225 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

Evolution is not always dynamic because the environment is not always dynamic...

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

Evolution is not always dynamic because the environment is not always dynamic...

Point taken, but I meant on long terms. Life that is unable to adapt will fail eventually.

[David7204]

Eh. Maybe. If you zoom out far enough, the universe is probably pretty static.

[Seival]

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

Everything has its limits. If there is nowhere to evolve further - evolution stops. Synthesis is the final evolution of life, and there is nothing bad or illogical in that.

Logical mistake. Evolution is no line going up and up. Evolution is a process of adapting to our environment and that is always dynamic. Once evolution stops, we are doomed. It may take a long time, but if we fail to adapt, we vanish one day.

That is why the crucible is so symbolic. Just as organics and synthetics are nowhere near as powerful and advanced as Reapers or the people post-Synthesis, the Crucible is nowhere near as powerful and advanced as Reaper tech like the Relays or the Reapers themselves. And the Crucible still wins. It wins for the one reason that it was able to adapt while the Reapers were not.

No matter if it's spiral or straight line. It has the beginning and the end even if you don't see that on one small picture. Once evolution stops - we've already adapted to everything we could. All possible challenges are limited, even if you don't see the end of them from where you stand.

[cerberus1701]

David7204 wrote...

Eh. Maybe. If you zoom out far enough, the universe is probably pretty static.

Guess someone's never watched a single educational program about the universe even by accident.

[KingZayd]

remydat wrote...

KingZayd wrote...


Like I said: "Reapers kill all species eventually. Except the ones that die out before they reach the space age."
The only ones that they don't kill are the ones that don't make it.

If I kill every survivor of a terrible plague, I am not better than the person who kills everyone just before the plague merely because I killed less people.

Who said the Reapers were better? I said what Shepard does is worse ie I am commenting on the act not passing judgment on the person performing the act.  If the Reapers had killed all organic life during the very first Cycle then there would be no Game.  Life would be over and there would be no chance for anybody to stop the.  The fact they instead chose to kill over countless cycles gives organics a chance to fight back and gives organics the opportunity to live life for 50,000 years.

How is Shepard worse?  The Reapers have killed much more. Shepard only killed the Geth to destroy the Reapers. Those Reapers which we cannot destroy without a Crucible. And we only get one Crucible.

Shepard killing the Reapers gives the organics a chance to live life without being wiped out by the Reapers. It also gives the synthetics of the future a chance to live life without being wiped out by the Reapers.
50,000 years is negligible next to the possibility of millions, maybe even billions of years.

Modifié par KingZayd, 20 mars 2013 - 08:42 .

[Argolas]

Seival wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

Everything has its limits. If there is nowhere to evolve further - evolution stops. Synthesis is the final evolution of life, and there is nothing bad or illogical in that.

Logical mistake. Evolution is no line going up and up. Evolution is a process of adapting to our environment and that is always dynamic. Once evolution stops, we are doomed. It may take a long time, but if we fail to adapt, we vanish one day.

That is why the crucible is so symbolic. Just as organics and synthetics are nowhere near as powerful and advanced as Reapers or the people post-Synthesis, the Crucible is nowhere near as powerful and advanced as Reaper tech like the Relays or the Reapers themselves. And the Crucible still wins. It wins for the one reason that it was able to adapt while the Reapers were not.

No matter if it's spiral or straight line. It has the beginning and the end even if you don't see that on one small picture. Once evolution stops - we've already adapted to everything we could. All possible challenges are limited, even if you don't see the end of them from where you stand.

Challanges are limited? It rather looks the opposite way to me. As far as I can see, humanity faces more challanges the more it overcomes.

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

Eh. Maybe. If you zoom out far enough, the universe is probably pretty static.

The further you zoom out, the more likely you are to miss something. Even slightest changes can make new evolution necessary. A new type of virus that adapted to our immune system that did not adapt for too long would be an example.

[o Ventus]

Seival wrote...

No matter if it's spiral or straight line. It has the beginning and the end even if you don't see that on one small picture. Once evolution stops - we've already adapted to everything we could. All possible challenges are limited, even if you don't see the end of them from where you stand.

Do you know anything at all about biology?

About anything?

[valkulon]

I'll take your opinion for 400, Trebek!

[remydat]

Argolas wrote...

remydat wrote...

