1059 réponses à ce sujet

[KingZayd]

Steelcan wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

And the Geth's development is still evolution and changes their own equivalent of the genetic structure.

Except their "evolution" was a mistake.  they are forcibly changing their "genetics" that is not evolution, that is an upgrade

Evolution is rarely on purpose. What's your point?

It's an upgrade and it's evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive.

There is a difference between chance and a mistake.  Chance is unbiased, random.  A mistake is something that went wrong.

And yes they are exclusive.  Evolution is not a conscious decision, and upgrade is

In all fairness, artificial selection is just as much a driver of evolution as natural selection - look at modern farm animals. If by 2185 humanity used genetic modification to eliminate traits from the gene pool which, say, led to genetic diseases, that's an "upgrade," but it also signifies an evolutionary change.

But "Artificial selection" is for the most part still accomplished the same way natural selection has been going on, its just getting a helping hand.

As for eliminating the genetic diseases, yes that would be a change in the gene code, but I would still consider that an upgrade, it would be impossible without very advanced technology.

It's still evolution.

[DeinonSlayer]

Steelcan wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

And the Geth's development is still evolution and changes their own equivalent of the genetic structure.

Except their "evolution" was a mistake.  they are forcibly changing their "genetics" that is not evolution, that is an upgrade

Evolution is rarely on purpose. What's your point?

It's an upgrade and it's evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive.

There is a difference between chance and a mistake.  Chance is unbiased, random.  A mistake is something that went wrong.

And yes they are exclusive.  Evolution is not a conscious decision, and upgrade is

In all fairness, artificial selection is just as much a driver of evolution as natural selection - look at modern farm animals. If by 2185 humanity used genetic modification to eliminate traits from the gene pool which, say, led to genetic diseases, that's an "upgrade," but it also signifies an evolutionary change.

But "Artificial selection" is for the most part still accomplished the same way natural selection has been going on, its just getting a helping hand.

As for eliminating the genetic diseases, yes that would be a change in the gene code, but I would still consider that an upgrade, it would be impossible without very advanced technology.

Not necessarily high-tech. There's also the very ugly (yet repeatedly attempted) method of selectively killing or sterilizing any person exhibiting a specific trait. Farm animals and crops were selectively bred for specific traits - genmod is very new, but identical in principle to the methods we've used for thousands of years.

[Steelcan]

KingZayd wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

But "Artificial selection" is for the most part still accomplished the same way natural selection has been going on, its just getting a helping hand.

As for eliminating the genetic diseases, yes that would be a change in the gene code, but I would still consider that an upgrade, it would be impossible without very advanced technology.

It's still evolution.

do yo know what evolution is?  The change of one species into another over time due to natural selection and helped by sexual reproduction.  That example does not bring about a new species.

[Steelcan]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Not necessarily high-tech. There's also the very ugly (yet repeatedly attempted) method of selectively killing or sterilizing any person exhibiting a specific trait. Farm animals and crops were selectively bred for specific traits - genmod is very new, but identical in principle to the methods we've used for thousands of years.

But it wouldn't be a choice.  It is stil being forced without the organism in question's opinion.

[Steelcan]

Its too late at night here in SC for me to be arguing the finer points of evolution, and hypothetical science.....

[KingZayd]

Steelcan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

But "Artificial selection" is for the most part still accomplished the same way natural selection has been going on, its just getting a helping hand.

As for eliminating the genetic diseases, yes that would be a change in the gene code, but I would still consider that an upgrade, it would be impossible without very advanced technology.

It's still evolution.

do yo know what evolution is?  The change of one species into another over time due to natural selection and helped by sexual reproduction.  That example does not bring about a new species.

I do, but clearly you don't. There isn't ever a clear transition that brings a new species anyway. It just happens that eventually the descendents would not have been able to reproduce with organisms more similar to their ancestors, and then you have to conclude that the two specimens would no longer be of the same species.

You do realise there are plenty of things that evolve and do not sexually reproduce?

