234 réponses à ce sujet

[newcomplex]

Pauravi wrote...

newcomplex wrote...
Drell are mammals too apparently according to a developer.    And being mammals is likely given how they have near identical notions of marriage and love.    

What the...

What in the hell do notions about marriage and love have to do with the taxonomic definition of the word "mammal"?  Dogs don't get married, does that mean they aren't mammals anymore?

Jeezus.. our education system is full of fail.

Because Marriage is a construction that requires the notion of mutual caring for their offspring to develop, across all known species on earth.    On all species where long term mate relationships occur, they give live birth.    

I was citing the fact that Drell have the notion of Marriage and Romantic love as very plausible evidence that they are mammals, because on all earthly species that have notions of long term mate pairings, their is one shared characeristic, either some physical symbiotic bond, found in deep sea invertabrae or fish, or mammary glands.   

Did you seriously interpret what I said to mean "mammals have to have marriage?" 

Are you mentally retarded?  or are you maliciously just trying to act like a downy?    

wut a fuking tool.    The fact that you commented on the America education system is doubly ironic, because your clearly the kind of braindead indidivdual it produces.



-----------
This entire argument shouldn't exist.    Since none of you seem to have a apparent clue what your talking about, this is how biological taxonomy works.    The prevailing theory, the one your going to see in your textbooks, is "linnaen taxonomy".    This is the one dictionary.com uses, this is the one mainstream science as a whole uses.    The alternative to this, what you are suggesting is Phylogenetic classification.   Both are equally valid, and do not conflict each other, but Phylogenetics is only used very technical feilds, not substituting linnaen taxonomy, but supplementing it.



Dictionary.com definition of mammal
---
any vertebrate of
the class Mammalia, having the body more or less covered with hair,
nourishing the young with milk from the mammary glands, and, with the
exception of the egg-laying monotremes, giving birth to live young.
---

This is the most commonly accepted, the core definition, the linean taxnomy of mammals.   Some things it forgot to mention, but are nessicary, are possessing a Neocortex and having similar ear structures.

Their isn't any confliction because Aliens do not exist.     We do not know how the leading scientific instituion would react if their were, the two would clearly be merged, as aliens would cause confliction between the two definitions.

That being said, the phylogenetic one is not the common definition found for mammal, and was made to supplement the standard definition in the feild of genetics, it is not an alternative.    Logically, the the normal, core definition takes precedence.    That would make quarians mammals, assuming they have hair.



yea im mad now.     .    Stay in school kid.   

Modifié par newcomplex, 17 février 2010 - 04:48 .

[Mikenator700]

Andorfiend wrote...

Alien sex is recreation, not procreation. (Except for the Asari, but they have this weird telepathic-lamarckian-parthogenesis thing going on. There are some weird implications about Asari evolution, but that's another thread.)

So yeah, whatever works. Presumably 'love will find a way' between two intelligent beings even if one if a squid and the other is a fern.

Why do I have the strangest feeling that this is a reference to something?

[Llandaryn]

77boy84 wrote...

What is with the influx of alien sex threads?
I see a different one almost every day.

There's a lot of dead cats around this forum.

newcomplex wrote...

On all species where long term mate relationships occur, they give live birth.    

Actually, swans mate for life.

That screaming sound you hear is your argument, along with all passengers onboard, sinking to the bottom of the abyssal plain.

Modifié par Llandaryn, 17 février 2010 - 07:24 .

[Al-the-Catman]

Llandaryn wrote...

77boy84 wrote...

What is with the influx of alien sex threads?
I see a different one almost every day.

There's a lot of dead cats around this forum.

newcomplex wrote...

On all species where long term mate relationships occur, they give live birth.    

Actually, swans mate for life.

That screaming sound you hear is your argument, along with all passengers onboard, sinking to the bottom of the abyssal plain.

I take offense to that sir! Not all of us are dead!

[Keltoris]

Llandaryn wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

On all species where long term mate relationships occur, they give live birth.    

Actually, swans mate for life.

That screaming sound you hear is your argument, along with all passengers onboard, sinking to the bottom of the abyssal plain.

I laughed.

A lot of birds mate for life as well.

And Mass Effect has.. aliens.  Do we have any aliens on earth to establish a baseline on?

