323 réponses à ce sujet

[ContinentTurtle]

Sure, there is no end to evolution, but that doesn't mean Seival was wrong when he said that evolution has limits. Our kids can't just "evolve" wings. That would take many, MANY generations and in essence we would become a different species. There is no end to evolution, but there surely are limits.

[deatharmonic]

Boneyaards wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Seival wrote...
We just have different views of evolution limits. You think that evolution is limitless because you can't see its limits from where you stand. But I think that evolution is limited, because I have a lot of examples of limited things - even something endless like looped paths have limits.

You don't know what you are talking about, seriously. On the path of evolution, species die out, there might come a more adapted species after the previous one dies, or, a species simply becoming extinct when it could no longer adapt and change quick enough to survive... and it is not a looped path because everything is constantly changing, except this change is slow and the extent of change is small

OP isn't stating that evolution is a looped path (you should probably read his/her comment again) OP is implying that in her/his perspective, evolution should theoretically have a limit because even things in our universe that seem limitless (like a looped path) do indeed have limits. It's all based on perspective. In my opinion, I believe it is limitless as well, but who are we to say that we are absolutely right? If evolution has an end, you and I certainly will not see it. 

Personal perspective shouldn't even come into it, evolution is something which is already strictly defined, we know how it works, there is no room for perspective. When a major environmental event takes place, a species will either evolve and adapt to it or die out, without exploring the intcricacies, that's it. So evolution for a species can either end (with their death) or continue as long as they're alive with the potential to adapt to further environmental changes. Seriously, there's nothing unknown about this and the OP doesn't seem to realise this and has quite obviously twisted the concept of evolution to fit with his arguement, even going as far to attribute some sort of will to evolution, and the notion that a species can adapt at will. It's absurd.

Modifié par deatharmonic, 05 avril 2013 - 10:37 .

[Stigweird85]

ContinentTurtle wrote...

Sure, there is no end to evolution, but that doesn't mean Seival was wrong when he said that evolution has limits. Our kids can't just "evolve" wings. That would take many, MANY generations and in essence we would become a different species. There is no end to evolution, but there surely are limits.

Interesting, though but that is pretty evolution to a tee. Giraffes from horses, Birds from Dinosaurs, 

Evolution is adaption,

[Megaton_Hope]

ContinentTurtle wrote...

Sure, there is no end to evolution, but that doesn't mean Seival was wrong when he said that evolution has limits. Our kids can't just "evolve" wings. That would take many, MANY generations and in essence we would become a different species. There is no end to evolution, but there surely are limits.

You ever counted the bones in a bat's wing, though? They look familiar to you at all?

http://www.ucmp.berk...ght/batwing.gif

How about the bones in a whale's pectoral fin, those remind you of anything?

http://www.fabiobonv...aleSkeleton.jpg

The crucial element in those generations is that something not kill (or sterilize) the creature whose genes contain the trait. The genes don't even have to be dominant, expressed, or initially common in the gene pool. They could even kill you eventually, like Huntington's Disease, as long as they don't do it before you have babies.

And the need for the gene doesn't have to be absolute, just enough to select for that trait by enough of a margin that the trait proliferates among the breeders. That's how it is with Sickle Cell Anemia.

Growing wings would be a bit of a stretch, with something as large, heavy, and relatively sedentary as people are now, but if we were to go through a prolonged arboreal phase, we might wind up small and light enough for growing wing flaps to have some advantages, like our very distant relative the flying squirrel.

[Jadebaby]

I love you Seival.

[Jadebaby]

PainCakesx wrote...

This has probably already been said, but I'll repeat it if so.

There is no such thing as a "final evolution." Evolution isn't about reaching a final destination, but about adapting to environments to aid in the survival of a species.

There is no end goal to evolution - therefore the statement that "Synthesis is the final evolution of life" is nonsensical.

Picasso's art was nonsense too, and look at him...