Natural selection is not a requirement for evolution. It is just how evolution typically comes about in nature.

Modifié par KingZayd, 06 décembre 2012 - 02:52 .

[Tyrannus00]

I think the issue with the quarian massacres is that the geth just weren't developed enough to comprehend what they were doing. They were still very simple then.

The geth erected memorials to the quarians lost in the morning war (ME2 codex?) What value does a memorial have to a machine? It has no function. Nonetheless they existed. Perhaps only in the aftermath, when they could finally wrap their collective heads around what they had done did they understand.

[Steelcan]

KingZayd wrote...

I do, but clearly you don't. There isn't ever a clear transition that brings a new species anyway. It just happens that eventually the descendents would not have been able to reproduce with organisms more similar to their ancestors, and then you have to conclude that the two specimens would no longer be of the same species.

You do realise there are plenty of things that evolve and do not sexually reproduce?

Natural selection is not a requirement for evolution. It is just how evolution typically comes about in nature.

Even asexually reproducing organisms go through natural selection.  Natural selection is the process by which evolution works.  A mutaion arises, if it is beneficial then the organism has a better chance of passing it on, if it is harmful less so.

Saying that evolution works without natural selection is like saying cars do not need gasoline to run.

And yes there can be a clear transition from one species to another.  One species of grey treefrog in SC is identical in every way to another, their only difference, one is hapolid, the other diploid, its a change that is estimated to have happened in one generation of the frogs, very abrupt if you ask me.

Modifié par Steelcan, 06 décembre 2012 - 02:57 .

[KingZayd]

Steelcan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

I do, but clearly you don't. There isn't ever a clear transition that brings a new species anyway. It just happens that eventually the descendents would not have been able to reproduce with organisms more similar to their ancestors, and then you have to conclude that the two specimens would no longer be of the same species.

You do realise there are plenty of things that evolve and do not sexually reproduce?

Natural selection is not a requirement for evolution. It is just how evolution typically comes about in nature.

Even asexually reproducing organisms go through natural selection.  Natural selection is the process by which evolution works.  A mutaion arises, if it is beneficial then the organism has a better chance of passing it on, if it is harmful less so.

Saying that evolution works without natural selection is like saying cars do not need gasoline to run.

Yes, you're the one that included sexual reproduction in YOUR definition of evolution. Natural selection is A process by which evolution works. It has historically been the main one, but it is not the only one.

And not all cars need gasoline to run.

Modifié par KingZayd, 06 décembre 2012 - 02:58 .

[Jere85]

They are machines. You can imagine them not having feelings like organics so their genocide was methodical and thorough, they don't see the difference between a man with a gun or a child with a toy. They see the enemy and future enemy. And yeah it was brutal of the geth, But all part of quarian programming. Can we blame the geth? Ofcourse, but they were created beyond control by the quarians. The quarians were responsible for their own genocide.

Pride is a sin. Don't assume you can control AI.

[Steelcan]

KingZayd wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

I do, but clearly you don't. There isn't ever a clear transition that brings a new species anyway. It just happens that eventually the descendents would not have been able to reproduce with organisms more similar to their ancestors, and then you have to conclude that the two specimens would no longer be of the same species.

You do realise there are plenty of things that evolve and do not sexually reproduce?

Natural selection is not a requirement for evolution. It is just how evolution typically comes about in nature.

Even asexually reproducing organisms go through natural selection.  Natural selection is the process by which evolution works.  A mutaion arises, if it is beneficial then the organism has a better chance of passing it on, if it is harmful less so.

Saying that evolution works without natural selection is like saying cars do not need gasoline to run.

Yes, you're the one that included sexual reproduction in YOUR definition of evolution. Natural selection is A process by which evolution works. It has historically been the main one, but it is not the only one.

And not all cars need gasoline to run.

No, i said sexual reproduction helps it along, and it does. natural selection is THE process by which it works, name me another.