[Llandaryn]

*charges Cain*



I'll give you a ten second head start.

[GodWood]

Andorfiend wrote...

Interspecies sex is recreation, not procreation.

QFT

[SW33TADD1CT10N]

Keltoris wrote...

Llandaryn wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

On all species where long term mate relationships occur, they give live birth.    

Actually, swans mate for life.

That screaming sound you hear is your argument, along with all passengers onboard, sinking to the bottom of the abyssal plain.

I laughed.

A lot of birds mate for life as well.

And Mass Effect has.. aliens.  Do we have any aliens on earth to establish a baseline on?

And some species of lizards and fish. Ha! Double burn!

[Al-the-Catman]

Keltoris wrote...

Llandaryn wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

On all species where long term mate relationships occur, they give live birth.    

Actually, swans mate for life.

That screaming sound you hear is your argument, along with all passengers onboard, sinking to the bottom of the abyssal plain.

I laughed.

A lot of birds mate for life as well.

And Mass Effect has.. aliens.  Do we have any aliens on earth to establish a baseline on?

We do actually, just depends on the country you live in of how many there are.

[Keltoris]

Al-the-Catman wrote...
We do actually, just depends on the country you live in of how many there are.

Well, I consider myself non-human. And my government considers boat people to be aliens.

[General Battuta]

newcomplex wrote...

Pauravi wrote...

newcomplex wrote...
Drell are mammals too apparently according to a developer.    And being mammals is likely given how they have near identical notions of marriage and love.    

What the...

What in the hell do notions about marriage and love have to do with the taxonomic definition of the word "mammal"?  Dogs don't get married, does that mean they aren't mammals anymore?

Jeezus.. our education system is full of fail.

Because Marriage is a construction that requires the notion of mutual caring for their offspring to develop, across all known species on earth.    On all species where long term mate relationships occur, they give live birth.    

I was citing the fact that Drell have the notion of Marriage and Romantic love as very plausible evidence that they are mammals, because on all earthly species that have notions of long term mate pairings, their is one shared characeristic, either some physical symbiotic bond, found in deep sea invertabrae or fish, or mammary glands.   

Mammals are actually (including humans) pretty much all non-monogamous promiscuous maters on both the social and reproductive levels.

Birds are far more monogamous than any mammals, on average. And even they violate monogamy whenever advantageous.

[Al-the-Catman]

Keltoris wrote...

Al-the-Catman wrote...
We do actually, just depends on the country you live in of how many there are.

Well, I consider myself non-human. And my government considers boat people to be aliens.

Always depends on the definition of the word/phrase my good sir.  I like puns.
No offense intended.

[Weiser_Cain]

We're all the offspring of the Protheans.

[newcomplex]

Meh. Forgot about birds.  

My classifications still holds true, looks like mammal, acts like mammal, organically like a mammal=is a mammal, regardless of ancestry or planet or origin.

Meh.    Stupid Birds.    Either way a Bioware dev comfirmed them being "mammalian".    Which I can only assume means they give live birth, regardless of my admittedly faulty reasoning.   

*stomps of chicken*

Modifié par newcomplex, 17 février 2010 - 08:33 .

[Keltoris]

Al-the-Catman wrote...

Always depends on the definition of the word/phrase my good sir.  I like puns.
No offense intended.

None taken. Care for a crumpet?

newcomplex wrote...

Meh.    Stupid Birds....

*stomps of chicken*

WE FOUND SHALE!

Modifié par Keltoris, 17 février 2010 - 08:34 .

[Lukertin]

newcomplex wrote...
My classifications still holds true, looks like mammal, acts like mammal, organically like a mammal=is a mammal, regardless of ancestry or planet or origin.

Too bad because all mammals on this planet have hair.  In fact, it's one of the three defining characteristics of what a mammal is.  (Mammary glands and a certain inner ear bone being the other two).

Your premise is fatally flawed

[Keltoris]

Lukertin wrote...

newcomplex wrote...
My classifications still holds true, looks like mammal, acts like mammal, organically like a mammal=is a mammal, regardless of ancestry or planet or origin.

Too bad because all mammals on this planet have hair.  In fact, it's one of the three defining characteristics of what a mammal is.  (Mammary glands and a certain inner ear bone being the other two).