[ThatBigStupidJellyfish]

totally agree this guy knows his **** aDFSQWERRWEFD\\GF

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Jadebaby wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

This has probably already been said, but I'll repeat it if so.

There is no such thing as a "final evolution." Evolution isn't about reaching a final destination, but about adapting to environments to aid in the survival of a species.

There is no end goal to evolution - therefore the statement that "Synthesis is the final evolution of life" is nonsensical.

Picasso's art was nonsense too, and look at him...

Oh lord

[ThatBigStupidJellyfish]

Jadebaby wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

This has probably already been said, but I'll repeat it if so.

There is no such thing as a "final evolution." Evolution isn't about reaching a final destination, but about adapting to environments to aid in the survival of a species.

There is no end goal to evolution - therefore the statement that "Synthesis is the final evolution of life" is nonsensical.

Picasso's art was nonsense too, and look at him...

Picasso's art was new and strange to- ohh... I get you.

Too bad, still shootin' the tube.

[Obadiah]

PainCakesx wrote...

This has probably already been said, but I'll repeat it if so.

There is no such thing as a "final evolution." Evolution isn't about reaching a final destination, but about adapting to environments to aid in the survival of a species.

There is no end goal to evolution - therefore the statement that "Synthesis is the final evolution of life" is nonsensical.

Not sure if this was mentioned before, but I'll say it. I think a "final evolution" would be a state where beings could consciously adjust their genetic structure to a more beneficial ones, rather than wait on random mutations to be selected by surviving descendents.

[jacob taylor416]

Obadiah wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

This has probably already been said, but I'll repeat it if so.

There is no such thing as a "final evolution." Evolution isn't about reaching a final destination, but about adapting to environments to aid in the survival of a species.

There is no end goal to evolution - therefore the statement that "Synthesis is the final evolution of life" is nonsensical.

Not sure if this was mentioned before, but I'll say it. I think a "final evolution" would be a state where beings could consciously adjust their genetic structure to a more beneficial ones, rather than wait on random mutations to be selected by surviving descendents.

It has, and we have already went over it.  You see even though it is not natural it's still an adaptation in order to get better suited to ones environment, and because there is no such thing as a perfect species, you will need more and more adaptations, therefore evolution would still be present.  

[Obadiah]

@Jacob Taylor 416
Really? I just went over thread looking for it and couldn't find it. Where did that discussion take place?

[Seival]

jacob taylor416 wrote...

Seival wrote...


We just have different views of evolution limits. You think that evolution is limitless because you can't see its limits from where you stand. But I think that evolution is limited, because I have a lot of examples of limited things - even something endless like looped paths have limits.

You even sated it yourself or you agreed with someone who said it, (*example not actual post*) that a living being that breathes oxygen and cyanide is completely poisonous to it, and you place him on a planet that has cyanide as a fundamental part of its atmosphere than he/she needs to adapt to cyanide, whether it is nature or synthetics that is evolution. And whether it's synthetics or natural their lungs will disappear (much like our appendix)  because it is a waste of energy and resources. In terms of an energy source, it is impossible to reach 100%(see last paragraph excluding the edit) but does that mean we, or nature, will stop at 90%, NO! In no area of history have there ever been examples of that.  Evolution is not a progress to a simple point, rather a forever changing system trying to achive an equalibrium with its everchanging environment (the universe).

Going back to the person on the cyanide planet, if you tera-form it and restrain a species from evolving that is not the final form of evolution you're simply trying to kill a puppy because you think that it is cutest as a puppy.   If you truly believe that there is a perfect form of life, a "final stage of evolution" than I am both sympathetic and envious of your innocence and ignorance.  Also may I read your examples. 