1.  There is no evidence that biologiy does not apply to a hybrid that I am aware of.  If you have evidence from the story please present it.
2.  There is evidence that a hybrid can still have sex because Joker and the other organic crew members post crash still have fleshy organic body parts that they can use to have sex.
3.  There is no evidence hybrids cannot have children.  Once could argue the old man and child we see in the distant future are in the synthesis ending hybrids and hence proof that children exist.
4.  If you pass on you genes to your child, over time natural selection occurs.  natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution takes place.

1. In terms of biology, Synthetics do not qualify as alive. It does not cover fictional synthetic life because biology is a real science that only applies to real life.
2. ; 3. I do not recall claiming that. Sex and reproduction is not the same as evolution.
4. Natural selection does not occur in a controlled system with artificial genes, especially not if mortality is indeed overcome.

Once again, every organic post synthesis is depicted with fleshy human parts.  You are ignoring the story to pretend they are not subject to organic biology.  Biology exists in MEU and has been depicted repeatedly in MEU.

Natural selection is the passing down of traits to your offspring.  Traits that are better suited for the environment you live in end up resulting in people with that trait surviving.  As long as sex and reproduction occurs, natural selection will occur.  Natural selection is one of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.  There is absolutely nothing in the MEU universe that suggests this is not how things work. 

The universe is not a controlled system.  There are too many different planets that people live in.  Further, the synthetics were created from races all with different genes and DNA.  The reproduction process creates variation in those genes because it is not perfect which is why children of the same parents are not always born as identical twins. 

And even then natural selection is still possible because identical twins with the exact same DNA can have different aspects of their DNA turned on or of.  That is why people somtimes say that 99% of our DNA is junk because it looks like that DNA is not used.  The reality is not all of our DNA is turned on.  So two identical twins with the exact same DNA can still evolve differently depending on what factors influence the turning on or off of their so called junk DNA.

Now even the above is too simplistic but trying to get into the specifics would take pages.  The point is as long as the DNA is different and reproduction occurs, natural selection will occur.  There is really no way around that truth and there is no evidence to suggest this has changed in the MEU because of synthesis since the people synthesize still clearly retained their DNA as if they didn't they would all have looked exactly the same.

[remydat]

o Ventus wrote...

remydat wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

"Destroy makes Shepard a Reaper"?

What in the entire f**k?

Does it kill all synthetics?  Oh my bad, it does not make him a Reaper.  Reapers actually spare some organic species.  Shepard kills all synthetics which is worse, lol.

How is killing all synthetics (who can be continually rebuilt to exact specifications) somehow inherently worse than killing all organics (who can't)?

Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about, or are you just spouting nonsense in an attempt to sound intelligent?

Rebuilt from what?  Legion and EDI can't be rebuilt because even if you had the exact parameters and built the exact same program, they are is no gurantee it would grow in the exact same way the original did because you can recreate the exact same conditions that gave rise to it's existence.  EDI became who she was because of her relationship with Shepard and company.  Also you are going to build a program and then fake another Collector mission, you can't recreate EDI.  

The same is true of the Geth really.  Their development was most certainly affected by the fact that their creators tried to slaughter them when they started to became self aware.  They ran calculations they thought, they processes in response to that situation.  So again, you can't recreate every situation they experienced so you can't claim what you are rebuilding is them.  All you are doing is rebuilding a program that can and most likely will evolve in a different different direction in response to different stimulus.

[Pcmag1]

Synthesis will make all equal
Protheans fell because of lack of diversity

All you need is one CyberBio-Virus and it is done;-)

[remydat]

This is a quick blurb on the difference between Lamarck and Darwin which I think hopefully explains what I am getting at. I think most people when they think of evolution think of Lamarck even though they think they are referencing Darwin's theory

http://www.necsi.edu...arck_intro.html

The point this is getting at is that our DNA is a blueprint. Reproduction creates variation because it selects different aspects of that blueprint. If a certain aspect of that blueprint it selects is suited to the current environment then the people with that aspect have a greater chance of survival. But the point is the blueprint is already there and it is fixed. We just can't see these slight differences because we would have to live millions of years to see how those slight differences result survival.