Your premise is fatally flawed

For utter correctness:

Mammals (formally Mammalia) are a class of vertebrate, air-breathing animals whose females are characterized by the possession of mammary glands while both males and females are characterized by sweat glands, hair and/or fur, three middle ear bones used in hearing, and a neocortex region in the brain.

(Not saying you were wrong Luke; just thought that would help)

[Onyx Jaguar]

I can't believe I just spent 15 minutes reading this thread.



Also somewhere someone in this thread equated Marriage with being a Mammal



What the hell is going on

[Pauravi]

newcomplex wrote...

Pauravi wrote...

newcomplex wrote...
Drell are mammals too apparently according to a developer.    And being mammals is likely given how they have near identical notions of marriage and love.    

What the...

What in the hell do notions about marriage and love have to do with the taxonomic definition of the word "mammal"?  Dogs don't get married, does that mean they aren't mammals anymore?

Jeezus.. our education system is full of fail.

Because Marriage is a construction that requires the notion of mutual caring for their offspring to develop, across all known species on earth.    On all species where long term mate relationships occur, they give live birth.

I was citing the fact that Drell have the notion of Marriage and
Romantic love as very plausible evidence that they are mammals, because
on all earthly species that have notions of long term mate pairings,
their is one shared characeristic, either some physical symbiotic bond,
found in deep sea invertabrae or fish, or mammary glands.

Except that the "evidence" you're basing your argument on is completely and spectacularly wrong.
It is incorrect to suggest that all animals with long-term
mates have mammary glands, nor even that they give live birth.  There is a massive category of animals on Earth that directly contradict your point: birds.  There are a great many species of birds that mate with their partners long-term, yet birds are not mammals and they lay eggs.  In fact, avians exhibit long term bonding even more frequently than mammals do -- there are not very many mammals that do it.  If I were an alien and I were using your logical construction, after a superficial examination I might conclude that humans were flightless birds because our monogamous marriage practices are atypical of mammalians who are, quite frankly, ****s who do NOT generally raise young as parental pairs.

wut a fuking tool.    The fact that you commented on the American education system is doubly ironic, because your you're clearly the kind of braindead indidivdual individual it produces.

Three spelling and grammar mistakes in one sentence means you aren't a
very good English student, either -- all while trying to insinuate my
ignorance.  Now who is ironic?

In any case, that's a very funny statement coming from somebody who is clearly attempting to speak outside their expertise on biology and animal behavior, even though you don't have a grasp of obvious basics.  I won't even comment on the laughable practice of looking up technical biology definitions on Dictionary.com.  For future reference, it isn't a good idea to invent "facts" to support your ideas.  People will figure it out.

yea im mad now.     .    Stay in school kid.

I LOL'd

Modifié par Pauravi, 17 février 2010 - 09:56 .

[newcomplex]

Pauravi wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

Pauravi wrote...

newcomplex wrote...
Drell are mammals too apparently according to a developer.    And being mammals is likely given how they have near identical notions of marriage and love.    

What the...

What in the hell do notions about marriage and love have to do with the taxonomic definition of the word "mammal"?  Dogs don't get married, does that mean they aren't mammals anymore?

Jeezus.. our education system is full of fail.

Because Marriage is a construction that requires the notion of mutual caring for their offspring to develop, across all known species on earth.    On all species where long term mate relationships occur, they give live birth.

I was citing the fact that Drell have the notion of Marriage and
Romantic love as very plausible evidence that they are mammals, because
on all earthly species that have notions of long term mate pairings,
their is one shared characeristic, either some physical symbiotic bond,
found in deep sea invertabrae or fish, or mammary glands.

Except that the "evidence" you're basing your argument on is completely and spectacularly wrong.
It is incorrect to suggest that all animals with long-term
mates have mammary glands, nor even that they give live birth.  There is a massive category of animals on Earth that directly contradict your point: birds.  There are a great many species of birds that mate with their partners long-term, yet birds are not mammals and they lay eggs.  In fact, avians exhibit long term bonding even more frequently than mammals do -- there are not very many mammals that do it.  If I were an alien and I were using your logical construction, after a superficial examination I might conclude that humans were flightless birds because our monogamous marriage practices are atypical of mammalians who are, quite frankly, ****s who do NOT generally raise young as parental pairs.

wut a fuking tool.    The fact that you commented on the American education system is doubly ironic, because your you're clearly the kind of braindead indidivdual individual it produces.

