Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sordid]

If you selectively breed cows to produce more milk, you can call it unnatural selection. Since humanity is in total control of cows, these special-bred cows will become the norm, and we will have witnessed an act of selection. It's unnatural, but whether or not it's evolution depends on the way you achieved the result. If you used genetic engineering, it's not evolution. If you selectively picked and bred specimens you know to posess the necessary genetic deviations, it's evolution.

No it's not. For the third and really last time, evolution = random mutation + natural selection. If you do artificial selection, it's not evolution anymore. I really don't see what's so difficult to understand here.

[PTTG??]

Is it evolution if an intelligent alien species intentionally breeds alien cows to be more productive?

Is it evolution if a sponge becomes more adapted to being used by dolphins for food collection?

Is it artificial selection if a species of bee becomes symbiotic to a plant that is tastiest?

Is it artificial selection if gazelles become faster due to predators selecting the slowest?

What if those predators are humans?


Most importantly, if the answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no, what defines a creature that can artificially select? Is it sentience, that oh-so-unprovable quality that only one person can be definitely proven to have (me)?

After all, people are really just part of the environment. Just like a plant may adapt to become more productive of nectar so that bees will select it; can not a cow just evolve to become more productive of milk so that humans will select it?

Why does intention play so large a role?



Also, space mode is so much more fun when you install one of the No Disaster mods. I use Space Is Fun. Pirates only show up every few dozen hours.

[Floirt]

Hmm. You two are forgetting that Humans ARE part of evolution, and thus any selection they do is natural selection. We're the dominant species, and as such we are part of the natural selection process. Our "artificial selection" is just part of the whole thing. Thus, Evolution happens whether humans guide it or not.

EDIT: Wow, got ninja'd.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Look, I despise official science and its methods. And nomenclature. Evolution of a creature is just that creature altering itself to conform to its surroundings. Natural selection occurs when its surroundings are affected only by natural causes. You should remember that human intelligence is the direct result of evolution, and is, ergo, also natural. As long as a human does not alter the creature's DNA directly, thereby replacing the random in "random mutations", everything he does to the creature is natural. Therefore, your formula is kept. Random mutations + natural selection. Humans and their actions are no less natural than anything else.

[on-topic comment]Was there any mention of modding tools for Spore in any foreseeable future?[/on-topic comment]

edit: double-ninja'd

[Tilla]

so, in good news: Will Wright has quit EA to form a new entertainment firm. Maybe he'll start making good stuff again?

[Sean Mirrsen]

He could've picked a much better name for his company though... "Stupid Fun Club" isn't all that appealing. Unless it's a stab at EA...

[PTTG??]

so, in good news: Will Wright has quit EA to form a new entertainment firm. Maybe he'll start making good stuff again?

You forget that "cute" spore was his idea.

Ah well. Maybe he'll take annother swing at Simcity. But it's probable that EA kept the Sim brand.
Beeeeesides, there's already somebody making a better simcity.

I'll give him a chance to come up with something. I might even like it if he created a nice wossname- casual game. Just so long as they don't let him talk about it. He hypes his games too much so it's always a disappointment.

[Rhodan]

Hmm. You two are forgetting that Humans ARE part of evolution, and thus any selection they do is natural selection. We're the dominant species, and as such we are part of the natural selection process. Our "artificial selection" is just part of the whole thing. Thus, Evolution happens whether humans guide it or not.

Aha, but the whole debate began about evolution in a game.  If we as the player influence the creatures in the game, then we are not part of the evolution, nor part of their universe.  Therefore, the game is not simulating actual evolution in it's pure form.

Anything we do to creatures around us is still evolution taking it's course.  We have evolved the brains and tools to edit other creature's genes, so genetic engineering is "natural".   Plenty of parasites already influence their host's behaviour, and plenty of social insects (ants and bees and stuff) are capable of triggering mutations in their offspring.  Not on purpose, but it's the same thing.
The part where humans do all this stuff on purpose is just because we have evolved the brains to do it.

