702 réponses à ce sujet

[balance5050]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

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.

It ended up as stripes, but it didn't start as stripes. What it would have started as was benign, nearly indistinguishable pigment changes that occured randomly and didn't get wiped out for other reasons.

Evolution is a long process. A lot of things that evolved to become useful didn't start that way, or anywhere close to it.

Right, the bright yellow cats had a hard time hunting so they died first, over time the cats that had pigment in the right spots had an easier time hunting, got to breed more, and carried the stipe gene until we have what we see today.

The mutations to the DNA that led to any pigment changes, let alone where the pigment changes were, was a random process. There was no deliberate process that brought forth or initiated the development of tiger stripes: it was a random mutation that didn't even look like tiger stripes when it started.

I agree, the mutation was random, but the cats that didn't have that mutation had a harder time hunting and died out faster. Hence why the random mutation carried on.

Modifié par balance5050, 21 mai 2012 - 08:05 .

[LaZy i IS]

balance5050 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

balance5050 wrote...


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.

You have officially lost the right to discuss evolution.

The mutations are but animals specifically chooose their mates for their redeeming qualities.

Sometimes. 

Although that has little to do with what actual traits are passed on within a species. 

ah ha! so there are diffrent ways to evolve...

Eh, yeah. 

It is random, after all. 

Just the mutations. The species choose whether to carry that mutation into the future or not.

No. The passing on of a beneficial trait is due mostly to the individual's survival, not "choosing" to pass it on.
Eugenics =/= Evolution

[llbountyhunter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

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

Evolution making species stronger is a conceit from the days of social darwinism.

Evolution isn't the strengthening of a species: it's the development and change of a species over time. This isn't done by being stronger, better, or faster: it's done by specializing to the environment, whatever that environment is. This is why species can actually lose capabilities over time: flightless birds, hairless mammals, everything that used to live in the sea but now requires oxygen without hydrogen.

Evolution isn't a process of constant improvement of capability. Evolution is simply the reflection of what bred most: in high-attrition environments in which you must be fit in order to survive, that goes well with physical ability. In environments where it isn't, it doesn't.

changing to become more specialized to your environment IS becomeing better.  evolution has never been about becoming stronger faster or smarter just because. its been about becoming faster/smarter, only when iits needed to survive.

why are we even arguing?

Because your previous disagreement staked a position that evolution can't lead to species becoming weaker over time as well.

correct, I dont really consider that to be proper evolution because it doesnt help us survive the environment- its our inventions that do that, and as a result we are less fit and able to survive. de-evolution?

however if you change your prespective and say that we fashion our own evironment where we dont need it, so our bodies are "adapting" to a  "softer" world it makes sense.

just depends on how you see it. its relative.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 21 mai 2012 - 08:07 .

[balance5050]

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

balance5050 wrote...


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.

You have officially lost the right to discuss evolution.

The mutations are but animals specifically chooose their mates for their redeeming qualities.

Sometimes. 

Although that has little to do with what actual traits are passed on within a species. 

ah ha! so there are diffrent ways to evolve...

Eh, yeah. 

It is random, after all. 

Just the mutations. The species choose whether to carry that mutation into the future or not.

No. The passing on of a beneficial trait is due mostly to the individual's survival, not "choosing" to pass it on.
Eugenics =/= Evolution

Female lions CHOSE the better hunter to breed, they were most likely better hunters because of the mutation.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Quite frankly, having Shepard indoctrinated at the end isn't key to the story at all, it is BW's creative decision to put it in or not. The fact is that the ending does lead to Shepard being indoctrinated

Then where does it lead to?

Showdown with TIM, finding out what the Catalyst and learning of its nature, defeating the Reapers etc, which the ending taken at face-value does, just not very well executed

[LaZy i IS]

balance5050 wrote...

I agree, the mutation was random, but the cats that didn't have that mutation had a harder time hunting and died out faster. Hence why the random mutation carried on.

This is not choosing to pass the trait on. The changes due to the mutation are extremely small. They had a slightly higher chance of surviving and passing the trait on.

[llbountyhunter]

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

I agree, the mutation was random, but the cats that didn't have that mutation had a harder time hunting and died out faster. Hence why the random mutation carried on.