All synthesis did was add synthetics to our existing DNA. So it combined human DNA with synthetics or Krogan DNA with synthetics. However, because it combined synthetics with the DNA of various races, the organic blueprint of those races still exist and so evolution still occurs because once those organisms reproduce the act of reproduction will still create slight variations in the resulting offspring. If those variations are better suited to the environment they live in they have a higher chance of survial.

So as long as the blue print is different which it has to be since synthetics was added to DNA of different people, evolution has to still occur as long as they reproduce. Evolution is not as Lamark thought the result of a changing environment ie a giraffe with short necks develop long necks to feed. Evolution is the result of the reproduction process being imperfect ie it does not create a clone. So giraffes had within the blueprint the ability to have offspring with long necks and offspring with sort necks, both types were born but only the ones with long necks ended up surviving.

So that is why I keep harping on reproduction because the imperfections created by sexual reproduction ie the fact you don't create a clone of youself when you reproduce is what creates the slight variations in a species that give one an advantage over another and after millions of years the ones with that slight advantage win out.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Seival has no idea what biology or evolution is.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Yestare7 wrote...

Here is one of the primary reasons Synthesis is wrong:

The starbrat (An insane horrific genocidal AI) has made many atrocious decisions before.
If he prefers Synthesis, it MUST be wrong.

simple, really.

I don't like Synthesis. But this is dumb.

Hitler ate sugar. Sugar must therefore be bad?

No. But the fallacy of Star Jar is how it believes Synthesis is the perfect solution to its problem, which is in itself a problem. That, and its description is nonsensical. If you don't meta-game, what it says raises all kinds of red flags.

There is no such thing as a final evolution. There is no such thing as synthetic DNA. There is no such thing as 'the essence of who and what you are'.

It calls the harvest an 'ascension'. As someone says, you can kill a man, turn him into a kebab, eat the kebab and crap out the remains. 

It's still technically the man you killed. 

That's what I think of his ascension. It's why I don't trust him at all.

[Argolas]

Remydat, I know I am repeating this, but Reproduction alone does not dictate that evolution happens!

This is just wrong. Evolution also requires variation and selective pressure. Variation is weakened a lot because all the galaxy gains this "new DNA" together. Selective pressure is taken away entirely. I am not saying evolution stops for the whole galaxy. I am saying that evolution stops for everyone who is affected by Synthesis. Even if science would call that impossible (which it doesn't) the game outright tells us so, namely the entity that came up with the whole thing. You are just denying it.

[BlameTheTank]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yestare7 wrote...

Here is one of the primary reasons Synthesis is wrong:

The starbrat (An insane horrific genocidal AI) has made many atrocious decisions before.
If he prefers Synthesis, it MUST be wrong.

simple, really.

I don't like Synthesis. But this is dumb.

Hitler ate sugar. Sugar must therefore be bad?

No. But the fallacy of Star Jar is how it believes Synthesis is the perfect solution to its problem, which is in itself a problem. That, and its description is nonsensical. If you don't meta-game, what it says raises all kinds of red flags.

There is no such thing as a final evolution. There is no such thing as synthetic DNA. There is no such thing as 'the essence of who and what you are'.

It calls the harvest an 'ascension'. As someone says, you can kill a man, turn him into a kebab, eat the kebab and crap out the remains. 

It's still technically the man you killed. 

That's what I think of his ascension. It's why I don't trust him at all.

You all forget that the Starkid says "We tried synthesis before but it failed" Question is - how did they try it and why it failed? Isn`t making a reaper a synthesis in a way? So it didn`t fail after all? He didn`t use the crucible before cuz it changed just now... So... uhmm... What?

[Yestare7]

BlameTheTank wrote...

You all forget that the Starkid says "We tried synthesis before but it failed" Question is - how did they try it and why it failed? Isn`t making a reaper a synthesis in a way? So it didn`t fail after all? He didn`t use the crucible before cuz it changed just now... So... uhmm... What?

He's an Insane genocidal AI. ANYTHING that comes out of his mouth, is likely a lie. 
Quickly destroy the whole freckin mess, then Party at the Citadel.





Y

[remydat]

Argolas wrote...

Remydat, I know I am repeating this, but Reproduction alone does not dictate that evolution happens!

This is just wrong. Evolution also requires variation and selective pressure. Variation is weakened a lot because all the galaxy gains this "new DNA" together. Selective pressure is taken away entirely. I am not saying evolution stops for the whole galaxy. I am saying that evolution stops for everyone who is affected by Synthesis. Even if science would call that impossible (which it doesn't) the game outright tells us so, namely the entity that came up with the whole thing. You are just denying it.