Three spelling and grammar mistakes in one sentence means you aren't a
very good English student, either -- all while trying to insinuate my
ignorance.  Now who is ironic?

In any case, that's a very funny statement coming from somebody who is clearly attempting to speak outside their expertise on biology and animal behavior, even though you don't have a grasp of obvious basics.  I won't even comment on the laughable practice of looking up technical biology definitions on Dictionary.com.  For future reference, it isn't a good idea to invent "facts" to support your ideas.  People will figure it out.

yea im mad now.     .    Stay in school kid.

I LOL'd

Yeah.    Your clever.     I cited dictionary.com because it is literally a 100% accurate definition of linnaen taxonomy, and the fact that its dictionary.com shows its mainstream acceptance.    Their isnt even a submention of other forms of classifying mammals.     I could site universities too, if it makes you happier.

http://tinyurl.com/ylldt2e

Go find it yourself.    Every single definition will more or less use the linnaen defiinition, the more widely accepted definition of mammal.  

Obviously, I was quite pissed when I wrote that because It appeared you were deliberately misconstrueing my argument to mean something it clearly did not.     I already stated the fact that I forgot about birds, probably because I was pissed off at your ignorance.    

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that your perpective is still wrong.   Because developers comfirmed that thane is "more mammalian then he looks".    

Modifié par newcomplex, 17 février 2010 - 10:17 .

[tsd16]

newcomplex wrote...

Pauravi wrote...

newcomplex wrote...
Drell are mammals too apparently according to a developer.    And being mammals is likely given how they have near identical notions of marriage and love.    

What the...

What in the hell do notions about marriage and love have to do with the taxonomic definition of the word "mammal"?  Dogs don't get married, does that mean they aren't mammals anymore?

Jeezus.. our education system is full of fail.

Because Marriage is a construction that requires the notion of mutual caring for their offspring to develop, across all known species on earth.    On all species where long term mate relationships occur, they give live birth.    

I was citing the fact that Drell have the notion of Marriage and Romantic love as very plausible evidence that they are mammals, because on all earthly species that have notions of long term mate pairings, their is one shared characeristic, either some physical symbiotic bond, found in deep sea invertabrae or fish, or mammary glands.   

Did you seriously interpret what I said to mean "mammals have to have marriage?" 

Are you mentally retarded?  or are you maliciously just trying to act like a downy?    

wut a fuking tool.    The fact that you commented on the America education system is doubly ironic, because your clearly the kind of braindead indidivdual it produces.



-----------
This entire argument shouldn't exist.    Since none of you seem to have a apparent clue what your talking about, this is how biological taxonomy works.    The prevailing theory, the one your going to see in your textbooks, is "linnaen taxonomy".    This is the one dictionary.com uses, this is the one mainstream science as a whole uses.    The alternative to this, what you are suggesting is Phylogenetic classification.   Both are equally valid, and do not conflict each other, but Phylogenetics is only used very technical feilds, not substituting linnaen taxonomy, but supplementing it.



Dictionary.com definition of mammal
---
any vertebrate of
the class Mammalia, having the body more or less covered with hair,
nourishing the young with milk from the mammary glands, and, with the
exception of the egg-laying monotremes, giving birth to live young.
---

This is the most commonly accepted, the core definition, the linean taxnomy of mammals.   Some things it forgot to mention, but are nessicary, are possessing a Neocortex and having similar ear structures.

Their isn't any confliction because Aliens do not exist.     We do not know how the leading scientific instituion would react if their were, the two would clearly be merged, as aliens would cause confliction between the two definitions.

That being said, the phylogenetic one is not the common definition found for mammal, and was made to supplement the standard definition in the feild of genetics, it is not an alternative.    Logically, the the normal, core definition takes precedence.    That would make quarians mammals, assuming they have hair.



yea im mad now.     .    Stay in school kid.   

in all fairness to that guys post, you said :

"drell have similar notions of love and marriage therefore are likely to be mammals."