This is not choosing to pass the trait on. The changes due to the mutation are extremely small. They had a slightly higher chance of surviving and passing the trait on.

some are chosen some are environmentaly selected. 


you both win. YAY!!!!

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 21 mai 2012 - 08:11 .

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Quite frankly, having Shepard indoctrinated at the end isn't key to the story at all, it is BW's creative decision to put it in or not. The fact is that the ending does lead to Shepard being indoctrinated

Then where does it lead to?

Showdown with TIM, finding out what the Catalyst and learning of its nature, defeating the Reapers etc, which the ending taken at face-value does, just not very well executed

No I meant all the clues about how an AI can lie and about how the machine uses your memories to construct familiar idead and places (Geth consensus). about how theres ALWAYS being an indoctrinated splinter group and all the clues in "the arrival", etc.

[balance5050]

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

I agree, the mutation was random, but the cats that didn't have that mutation had a harder time hunting and died out faster. Hence why the random mutation carried on.

This is not choosing to pass the trait on. The changes due to the mutation are extremely small. They had a slightly higher chance of surviving and passing the trait on.

Right, I guess nature's way of getting you to choose reliable partners does that for you.

[LaZy i IS]

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

balance5050 wrote...


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.

You have officially lost the right to discuss evolution.

The mutations are but animals specifically chooose their mates for their redeeming qualities.

Sometimes. 

Although that has little to do with what actual traits are passed on within a species. 

ah ha! so there are diffrent ways to evolve...

Eh, yeah. 

It is random, after all. 

Just the mutations. The species choose whether to carry that mutation into the future or not.

No. The passing on of a beneficial trait is due mostly to the individual's survival, not "choosing" to pass it on.
Eugenics =/= Evolution

Female lions CHOSE the better hunter to breed, they were most likely better hunters because of the mutation.

No. The better hunter survived to breed more easily than the others, so was more likely to pass the trait on.

"Survival of the fittest" is a very apt way to describe evolution, until you get to species such as humans, in which they all survive regardless.

[Transgirlgamer]

I'm not anti IT because I thinks Shepard's unindoctrinatable, but because I think that Bioware's writers can come up with something better. I don't know what, I'm not that good a writer.

[balance5050]

LaZy i IS wrote...

"Survival of the fittest" is a very apt way to describe evolution, until you get to species such as humans, in which they all survive regardless.

"Survival of the fittest" Yeah thats what I was alluding to the whole time really.

Modifié par balance5050, 21 mai 2012 - 08:12 .

[Shepardtheshepard]

balance5050 wrote...
Female lions CHOSE the better hunter to breed, they were most likely better hunters because of the mutation.

I was unware female lions were the ones who got the choice with who they bump uglies with. I was also unware male lions being the ones doing all the hunting.

[balance5050]

Shepardtheshepard wrote...

balance5050 wrote...
Female lions CHOSE the better hunter to breed, they were most likely better hunters because of the mutation.

I was unware female lions were the ones who got the choice with who they bump uglies with. I was also unware male lions being the ones doing all the hunting.

I meant tigers

[balance5050]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

I'm not anti IT because I thinks Shepard's unindoctrinatable, but because I think that Bioware's writers can come up with something better. I don't know what, I'm not that good a writer.

Unfortunately I haven't seen anything better than IT in all the months since ME3's release.

[llbountyhunter]

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Female lions CHOSE the better hunter to breed, they were most likely better hunters because of the mutation.

No. The better hunter survived to breed more easily than the others, so was more likely to pass the trait on.

"Survival of the fittest" is a very apt way to describe evolution, until you get to species such as humans, in which they all survive regardless.

men choose women with large breats and hindquarters because theses are both signs of fertility and good child bearing.

[LaZy i IS]

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

"Survival of the fittest" is a very apt way to describe evolution, until you get to species such as humans, in which they all survive regardless.

"Survival of the fittest" Yeah thats what I was alluding to the whole time really.

But;
My point is, the species doesn't choose to try to reproduce the specific trait. It happens randomly.