And this is scientifically incorrect according to Darwin.  Once again, you are confusing Lamark and Darwin.  Larmarck believed that the environment forces people to adapt and these adaptions are passed down to their children.  For example, the giraffe with a short neck grows a long neck and passes that gene down hence giraffes have a long neck.  It makes perfect sense but is scientifically been proven false. 

Darwin came along and said wait a minute, the environment does not really influence evolution.  The blueprint (ie our DNA and Genes) already contain the ability to produce different variations and because the act of reproduction is imperfect, it results in differences in species irrespective of the environment.  So reproduction creates variations that result in both giraffes with short necks and giraffes with long necks.  That happens no matter the environment because again DNA and genes are not dependent on the environment.  What happens is that over a period of millions of years the giraffes with short necks die if they happen to have been born in an environment that they are not suited for while the giraffes with long necks survive and reproduce. 

So again the key difference is that the environment did not foce the adaption.  The differences were the result of reproduction taking the blueprint (DNA, genes) and f*cking up the replication process which resulted in slight variations in species that over time can result in one species surving in a given environment while the other dies.

So it doesn't matter that the Galaxy gains synthetics together.  They still have their organic DNA and anytime they reproduce the organic DNA will create slight variations.  The blue print is already present.  Again, read this and it explains it.  Sorry, I can't change the font size for some reason.  And I am not trying to be difficult here but this mistake is made by people who talk evolution all the time and it took a long time for me to grasp the distinction.

http://www.necsi.edu...arck_intro.html

We have seen through many real examples and observations that changes that occur in an animal during life are not passed on to the animal's offspring. If a dog's ears are cropped short, its puppies are still born with long ears. If someone exercises every day, runs marathons, eats well, and is generally very healthy, the fitness is not passed on and the person's children still have to work just as hard to get that fit and healthy. These and other examples show that Lamarck's theory does not explain how life formed and became the way it is.

The other way that Lamarck's theory has been proven wrong is the study of genetics. Darwin knew that traits are passed on, but he never understood how they are passed on. During the time when Darwin's first book first came out, Gregor Mendel, who discovered genetics, was just starting his experiments. However, now we know a lot more about genetics, and we know that the only way for traits to be passed on is through genes, and that genes can not be affected by the outside world. The only thing that can be affected is which gene sets there are in a population, and this is determined by which individuals die and which ones live. This is the other way that we have learned that the fruits of an animal's efforts can not be inherited by its offspring.


So the irony in the above is that an immortal race actually improves evolution because previously giraffes with short necks died because they couldn't compete with giraffes with long necks.  Their genes left the gene pool forever.  If Synthesis allows people to survive who would otherwise have died due to survival of the fittest then it means the genes of people who would otherwise die remain in the gene pool to be passed on.  Once again reproduction is the engine of evolution becuse reproduction results in the imperfect copying of genes which is where the variation is derived.  That is scientific fact.

Modifié par remydat, 21 mars 2013 - 12:02 .

[Argolas]

remydat wrote...

[...]

I admit I didn't read all of that now, but I'll just admit that you may be right. But I think you are looking into it more deeply than BioWare did. For all we know, evolution stops with Synthesis. It is stated directly and never contradicted.

[BlameTheTank]

Argolas wrote...

remydat wrote...

[...]

I admit I didn't read all of that now, but I'll just admit that you may be right. But I think you are looking into it more deeply than BioWare did. For all we know, evolution stops with Synthesis. It is stated directly and never contradicted.

If only the way the Kid said it would happen was remotely logical and possible lol

[remydat]

Argolas wrote...

remydat wrote...

[...]

I admit I didn't read all of that now, but I'll just admit that you may be right. But I think you are looking into it more deeply than BioWare did. For all we know, evolution stops with Synthesis. It is stated directly and never contradicted.

Fair enough.   I wasn't trying to be a dick about things, I just see people confuse Lamarck and Darwin all the time in thinking that the environment affects evolution when it doesn't according to Darwin. 