As fair as "mating for life, there are tons of examples from termites, to fish to birds.   Also, since we cant ask animals if they feel "love" so any notion of them doing so, is pure speculation on our part.   Hell we look at love as something non-physical that transcends the animal world.  For all we know its a common emotional response across many species.

The point, we have no idea whether this trait is exlusive to mammals on earth so how can we assume that these traits increase the likelyhood of a creature being a mammal.   In your response to him you went on and on talking about mammals, but never addressed what you actually said in your post.


  I am not flaming you so dont get your panties ina  bunch.

Modifié par tsd16, 17 février 2010 - 10:18 .

[newcomplex]

Keltoris wrote...

Lukertin wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

My classifications still holds true, looks like mammal, acts like mammal, organically like a mammal=is a mammal, regardless of ancestry or planet or origin.

Too bad because all mammals on this planet have hair. In fact, it's one of the three defining characteristics of what a mammal is. (Mammary glands and a certain inner ear bone being the other two).



Your premise is fatally flawed

For utter correctness:



Mammals (formally Mammalia) are a class of vertebrate, air-breathing animals whose females are characterized by the possession of mammary glands while both males and females are characterized by sweat glands, hair and/or fur, three middle ear bones used in hearing, and a neocortex region in the brain.



(Not saying you were wrong Luke; just thought that would help)

First of all, i said all of those points except the sweat glands. Meh. We have evidence that Thane has all of those except the middle ear bone, and hair apparently. We can't comfirm or deny whether he has hair too, we don't know the texture of his skin. Many Humans don't have publically visible hair except on their head either

[Llandaryn]

newcomplex wrote...

My classifications still holds true, looks like mammal, acts like mammal, organically like a mammal=is a mammal, regardless of ancestry or planet or origin.

Are you kidding me?

"Looks like a mammal" ? Mammals are bipedal (humans), quadrupedal (canines, felines, bovines) or in-between (some apes, monkeys). Some don't even have legs (cetaceans). Some are huge (elephant, whale) whilst some are tiny (pygmy shrew). Some can even fly (bats).

"Acts like a mammal" ? Okay, some mammals form family groups. Gorillas. Humans. Chimps. Dolphins. Some form herd groups. Zebras. Wildebeest. Some are solitary. Tigers. Leopards. Some form hunting packs. Wolves. Lions. Most give have live births, whilst a couple lay eggs, monotremes such as the two species of echidna and the platypus. Some give birth to offspring that can walk within minutes of birth, others require further development, and marsupial offspring are barely formed before birth and develop inside a pouch.

There is no defining "look" or "act" as far as mammals are concerned, and even the "have hair or fur" argument sort of falls a bit flat around cetaceans.

Please, for the love of Bob, stop posting before you embarrass yourself further.

Modifié par Llandaryn, 17 février 2010 - 05:43 .

[Lukertin]

Pauravi wrote...
Except that the "evidence" you're basing your argument on is completely and spectacularly wrong.
It is incorrect to suggest that all animals with long-term
mates have mammary glands, nor even that they give live birth.  There is a massive category of animals on Earth that directly contradict your point: birds.  There are a great many species of birds that mate with their partners long-term, yet birds are not mammals and they lay eggs.  In fact, avians exhibit long term bonding even more frequently than mammals do -- there are not very many mammals that do it.  If I were an alien and I were using your logical construction, after a superficial examination I might conclude that humans were flightless birds because our monogamous marriage practices are atypical of mammalians who are, quite frankly, ****s who do NOT generally raise young as parental pairs.

Sorry, but you're the moron who responded to newcomplex's statement of "If it has ideas of marriage and love, then it's probably a mammal" with "dogs don't get married, so according to you they aren't mammals".  This is very basic failure of logical reasoning, but you seem incapable of comprehending it.  For starters, 'If A then B' does not equal 'if not A then not B'.  You're eager to assume that it does, and somehow have the gall of taking the intellectual high ground when you don't even recognize the utter fallacy of your own argument.

[SmilingMirror]

R34P3RR3D33M3R wrote...

madisk wrote...

 I doubt you could have sex with a Rachni, though.

Someone, somewhere would find a way, sadly.

You just soured the song of my mothers.