I am fairly sure that you would argue that it is possible for a 100% efficiency, than here is a paragraph dedicated to disproving that (don't you feel special paragraph).  For every conversion of energy there is a dispersion of heat and entropy, stated by the first two laws of thermal dynamics, a perpetual motion machine is impossible for this same reason.  Every system releases heat or, unusable energy, in the form of entropy, stated in the first law of thermal dynamics.  A system will always require energy in order to change it into a usable form of energy, shown in this equation  G=H-TS where the amount of usable energy (G) is the amount of total energy (H) minus the temperature give off in Kelvin (T) times the amount of entropy given off (S), therefore the only completely efficient system is at 0 degrees Kelvin, which not only does not exist in nature but at which point nothing happens and nothing can. With that said, the second law of thermal dynamics states that a system not already at a thermal equilibrium (death) spontaneously evolves toward it, and therefore it will naturally try to achieve 100% efficiency even though it is only possible at nonexistence.   What you call the "final state of evolution" is the thermodynamic equilibrium which only exists at nonexistence.   

I don't even remember such argument. And this is not the first time you tell that I said something I didn't actually say.

About the example. It is out of place. Completely. You are trying to compare final evolution to reaching 100% efficiency. Adapting to everything doesn't mean achieving high efficiency. You can be ready to everything even at 10% efficiency. You will "produce a lot of heat while resisting", but you will still overcome an obstacle. Evolution is mostly about developing internal and external readiness. High efficiency is not important nor it's possible.

There are different ways to adapt to agressive environments. An organic being's physical limits allow limited adaptation to such environments through the body improvements. And Synthesis improves the physical limits themselves. But limits will always remain limits. Synthesis will make organic beings perfect and allow them to survive much more things without any outer shell, but will not allow them to survive vacuum for example. To survive vacuum or some other dangerous environment (that even synthetics may not survive), organics have to use devices like environmental suits.

That doesn't change the statement that synthesized creature is ready for any possible obstacles both internally and externally, while regular creature is not. Forever changing system is limited as any looped path. It goes through cycles, and repeat itself.

Modifié par Seival, 05 avril 2013 - 08:44 .

[Reap_ii]

I disagree with cray cray OP. he must first understand what evolution is before making such concrete statements. Catalyst's idea and definition of evolution is inherently flawed and makes no sense. Catalyst's flawed programming doesn't allow it to understand and therefore, comment on evolution. if you agree with Catalyst, then your understanding of evolution is also inherently flawed.

[Red Panda]

Reap_ii wrote...

I disagree with cray cray OP. he must first understand what evolution is before making such concrete statements. Catalyst's idea and definition of evolution is inherently flawed and makes no sense. Catalyst's flawed programming doesn't allow it to understand and therefore, comment on evolution. if you agree with Catalyst, then your understanding of evolution is also inherently flawed.

I don't know. The OP makes sense to me. It makes you think. Sometimes the most radical path is the best one.

[Wayning_Star]

OperatingWookie wrote...

Reap_ii wrote...

I disagree with cray cray OP. he must first understand what evolution is before making such concrete statements. Catalyst's idea and definition of evolution is inherently flawed and makes no sense. Catalyst's flawed programming doesn't allow it to understand and therefore, comment on evolution. if you agree with Catalyst, then your understanding of evolution is also inherently flawed.

I don't know. The OP makes sense to me. It makes you think. Sometimes the most radical path is the best one.

I dunno, the act of proclaiming all things must 'end' is to say that all things cannot. The argument for the precept undoes the argument for the precept. It's absolute thinking.

We don't know what any 'pinnacle' of evolution is, as there is no basis for it, as the beginning of evolution is unknown, as well as the goal of such. Idealistically, we could assume organics are the 'hinge pin' of evolution, but that'd be kind of silly, considering the space and filled volumes over looked to do so.

[Auld Wulf]

People are overlooking something.

Synthesis isn't the choice of the Catalyst, but the Crucible redesigners. They redesigned the Crucible to include the Catalyst. The Crucible changes the Catalyst, it provides new options. Synthesis isn't the answer of the Catalyst, it's the answer of the Crucible redesigners who're just using the Catalyst to their ends.

[jacob taylor416]

Obadiah wrote...

@Jacob Taylor 416
Really? I just went over thread looking for it and couldn't find it. Where did that discussion take place?