Also what I think Star Kid was talking about is cross species evolution.  Remeber in Darwin's theory every living thing essentially evolved from what was once just an amoeba ie a single celled organism.  That is why creationists don't like evolution because among other things it destroys the idea that God made us in his own image.  No if there is a God, he made a single amoeba and after billions of years that amoeba was responsible for the evolution into all the different lifeforms we see today.  So Star Kid probably ran some calculations and surmised that after millions or billions more years of evolution, the final step in the process will be a human synthetic hybrid.

However, if that is what Star Child meant, it doesn't mean inter-species evolution stops ie the evolution within a species.

Now I fudged a bit because technically God didn't even create the amoeba.  If you really want to get technical he created just a tiny point of singuluraity the size of say an electron that was infinitely dense it literally contained all the matter in the universe that would every exist and it exploded into the big bang and from all that inorganic material eventually stars, galaxies, planets and that tiny little amoeba were born.

[OdanUrr]

Argolas wrote...

The crucible is the one and only (relevant) technology that is made by people who are aware of the reapers, and it is even meant to tackle the Reapers directly. Plus, every cycle can add its pieces to it because it is passed on. The critical point is that this technology continiously adapts to the Reapers, that is something that no other tech can do since most relevant technology is based on what the Reapers left behind. In other words: No one ever cared to think outside the box, now they are forced to (keyword: limitations). That is how the crucible was created, and that is also how the only other tech we know of that ever hurt the Reapers badly was created: The conduit and the anti-Keeper-virus the Protheans made on Ilos. None of both could have been made without being aware of the Reapers.

I've read this a number of times and still can't figure out how it addresses my point. Yes, when confronted with the prospect of the Reapers certain civilizations might be encouraged to think outside the box. I say might because there really is no incentive to re-invent the wheel rather than to work with their current technology. After all, I don't think the Reapers go door-to-door revealing that the Citadel and the mass relays were their creation and, even if they did, their technology would probably be so ingrained that thinking outside the box to a degree capable of surpassing the Reapers' achievements seems not only improbable but nearly impossible.

The examples you've brought up are still restricted to working with Reaper tech and they don't surpass it. The Conduit was simply a Prothean prototype of a mass relay (a Reaper creation) and the "anti-Keeper-virus" was simply a tool to block a function of the Keepers. The Crucible, however, is a weapon so advanced that even the Catalyst could not devise it. You say it was built upon cycle after cycle but we're talking about periods of millions if not billions of years. It's unrealistic to assume that the plans for the Crucible survived intact from each and every cycle to the next or that less advanced species could understand them, let alone add to them. How many records have been lost in our own history over a much smaller period of time?

The technology for the Synthesis solution is a different matter. The only technolgy that we have to beat is the cycle, and to beat the cycle the Reapers must be removed. That is what the crucible does.

The Crucible can do many things. The problem is that we don't know what it was built to do. What was the Crucible's original purpose? Perhaps most people would agree it was built to destroy the Reapers, but then how is it able to achieve Synthesis? Why would that function be built into the device in the first place? Or are you proposing that the Catalyst somehow repurposed the Crucible at the last minute but was also somehow unable to activate it? Not that long ago I wrote a story for a DLC that suggested a civilization might have developed a biological weapon based on the Crucible schematics. But what if the Crucible was never built to destroy the Reapers in the first place? What if it was originally built to erradicate different species based on their genetic makeup or their biochemical composition and then repurposed to try and destroy the Reapers? It might have happened that way but when it comes to the origins of this device we know nothing at all.

I rather think that Synthesis was prepared by the Catalyst over several cycles. It claims that it learned about the Crucible a few cycles ago, so it would make sense that this is the moment it realizes that the cycle may fail. It would also explain two other points: Synthesis uses the crucible, and the collectors did genetic research, it would mean they were checking if this cycle was ready for Synthesis (the Catalyst claims that former cycle's were not).

The Catalyst does state it had been pondering the matter for a while and even tried it in other cycles but it's all on the vague and generic side. And why should it think this cycle might fail? The Crucible must've been built before, even if not in its current form, and the Reapers are still around. And what about the Collectors? Presumably they did genetic research but what for is yet another lingering odd end from ME2, as was the "foreshadowing" about dark energy or why Harbinger needed Shepard alive. Maybe they were simply looking for the ideal species from which to build a Reaper? That seems far more likely.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 21 mars 2013 - 01:29 .

[Phatose]

Er...doesn't the Catalyst flat out tell you the Crucible is simply an energy source?