tigers developed stipes over time because it made them better hunters, etc.

And you made comments about others not knowing what evolution was? 

If you don't understand that mutations are random then you shuld just stop. 

[mauro2222]

llbountyhunter wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

what your describing isnt evolution. its the opposite actually because it makes humans weaker.

When we hear about altruism in nature (e.g., dolphins spending energy to
support a sick individual, or a meerkat calling to warn others of an
approaching predator, even though this puts the alarm sounder at extra
risk), it's tempting to think that those behaviors arose through natural
selection that favors the survival of the species — that natural
selection promotes behaviors that are good for the species as a whole,
even if they are risky or detrimental for individuals in the population.
However, this impression is incorrect. Natural selection has no
foresight or intentions. It simply selects among individuals in a
population, favoring traits that enable individuals to survive and
reproduce, yielding more copies of those individuals' genes in the next
generation. Theoretically, in fact, a trait that is advantageous to the
individual (e.g., being an efficient predator) could become more and
more frequent and wind up driving the whole population to extinction
(e.g., if the efficient predation actually wiped out the entire prey
population, leaving the predators without a food source).

And example of that are parasites and harmful bacteria or viruses.

thank you.

It seems you didn't understood at all.

[llbountyhunter]

well, evolution has several varying definitions... so we can all technically be right.

[llbountyhunter]

mauro2222 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

what your describing isnt evolution. its the opposite actually because it makes humans weaker.

When we hear about altruism in nature (e.g., dolphins spending energy to
support a sick individual, or a meerkat calling to warn others of an
approaching predator, even though this puts the alarm sounder at extra
risk), it's tempting to think that those behaviors arose through natural
selection that favors the survival of the species — that natural
selection promotes behaviors that are good for the species as a whole,
even if they are risky or detrimental for individuals in the population.
However, this impression is incorrect. Natural selection has no
foresight or intentions. It simply selects among individuals in a
population, favoring traits that enable individuals to survive and
reproduce, yielding more copies of those individuals' genes in the next
generation. Theoretically, in fact, a trait that is advantageous to the
individual (e.g., being an efficient predator) could become more and
more frequent and wind up driving the whole population to extinction
(e.g., if the efficient predation actually wiped out the entire prey
population, leaving the predators without a food source).

And example of that are parasites and harmful bacteria or viruses.

thank you.

It seems you didn't understood at all.

one could say the same.

[balance5050]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...
Evolution is random. Mutations occur randomly. Those who are most suited to surviving environmental pressures survive, whilst those who aren't likely die out, or move. 

We have no needs, as humans with technology enough to solve most life-threatening problems, all those that threaten the species as a whole. But we will evolve, because the process is random.

Predators who have existed as the perfect hunting machines for millions of years and had success for it don't need to change. But they do, because evolution is random. 

LOL, evolution is not random it is only the preserverance of succesful genes. Tigers developed stipes over time because it made them better hunters, etc.

And you made comments about others not knowing what evolution was? 

If you don't understand that mutations are random then you shuld just stop. 

Mutation are random but the reason that mates get chosen isn't, evultion isn't random but the mutations that are seen as benefitial are. Theyre continuation through generations isn't random.