It might have been in a different thread, there are so many crazy threads about synthesis out there, it's hard to keep count; my mistake. Sorry.
Actually it was something I posted about synthetics doing adaptations for us but still being evolution.  If that is different than what you mean than sorry.

Modifié par jacob taylor416, 05 avril 2013 - 10:14 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Auld Wulf wrote...

People are overlooking something.

Synthesis isn't the choice of the Catalyst, but the Crucible redesigners. They redesigned the Crucible to include the Catalyst. The Crucible changes the Catalyst, it provides new options. Synthesis isn't the answer of the Catalyst, it's the answer of the Crucible redesigners who're just using the Catalyst to their ends.

The Crucible redesigners being the Protheans, right? 

[jacob taylor416]

Seival wrote...

jacob taylor416 wrote...

Seival wrote...


We just have different views of evolution limits. You think that evolution is limitless because you can't see its limits from where you stand. But I think that evolution is limited, because I have a lot of examples of limited things - even something endless like looped paths have limits.

You even sated it yourself or you agreed with someone who said it, (*example not actual post*) that a living being that breathes oxygen and cyanide is completely poisonous to it, and you place him on a planet that has cyanide as a fundamental part of its atmosphere than he/she needs to adapt to cyanide, whether it is nature or synthetics that is evolution. And whether it's synthetics or natural their lungs will disappear (much like our appendix)  because it is a waste of energy and resources. In terms of an energy source, it is impossible to reach 100%(see last paragraph excluding the edit) but does that mean we, or nature, will stop at 90%, NO! In no area of history have there ever been examples of that.  Evolution is not a progress to a simple point, rather a forever changing system trying to achive an equalibrium with its everchanging environment (the universe).

Going back to the person on the cyanide planet, if you tera-form it and restrain a species from evolving that is not the final form of evolution you're simply trying to kill a puppy because you think that it is cutest as a puppy.   If you truly believe that there is a perfect form of life, a "final stage of evolution" than I am both sympathetic and envious of your innocence and ignorance.  Also may I read your examples. 

I am fairly sure that you would argue that it is possible for a 100% efficiency, than here is a paragraph dedicated to disproving that (don't you feel special paragraph).  For every conversion of energy there is a dispersion of heat and entropy, stated by the first two laws of thermal dynamics, a perpetual motion machine is impossible for this same reason.  Every system releases heat or, unusable energy, in the form of entropy, stated in the first law of thermal dynamics.  A system will always require energy in order to change it into a usable form of energy, shown in this equation  G=H-TS where the amount of usable energy (G) is the amount of total energy (H) minus the temperature give off in Kelvin (T) times the amount of entropy given off (S), therefore the only completely efficient system is at 0 degrees Kelvin, which not only does not exist in nature but at which point nothing happens and nothing can. With that said, the second law of thermal dynamics states that a system not already at a thermal equilibrium (death) spontaneously evolves toward it, and therefore it will naturally try to achieve 100% efficiency even though it is only possible at nonexistence.   What you call the "final state of evolution" is the thermodynamic equilibrium which only exists at nonexistence.   

I don't even remember such argument. And this is not the first time you tell that I said something I didn't actually say.

About the example. It is out of place. Completely. You are trying to compare final evolution to reaching 100% efficiency. Adapting to everything doesn't mean achieving high efficiency. You can be ready to everything even at 10% efficiency. You will "produce a lot of heat while resisting", but you will still overcome an obstacle. Evolution is mostly about developing internal and external readiness. High efficiency is not important nor it's possible.

There are different ways to adapt to agressive environments. An organic being's physical limits allow limited adaptation to such environments through the body improvements. And Synthesis improves the physical limits themselves. But limits will always remain limits. Synthesis will make organic beings perfect and allow them to survive much more things without any outer shell, but will not allow them to survive vacuum for example. To survive vacuum or some other dangerous environment (that even synthetics may not survive), organics have to use devices like environmental suits.

