702 réponses à ce sujet

[balance5050]

LaZy i IS wrote...

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.

Not in humans but the animal world.

[llbountyhunter]

LaZy i IS wrote...

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.

I consider that to be "devolution."

[Dean_the_Young]

llbountyhunter wrote...

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?

No, it's simply evolution.

Evolution is like power: it simply is. It isn't what you want it to be, or desire it to be, or would prefer it to be: it's simply something that exists regardless. There is no ever-upperward slant or path to greater ability on a genetic level.

Evolution is not a philosophy.

[balance5050]

LaZy i IS wrote...


Stronger animals with more beneficial mutations tend to survive more. 

Agreed 

[LaZy i IS]

SubAstris wrote...

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

You forget, IT is largely assumption-based. 

[llbountyhunter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

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?

No, it's simply evolution.

Evolution is like power: it simply is. It isn't what you want it to be, or desire it to be, or would prefer it to be: it's simply something that exists regardless. There is no ever-upperward slant or path to greater ability on a genetic level.

Evolution is not a philosophy.

true, but the same concepts can have different defintions.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 21 mai 2012 - 08:23 .

[Dean_the_Young]

balance5050 wrote...

about how theres ALWAYS being an indoctrinated splinter group

Again, citation needed. And again, referring to the indoctrinated splinter group in particular, rather than the non-literal generalization philosophy you referred to last time.

[balance5050]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

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?

No, it's simply evolution.

Evolution is like power: it simply is. It isn't what you want it to be, or desire it to be, or would prefer it to be: it's simply something that exists regardless. There is no ever-upperward slant or path to greater ability on a genetic level.

Evolution is not a philosophy.

This is why IT is great, it's conducive to awesome topics of discussion

[LaZy i IS]

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...


Stronger animals with more beneficial mutations tend to survive more. 

Agreed 

By the way... how did the whole thread end up going from IT-discussion to Evolution?

[Dean_the_Young]

llbountyhunter wrote...

true, but the same concept can have different defintions.

Sure. The concept you're thinking of is related to social darwinism, which was discredited as a science long ago. It has about as much to do with actual evolutionary progress as cultural evolution.

[balance5050]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

about how theres ALWAYS being an indoctrinated splinter group

Again, citation needed. And again, referring to the indoctrinated splinter group in particular, rather than the non-literal generalization philosophy you referred to last time.

That would just be to different interpretations of this conversation:

http://www.youtube.c...rK0WYH6xE#t=70s

Who's to say which one is correct. Both are valid.

Modifié par balance5050, 21 mai 2012 - 08:23 .

[Dean_the_Young]

balance5050 wrote...

This is why IT is great, it's conducive to awesome topics of discussion

You could also get this out of a high-school textbook.

[balance5050]

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...


Stronger animals with more beneficial mutations tend to survive more. 

Agreed 

By the way... how did the whole thread end up going from IT-discussion to Evolution?

Something about how synthesis is a croc of s***.

[Malditor]

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...


Stronger animals with more beneficial mutations tend to survive more. 

Agreed 

By the way... how did the whole thread end up going from IT-discussion to Evolution?

Because someone said synthesis = end of evolution.

[balance5050]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

This is why IT is great, it's conducive to awesome topics of discussion

You could also get this out of a high-school textbook.

Naw the "evolution as a philosophy" point was interesting, not the basic evolution stuff, try to keep up.

[Dean_the_Young]

balance5050 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

about how theres ALWAYS being an indoctrinated splinter group

Again, citation needed. And again, referring to the indoctrinated splinter group in particular, rather than the non-literal generalization philosophy you referred to last time.

That would just be to different interpretations of this conversation:

http://www.youtube.c...rK0WYH6xE#t=70s

Who's to say which one is correct. Both are valid.

Uh, no. You're claiming an established absolute. The video you are citing does not claim an absolute constant pattern.

You are entitled to your own personal opinions, but you aren't entitled to your own personal facts. The moment you moved from a subjective to an objective statement, relativitiy vanished.

[llbountyhunter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

This is why IT is great, it's conducive to awesome topics of discussion

You could also get this out of a high-school textbook.

nah, high school textbooks lay it all out for you already.  

if you want a real discussion read a book on quantom mechanics or string theory, or something like that.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 21 mai 2012 - 08:28 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Malditor wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...


Stronger animals with more beneficial mutations tend to survive more. 

Agreed 

By the way... how did the whole thread end up going from IT-discussion to Evolution?

Because someone said synthesis = end of evolution.

It was Dreman, and honestly it improved the thread.

[LaZy i IS]

Malditor wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...


Stronger animals with more beneficial mutations tend to survive more. 

Agreed 

By the way... how did the whole thread end up going from IT-discussion to Evolution?

Because someone said synthesis = end of evolution.

Oh, yeah. I remember now...

Just wondering, the catalyst says that the problem is that the created always rebel against their creators... how does synthesis = geth no longer created by quarians?

[balance5050]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

about how theres ALWAYS being an indoctrinated splinter group

Again, citation needed. And again, referring to the indoctrinated splinter group in particular, rather than the non-literal generalization philosophy you referred to last time.

That would just be to different interpretations of this conversation:

http://www.youtube.c...rK0WYH6xE#t=70s

Who's to say which one is correct. Both are valid.

Uh, no. You're claiming an established absolute. The video you are citing does not claim an absolute constant pattern.

You are entitled to your own personal opinions, but you aren't entitled to your own personal facts. The moment you moved from a subjective to an objective statement, relativitiy vanished.

I have always said iit was an interpretation, I can't take anything tha VI says as fact because Kai Lang already tried to hack it before I was there.

[Transgirlgamer]

balance5050 wrote...

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.

We also haven't seen what the Bioware writers are doing though.

[balance5050]

LaZy i IS wrote...

Malditor wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...


Stronger animals with more beneficial mutations tend to survive more. 

Agreed 

By the way... how did the whole thread end up going from IT-discussion to Evolution?

Because someone said synthesis = end of evolution.

Oh, yeah. I remember now...

Just wondering, the catalyst says that the problem is that the created always rebel against their creators... how does synthesis = geth no longer created by quarians?

The catalyst created all of our new DNA, now we don't have anyone to rebel against.

Modifié par balance5050, 21 mai 2012 - 08:29 .

[llbountyhunter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

true, but the same concept can have different defintions.

Sure. The concept you're thinking of is related to social darwinism, which was discredited as a science long ago. It has about as much to do with actual evolutionary progress as cultural evolution.

thats not what I was refering to.

also please stop speaking in absolutes. nothings absolute.  

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 21 mai 2012 - 08:30 .

[balance5050]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

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.

We also haven't seen what the Bioware writers are doing though.

Here's hopin it's good whether it's IT or not.

[Dean_the_Young]

balance5050 wrote...

I have always said iit was an interpretation, I can't take anything tha VI says as fact because Kai Lang already tried to hack it before I was there.

Then you have even less basis to make an absolute claim: not only did your VI not claim that every cycle has a Reaper-indoctrinated Control faction, but now you're saying that even that your only source of that was suspect.