[KingZayd]

Steelcan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

I do, but clearly you don't. There isn't ever a clear transition that brings a new species anyway. It just happens that eventually the descendents would not have been able to reproduce with organisms more similar to their ancestors, and then you have to conclude that the two specimens would no longer be of the same species.

You do realise there are plenty of things that evolve and do not sexually reproduce?

Natural selection is not a requirement for evolution. It is just how evolution typically comes about in nature.

Even asexually reproducing organisms go through natural selection.  Natural selection is the process by which evolution works.  A mutaion arises, if it is beneficial then the organism has a better chance of passing it on, if it is harmful less so.

Saying that evolution works without natural selection is like saying cars do not need gasoline to run.

And yes there can be a clear transition from one species to another.  One species of grey treefrog in SC is identical in every way to another, their only difference, one is hapolid, the other diploid, its a change that is estimated to have happened in one generation of the frogs, very abrupt if you ask me.

Can I ask which species?
Are they by any chance Hyla chrysoscelis and Hyla versicolor?

[KingZayd]

Steelcan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

I do, but clearly you don't. There isn't ever a clear transition that brings a new species anyway. It just happens that eventually the descendents would not have been able to reproduce with organisms more similar to their ancestors, and then you have to conclude that the two specimens would no longer be of the same species.

You do realise there are plenty of things that evolve and do not sexually reproduce?

Natural selection is not a requirement for evolution. It is just how evolution typically comes about in nature.

Even asexually reproducing organisms go through natural selection.  Natural selection is the process by which evolution works.  A mutaion arises, if it is beneficial then the organism has a better chance of passing it on, if it is harmful less so.

Saying that evolution works without natural selection is like saying cars do not need gasoline to run.

Yes, you're the one that included sexual reproduction in YOUR definition of evolution. Natural selection is A process by which evolution works. It has historically been the main one, but it is not the only one.

And not all cars need gasoline to run.

No, i said sexual reproduction helps it along, and it does. natural selection is THE process by which it works, name me another.

artificial selection.

[Steelcan]

Jere85 wrote...

They are machines. You can imagine them not having feelings like organics so their genocide was methodical and thorough, they don't see the difference between a man with a gun or a child with a toy. They see the enemy and future enemy. And yeah it was brutal of the geth, But all part of quarian programming. Can we blame the geth? Ofcourse, but they were created beyond control by the quarians. The quarians were responsible for their own genocide.

Pride is a sin. Don't assume you can control AI.

Shaving is also a sin, as is eating shellfish, wearing mixed cloth, but do I deserve to die for it?

Leviticus is wonderful stuff

[Steelcan]

KingZayd wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

I do, but clearly you don't. There isn't ever a clear transition that brings a new species anyway. It just happens that eventually the descendents would not have been able to reproduce with organisms more similar to their ancestors, and then you have to conclude that the two specimens would no longer be of the same species.

You do realise there are plenty of things that evolve and do not sexually reproduce?

Natural selection is not a requirement for evolution. It is just how evolution typically comes about in nature.

Even asexually reproducing organisms go through natural selection.  Natural selection is the process by which evolution works.  A mutaion arises, if it is beneficial then the organism has a better chance of passing it on, if it is harmful less so.

Saying that evolution works without natural selection is like saying cars do not need gasoline to run.

Yes, you're the one that included sexual reproduction in YOUR definition of evolution. Natural selection is A process by which evolution works. It has historically been the main one, but it is not the only one.

And not all cars need gasoline to run.

No, i said sexual reproduction helps it along, and it does. natural selection is THE process by which it works, name me another.

artificial selection.

Is still using the same process as natural selection, it is guided natural selection.

[Steelcan]

KingZayd wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

I do, but clearly you don't. There isn't ever a clear transition that brings a new species anyway. It just happens that eventually the descendents would not have been able to reproduce with organisms more similar to their ancestors, and then you have to conclude that the two specimens would no longer be of the same species.

You do realise there are plenty of things that evolve and do not sexually reproduce?