That doesn't change the statement that synthesized creature is ready for any possible obstacles both internally and externally, while regular creature is not. Forever changing system is limited as any looped path. It goes through cycles, and repeat itself.

If I misquoted you, than I'm sorry, I have a lot on my mind. 

Although efficiency has everything to do with evolution, it doesn't matter if you can do something but if someone else can do it better than they survive, you die out, that's evolution, survival of the fittest.  Therefore in order to be the "final point of evolution"  you must be the most efficient possible, but reaching 100% is impossible (again I find myself having to go over this).  Taking the experiments of the father of the theory of evolution itself, Darwin's finches, a main land finch could find the correct food source with its current beak, ye it still adapted in order to find and eat it more efficiently.  Same with our evolution from apes, we were perfectly fine swinging with trees, and when the trees started to diminish in Africa, the first monkeys to adapt (Nakalipithecus) could walk on land just and find food just fine, yet they still evolved to (****** Habilis) who use tools. Are tools necessary? no just more efficient.  

And if so that a synthesized creature could overcome any obstacle, they still aren't the most efficient, someone or something could do it better, and therefore they're more fit, and wha-la evolution occurs.  Also you just contradicted yourself, you stated that it would make organics perfect but then stated that they can't survive in a vacuum and therefore not perfect, also synthetics can survive a vacuum.

Also the limits of an organism are not finite, if they were finite, we all would still be fish living in the ocean. They are only finite at a given point in time; a baby cannot lift 300 pounds, it simple can't, but it can, later in life when it's limits expand. 

Modifié par jacob taylor416, 05 avril 2013 - 10:13 .

[jacob taylor416]

double post

Modifié par jacob taylor416, 05 avril 2013 - 10:05 .

[jacob taylor416]

Jadebaby wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

This has probably already been said, but I'll repeat it if so.

There is no such thing as a "final evolution." Evolution isn't about reaching a final destination, but about adapting to environments to aid in the survival of a species.

There is no end goal to evolution - therefore the statement that "Synthesis is the final evolution of life" is nonsensical.

Picasso's art was nonsense too, and look at him...

I'm not even going to acknowledge this. 

[GreyLycanTrope]

Auld Wulf wrote...

People are overlooking something.

Synthesis isn't the choice of the Catalyst, but the Crucible redesigners. They redesigned the Crucible to include the Catalyst. The Crucible changes the Catalyst, it provides new options. Synthesis isn't the answer of the Catalyst, it's the answer of the Crucible redesigners who're just using the Catalyst to their ends.

You're suggesting that whoever worked on the Crucible's design just so happened to create a function that coincidentally not only resolves the Reapers motivations but also coincidentally the motivations of an AI (the Catalyst) of who's existance they knew nothing about, and also that the design of the Crucible just so happens to be able to perfectly meld with and reprogram an AI which is years ahead of them technologically to suit their needs without any input form said AI which again they were unaware of to being with.

That is one magic bullet.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

People are overlooking something.

Synthesis isn't the choice of the Catalyst, but the Crucible redesigners. They redesigned the Crucible to include the Catalyst. The Crucible changes the Catalyst, it provides new options. Synthesis isn't the answer of the Catalyst, it's the answer of the Crucible redesigners who're just using the Catalyst to their ends.

You're suggesting that whoever worked on the Crucible's design just so happened to create a function that coincidentally not only resolves the Reapers motivations but also coincidentally the motivations of an AI (the Catalyst) of who's existance they knew nothing about, and also that the design of the Crucible just so happens to be able to perfectly meld with and reprogram an AI which is years ahead of them technologically to suit their needs without any input form said AI which again they were unaware of to being with.

That is one magic bullet.

Wolfie has spoken! All of you organics should consider yourselves blessed that one so respected by we Reapers uh intellectuals would deign to speak at you. This exchange is over.

[Obadiah]

Well, if the Crucible was designed to work with the Catalyst AI, then obviously the designers or re-designers knew of the existence of the Catalyst AI.