[balance5050]

llbountyhunter wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Female lions CHOSE the better hunter to breed, they were most likely better hunters because of the mutation.

No. The better hunter survived to breed more easily than the others, so was more likely to pass the trait on.

"Survival of the fittest" is a very apt way to describe evolution, until you get to species such as humans, in which they all survive regardless.

men choose women with large breats and hindquarters because theses are both signs of fertility and good child bearing.

F***ing birds of paradise, 'nuff said.

[balance5050]

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

"Survival of the fittest" is a very apt way to describe evolution, until you get to species such as humans, in which they all survive regardless.

"Survival of the fittest" Yeah thats what I was alluding to the whole time really.

But;
My point is, the species doesn't choose to try to reproduce the specific trait. It happens randomly.

The mutation is random, in the animal kingdom, it's usually the "fittest" animal that gets to breed the most, like you just said.

[Dean_the_Young]

balance5050 wrote...

Well, beneficial mutations were carried on because of selective breeding.

Uh, no.

You see, animals are dumb. They don't understand abstracts, or the concept of evolutionary advantage. They don't have internal calendars or trackers for data analysis. They don't even have complex thoughts.

Animals don't do data analysis or tracking of life histories. Animals mate with animals that display certain cues. Often, these cues represent animals that have had a successful life up to this point: this is how an animal reflects that it's 'fit.'

Except that evolution also benefits those animals that can fake the cues of being a successful mate. A glossy mane can be the sign of a well-fed horse... or a horse that has genes for naturally glossy hair. The actually glossyness of the hair is irrelevant to the ability of the horse: a horse with naturally glossy hair will still be glossy if mediocre, while a horse cursed with the equivalent of male-pattern baldness will be at a disadvantage regardless of its functional genetics. But that's the problem: most genetic traits are undetectable. The cues and hints to suggest those traits can simply be imitated in their own right as well, meaning you don't actually have to be good to be seen as good.

The evolutionary chain is filled with these sorts of loopholes and gaps. Breeding is another good example: do you breed spawn that will be able to survive on their own immediately at high efficiency? Or do you breed vast numbers so that a few will surely survive, despite being individually helpless after birth?

Humans are the alpha-predators of the planet, yet we do neither. We breed in small numbers over long periods of time, but are helpless for a long time after birth. We are not fit like, say, a horse, which can stand almost immediately after being born. We also are come close to being the most populous species on the planet.


Not only that, but breeding is an all-or-nothing thing. There is no selective implementation of traits, nor is there any way to choose which traits come from which parent. There's also virtually no way to know if the desired traits carried over after a union, either: again, superficial genetics versus the non-visable.

[Malditor]

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

"Survival of the fittest" is a very apt way to describe evolution, until you get to species such as humans, in which they all survive regardless.

"Survival of the fittest" Yeah thats what I was alluding to the whole time really.

Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for natural selection
An interpretation of the phrase "survival of the fittest" to mean "only the fittest organisms will prevail" (a view sometimes derided as "Social Darwinism") is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution.

Modifié par Malditor, 21 mai 2012 - 08:18 .

[balance5050]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Well, beneficial mutations were carried on because of selective breeding.

Uh, no.

You see, animals are dumb. They don't understand abstracts, or the concept of evolutionary advantage. They don't have internal calendars or trackers for data analysis. They don't even have complex thoughts.

Animals don't do data analysis or tracking of life histories. Animals mate with animals that display certain cues. Often, these cues represent animals that have had a successful life up to this point: this is how an animal reflects that it's 'fit.'

Except that evolution also benefits those animals that can fake the cues of being a successful mate. A glossy mane can be the sign of a well-fed horse... or a horse that has genes for naturally glossy hair. The actually glossyness of the hair is irrelevant to the ability of the horse: a horse with naturally glossy hair will still be glossy if mediocre, while a horse cursed with the equivalent of male-pattern baldness will be at a disadvantage regardless of its functional genetics. But that's the problem: most genetic traits are undetectable. The cues and hints to suggest those traits can simply be imitated in their own right as well, meaning you don't actually have to be good to be seen as good.