Long story short, you cannot perform unnatural selection inside our own universe because "unnatural" is a subjective term, it just means "by humans".  Any form of selection caused by someone outside the universe (a game, for example) is unnatural and thus not pure evolution.

Also, I don't get how you can possibly despise official science in itself.  You can despise certain types of scientists, or the way media treats science, or how some branches of science waste money on seemingly unimportant fields.
There are carploads of people out there challenging science every day, and they often fail.  And when they don't fail, their new theory is challenged again by other scientist.  Personally I think that medicine, technology and all that jazz work a little too well for science to be so fundamentally flawed that it has to be despised.
It's admirable that you like to think for yourself, but going "Oh, but I don't like official science." when your views are challenged by well-documented scientific theories that withstood every challenge thus far is a bit silly.

[Sowelu]

As much as I would defend Spore to the death...

I believe this new expansion is SimChoper II.

Really?  I liked SimCopter a lot.

I'm more afraid it'll be more like Streets of SporeCity.

[Tormy]

so, in good news: Will Wright has quit EA to form a new entertainment firm. Maybe he'll start making good stuff again?

...again? He has made some very popular games, but I never liked any of those [Sims, Spore, Sim City] to be honest.

[PTTG??]

Nothin' wrong with Streets of SimCity, other than the awfulness. Really it's the demented cousin of GTA when it comes down to it.

I liked SimChopper, though, that was fun. Especially the Gunship.

[Org]

Spore:Too Childish looking
It looked good earlier on.

[Davion]

so, in good news: Will Wright has quit EA to form a new entertainment firm. Maybe he'll start making good stuff again?

Except EA holds stock in the company, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Though from what I've read, the reasons Spore sucked was because of the design decisions Wright and others on the team made, and not necessarily EA putting them in a choke hold.

[Sordid]

Most importantly, if the answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no, what defines a creature that can artificially select? Is it sentience, that oh-so-unprovable quality that only one person can be definitely proven to have (me)?

Well when it comes down to it you can't definitely prove that the chair you sit in exists. But other people behave like they're sentient and there's nothing physiologically different about them that would suggest their mental capabilities are lesser than yours (except retarded or brain damaged individuals, obviously). It is entirely reasonable to suppose that they possess sentience like you do on these grounds alone.

After all, people are really just part of the environment. Just like a plant may adapt to become more productive of nectar so that bees will select it; can not a cow just evolve to become more productive of milk so that humans will select it?

Why does intention play so large a role?

Because that's what we, humans, do. We predict the future, in a way that no other animal can quite match, and plan our decisions in advance. A lion hunts antelopes because he wants to eat. The fact that he'd eaten all the slow ones and only the fast ones are left to breed is for him a side effect. In fact, if he were smart he'd kill the fast ones first, so that in the future he'd have an easier job of it. We, on the other hand, do our selection not with the immediate result in mind but with the future one. And if you're not sure if there's any meaningful difference, just look at what we've done with a lot of species, wth the whole ecosystem and biosphere. We are not shaped by our environment to be successful in it anymore, we shape it to suit us.

Look, I despise official science and its methods.

Then I have to assume you're writing this as you're sitting in a damp cave with nothing but animal skins for clothes and nuts and berries for food. Because surely you would not be so hypocritical as to reap the fruits of science while claiming to despise it, yes?
Also, I would really love to know how you manage to access the internet without a computer. Or electricity, for that matter.

And nomenclature.

That is your problem. If you want to redefine the terms used, feel free to write a few papers detailing your ideas and see what the scientific community thinks of them. Until then, however, you will respect the established nomenclature whether you like it or not. Or be laughed at and ridiculed for misusing it. Your call.

[Micro102]

evolution...i agree, if humans interfer and cause the mutations then its not evolution. its us forcing a change to suit our needs.

changing without mutation is called adaptation