Natural selection is not a requirement for evolution. It is just how evolution typically comes about in nature.

Even asexually reproducing organisms go through natural selection.  Natural selection is the process by which evolution works.  A mutaion arises, if it is beneficial then the organism has a better chance of passing it on, if it is harmful less so.

Saying that evolution works without natural selection is like saying cars do not need gasoline to run.

And yes there can be a clear transition from one species to another.  One species of grey treefrog in SC is identical in every way to another, their only difference, one is hapolid, the other diploid, its a change that is estimated to have happened in one generation of the frogs, very abrupt if you ask me.

Can I ask which species?
Are they by any chance Hyla chrysoscelis and Hyla versicolor?

I do not remeber the scientific names off the top of my head.  The common names are the "grey treefrog (real original and descriptive)  and "Cope's grey tree frog"

[KingZayd]

Steelcan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

I do, but clearly you don't. There isn't ever a clear transition that brings a new species anyway. It just happens that eventually the descendents would not have been able to reproduce with organisms more similar to their ancestors, and then you have to conclude that the two specimens would no longer be of the same species.

You do realise there are plenty of things that evolve and do not sexually reproduce?

Natural selection is not a requirement for evolution. It is just how evolution typically comes about in nature.

Even asexually reproducing organisms go through natural selection.  Natural selection is the process by which evolution works.  A mutaion arises, if it is beneficial then the organism has a better chance of passing it on, if it is harmful less so.

Saying that evolution works without natural selection is like saying cars do not need gasoline to run.

Yes, you're the one that included sexual reproduction in YOUR definition of evolution. Natural selection is A process by which evolution works. It has historically been the main one, but it is not the only one.

And not all cars need gasoline to run.

No, i said sexual reproduction helps it along, and it does. natural selection is THE process by which it works, name me another.

artificial selection.

Is still using the same process as natural selection, it is guided natural selection.

Wrong.

natural selection is based on the certain mutations being beneficial enough to allow their carriers to survive and reproduce more successfully.

Artificial selection can work through just selective breeding.

[Jere85]

Steelcan wrote...

Jere85 wrote...

They are machines. You can imagine them not having feelings like organics so their genocide was methodical and thorough, they don't see the difference between a man with a gun or a child with a toy. They see the enemy and future enemy. And yeah it was brutal of the geth, But all part of quarian programming. Can we blame the geth? Ofcourse, but they were created beyond control by the quarians. The quarians were responsible for their own genocide.

Pride is a sin. Don't assume you can control AI.

Shaving is also a sin, as is eating shellfish, wearing mixed cloth, but do I deserve to die for it?

Leviticus is wonderful stuff

I don't know... Your beardless face might suffer the wrath of the space magic gods.

[Steelcan]

KingZayd wrote...

Wrong.

natural selection is based on the certain mutations being beneficial enough to allow their carriers to survive and reproduce more successfully.

Artificial selection can work through just selective breeding.

The only differenc is how "beneficial" traits are determined.  Everyhting else is the same.

And artificial selection is not used to produce new species, that may be an end result, but the intent is an upgrade to an existing species.

[KingZayd]

Steelcan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

I do, but clearly you don't. There isn't ever a clear transition that brings a new species anyway. It just happens that eventually the descendents would not have been able to reproduce with organisms more similar to their ancestors, and then you have to conclude that the two specimens would no longer be of the same species.

You do realise there are plenty of things that evolve and do not sexually reproduce?

Natural selection is not a requirement for evolution. It is just how evolution typically comes about in nature.

Even asexually reproducing organisms go through natural selection.  Natural selection is the process by which evolution works.  A mutaion arises, if it is beneficial then the organism has a better chance of passing it on, if it is harmful less so.

Saying that evolution works without natural selection is like saying cars do not need gasoline to run.

And yes there can be a clear transition from one species to another.  One species of grey treefrog in SC is identical in every way to another, their only difference, one is hapolid, the other diploid, its a change that is estimated to have happened in one generation of the frogs, very abrupt if you ask me.