The evolutionary chain is filled with these sorts of loopholes and gaps. Breeding is another good example: do you breed spawn that will be able to survive on their own immediately at high efficiency? Or do you breed vast numbers so that a few will surely survive, despite being individually helpless after birth?

Humans are the alpha-predators of the planet, yet we do neither. We breed in small numbers over long periods of time, but are helpless for a long time after birth. We are not fit like, say, a horse, which can stand almost immediately after being born. We also are come close to being the most populous species on the planet.


Not only that, but breeding is an all-or-nothing thing. There is no selective implementation of traits, nor is there any way to choose which traits come from which parent. There's also virtually no way to know if the desired traits carried over after a union, either: again, superficial genetics versus the non-visable.

Survival of the fittest is what I was getting at. Strong animals with the right mutations tend to breed more.

[LaZy i IS]

llbountyhunter wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Female lions CHOSE the better hunter to breed, they were most likely better hunters because of the mutation.

No. The better hunter survived to breed more easily than the others, so was more likely to pass the trait on.

"Survival of the fittest" is a very apt way to describe evolution, until you get to species such as humans, in which they all survive regardless.

men choose women with large breats and hindquarters because theses are both signs of fertility and good child bearing.

I guess, however, look at it this way: Most humans, even with genetic defects (such as cystic fibrosis, dwarfism, etc...) survive and reproduce the faulty genes. 
"Survival of the fittest" does not apply here.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Quite frankly, having Shepard indoctrinated at the end isn't key to the story at all, it is BW's creative decision to put it in or not. The fact is that the ending does lead to Shepard being indoctrinated

Then where does it lead to?

Showdown with TIM, finding out what the Catalyst and learning of its nature, defeating the Reapers etc, which the ending taken at face-value does, just not very well executed

No I meant all the clues about how an AI can lie and about how the machine uses your memories to construct familiar idead and places (Geth consensus). about how theres ALWAYS being an indoctrinated splinter group and all the clues in "the arrival", etc.

It has not been established that he is indeed lying, or that even if what he says does not turn out to be true that he is making a conscious effort to hide the truth. To my knowledge, I do not think in game that it is stated that there is always a splinter group in every cycle, although I know the last cycle like this one there was one (Cerberus). This is not surprising given how the Reapers operate, but this does not at all mean Shepard himself is indoctrinated

[LaZy i IS]

balance5050 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Well, beneficial mutations were carried on because of selective breeding.

Uh, no.

You see, animals are dumb. They don't understand abstracts, or the concept of evolutionary advantage. They don't have internal calendars or trackers for data analysis. They don't even have complex thoughts.

Animals don't do data analysis or tracking of life histories. Animals mate with animals that display certain cues. Often, these cues represent animals that have had a successful life up to this point: this is how an animal reflects that it's 'fit.'

Except that evolution also benefits those animals that can fake the cues of being a successful mate. A glossy mane can be the sign of a well-fed horse... or a horse that has genes for naturally glossy hair. The actually glossyness of the hair is irrelevant to the ability of the horse: a horse with naturally glossy hair will still be glossy if mediocre, while a horse cursed with the equivalent of male-pattern baldness will be at a disadvantage regardless of its functional genetics. But that's the problem: most genetic traits are undetectable. The cues and hints to suggest those traits can simply be imitated in their own right as well, meaning you don't actually have to be good to be seen as good.

The evolutionary chain is filled with these sorts of loopholes and gaps. Breeding is another good example: do you breed spawn that will be able to survive on their own immediately at high efficiency? Or do you breed vast numbers so that a few will surely survive, despite being individually helpless after birth?

Humans are the alpha-predators of the planet, yet we do neither. We breed in small numbers over long periods of time, but are helpless for a long time after birth. We are not fit like, say, a horse, which can stand almost immediately after being born. We also are come close to being the most populous species on the planet.


Not only that, but breeding is an all-or-nothing thing. There is no selective implementation of traits, nor is there any way to choose which traits come from which parent. There's also virtually no way to know if the desired traits carried over after a union, either: again, superficial genetics versus the non-visable.

Survival of the fittest is what I was getting at. Strong animals with the right mutations tend to breed more.

Stronger animals with more beneficial mutations tend to survive more.