Can I ask which species?
Are they by any chance Hyla chrysoscelis and Hyla versicolor?

I do not remeber the scientific names off the top of my head.  The common names are the "grey treefrog (real original and descriptive)  and "Cope's grey tree frog"

So yes.

All I can see about their divergence is this:
It is generally believed that H. versicolor[/i] evolved from H. chrysoscelis[/i] in the last major ice age, when areas of extremely low temperature divided populations.

Which suggests to me that it happened over more than 1 generation. Where do you get that figure from?

Modifié par KingZayd, 06 décembre 2012 - 03:13 .

[Steelcan]

Jere85 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Jere85 wrote...

They are machines. You can imagine them not having feelings like organics so their genocide was methodical and thorough, they don't see the difference between a man with a gun or a child with a toy. They see the enemy and future enemy. And yeah it was brutal of the geth, But all part of quarian programming. Can we blame the geth? Ofcourse, but they were created beyond control by the quarians. The quarians were responsible for their own genocide.

Pride is a sin. Don't assume you can control AI.

Shaving is also a sin, as is eating shellfish, wearing mixed cloth, but do I deserve to die for it?

Leviticus is wonderful stuff

I don't know... Your beardless face might suffer the wrath of the space magic gods.

I am a devoted Flying Spaghetti Monster adherent

[Steelcan]

KingZayd wrote...

So yes.

All I can see about their divergence is this:
It is generally believed that H. versicolor[/i] evolved from H. chrysoscelis[/i] in the last major ice age, when areas of extremely low temperature divided populations.

Which suggests to me that it happened over more than 1 generation. Where do you get that figure from?

Not necessarily, the divergence occured then, it doesn't say how quickly.

But I helped in an ecological study of the two different species, thats where I learned the figure.

[KingZayd]

Steelcan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Wrong.

natural selection is based on the certain mutations being beneficial enough to allow their carriers to survive and reproduce more successfully.

Artificial selection can work through just selective breeding.

The only differenc is how "beneficial" traits are determined.  Everyhting else is the same.

And artificial selection is not used to produce new species, that may be an end result, but the intent is an upgrade to an existing species.

No. They can all be separated and reproduce. Just every specimen has it's partners selected. That way none of the traits are more "beneficial" than the others.

Artificial selection can lead to evolution. The intent is not usually to "upgrade" an existing species (although it can be), but to get a certain characteristic, the process of which often (due to inbreeding) leads to more defects.

[Jere85]

Steelcan wrote...

Jere85 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Jere85 wrote...

They are machines. You can imagine them not having feelings like organics so their genocide was methodical and thorough, they don't see the difference between a man with a gun or a child with a toy. They see the enemy and future enemy. And yeah it was brutal of the geth, But all part of quarian programming. Can we blame the geth? Ofcourse, but they were created beyond control by the quarians. The quarians were responsible for their own genocide.

Pride is a sin. Don't assume you can control AI.

Shaving is also a sin, as is eating shellfish, wearing mixed cloth, but do I deserve to die for it?

Leviticus is wonderful stuff

I don't know... Your beardless face might suffer the wrath of the space magic gods.

I am a devoted Flying Spaghetti Monster adherent

Pastafarianism mmh? I believe the universe was created much like a bathtub.... *chuckles*

[KingZayd]

Steelcan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

So yes.

All I can see about their divergence is this:
It is generally believed that H. versicolor[/i] evolved from H. chrysoscelis[/i] in the last major ice age, when areas of extremely low temperature divided populations.

Which suggests to me that it happened over more than 1 generation. Where do you get that figure from?

Not necessarily, the divergence occured then, it doesn't say how quickly.

But I helped in an ecological study of the two different species, thats where I learned the figure.

The divergence happened due to separate populations. Surely separate populations wouldn't matter if it was 1 generation?
Did the study produce any papers which you can link to?

Modifié par KingZayd, 06 décembre 2012 - 03:18 .