Print

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

[DeKaFu]

Man, I know I should probably stay out of evolution debates, but...

Since this seems to be an argument on terms, here's some definitions:

Evolution: The change in gene frequencies over generations within a population. The word really only refers to the results, not the mechanisms.

When we're talking about the process of evolution, we're almost always talking about "Evolution by natural selection", which is the process by which most species came to be.

Natural selection: Basically, the individuals who are the worst at surviving dying without producing offspring. In order for it to cause evolution, there needs to be genetic variety in the population, among other things.

Being in a new environment doesn't cause them to "adapt" to it. It just causes everyone who isn't lucky enough to be genetically pre-adapted to it to die, and thus not pass on any genes.

Artificial selection: A somewhat arbitrary term referring genetic change between generations which is caused directly and intentionally by humans. It's the same as "selective breeding". It is when humans take a population of animals and then allow or disallow specific individuals from breeding in order to pass on the traits they want.

This is where domestic animals have come from.

Mutation: A random change in a DNA sequence. They range from harmless to fatal to beneficial. Mutations play a part in producing the genetic diversity required for natural selection to take place. A new mutation is not required for evolution to happen, though.


So. Basically, while both natural and artificial selection technically result in "evolution" of a species, the term "evolution" as it's usually intended refers to evolution by natural selection only. Also, artificially producing an environment in which natural selection can take place is not the same as artificial selection.

In summary: Spore has abso-frikkin'-lutely nothing to do with real evolution at all. Which is fine, because if it actually did have proper evolution-by-natural-selection it would lose its most (only?) fun feature, which is making your own monsters by hand.

Also I really want that parts pack, but I think $20 is an absolutely insane pricetag for it. I could buy a whole game for that...

[Asheron]

Spore has abso-frikkin'-lutely nothing to do with real evolution at all.

[PTTG??]

Spore has abso-frikkin'-lutely nothing to do with real evolution at all.

And on this we all agree. If this game was as much a failure as it was simply wrong, then it would be called E.T.

[Sergius]

Can you tell whether the brick that hit your car last week was deliberately dropped or happened to become loose due to an earthquake 20 years ago? You can't, but the effect is the same - you learned not to park your car under flimsy-looking brick archways.

If my car had been hit by a brick on purpose, I may not have parked it under a flimsy-looking brick archway at all, but next to a pond, and then I would learn that parking near ponds leads to bricks falling out of the sky trying to hit my car.

[Sergius]

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

But what makes humans so special? Is it the souls? It's simply not responsible to call one thing artificial selection and one thing symbiosis just because of the involvement of one particular species.

The fact that we are doing this explicitly for the purpose of seeing what "evolves", is reason enough to consider it tampering. If we all go extinct leaving all the debris from our civilization, and future generations of animals evolve to better survive in it, then they are evolving...

We don't have to be "special". If a dog starts doing exactly the same with any kind of forethought about what "evolves" from his actions with some other creature, I'm going to consider it artificial too.

@Sordid: I'm sorry that you missed the previous thread, a few months ago when Sean declared that he only considered things that he himself could prove to himself, and everything else and whatever scientists say is just bunk, and thought the same way about anything that science considered "true" from years of research (radiation, gravity, quantum physics, mass, energy, acceleration, etc. you name it), he had to see with his own eyes. I think he lost pretty much credibility then... (unless I'm confusing him with another poster, in which case I apologize). Bottom line is: the only credible source of science is his own backyard and what he can dig with his own two hands - not so far from the cave and skins and berries analogy that you make otherwise it's part of the great Modern Science Conspiracy.

(Sorry if this post seems inflammatory).

[Rhodan]

Spore has abso-frikkin'-lutely nothing to do with real evolution at all.

It does have to do with evolution.  Even though the actual mechanics behind evolution never really happen in the game, the Story is still about a cell climbing its way up the food chain.
If someone would make a game where you play through the history of the evolution of life on earth, there'd be no evolving in the game either, just a chronological list of creatures we've dug up so far.  It's still undeniably be a game about evolution, since it's about evolution on Earth.
Spore is the same, except you get to design all steps and make up your own creatures along the way.

[Sordid]

@Sordid: I'm sorry that you missed the previous thread, a few months ago when Sean declared that he only considered things that he himself could prove to himself, and everything else and whatever scientists say is just bunk, and thought the same way about anything that science considered "true" from years of research (radiation, gravity, quantum physics, mass, energy, acceleration, etc. you name it), he had to see with his own eyes. I think he lost pretty much credibility then... (unless I'm confusing him with another poster, in which case I apologize). Bottom line is: the only credible source of science is his own backyard and what he can dig with his own two hands - not so far from the cave and skins and berries analogy that you make otherwise it's part of the great Modern Science Conspiracy.

Well there is something to be said for being skeptical and checking things for yourself like that. Only one has to actually follow through on it, which I find is rarely the case. In my experience, more often than not it's people proudly declaring that "this is total bunk because I've never seen that with my own eyes" but ever so conveniently failing to add "because I've never bothered to actually go and look".

[Muz]

Spore was evolution themed. I suppose that's something.

It wasn't a game though. It was a horrible, ugly mass of plagiarism. I mean, what the hell.. every stage was simply a dumbed down game to the point of being barely a game. They should've just stuck with the creature stage and added some more depth to it so the little kiddies would love it. It would be fun if you could explore the world with a friend, multiplayer, or even make your own world. If you had a friend to play with or against, heck, it would be evolution.

My 8-y.o sister hated the civilization and space stage because they were so mind-numbingly boring, and she had no wish to conquer the world anyway. My brother did like the space stage, but only so he could blow up planets.

I would not dislike the game so much if it wasn't so overhyped, expensive, and made by a legendary game designer. At least the DRM didn't mess up your computer, unlike Starforce.

[G-Flex]

@Sordid: I'm sorry that you missed the previous thread, a few months ago when Sean declared that he only considered things that he himself could prove to himself, and everything else and whatever scientists say is just bunk, and thought the same way about anything that science considered "true" from years of research (radiation, gravity, quantum physics, mass, energy, acceleration, etc. you name it), he had to see with his own eyes. I think he lost pretty much credibility then... (unless I'm confusing him with another poster, in which case I apologize). Bottom line is: the only credible source of science is his own backyard and what he can dig with his own two hands - not so far from the cave and skins and berries analogy that you make otherwise it's part of the great Modern Science Conspiracy.

Well there is something to be said for being skeptical and checking things for yourself like that. Only one has to actually follow through on it, which I find is rarely the case. In my experience, more often than not it's people proudly declaring that "this is total bunk because I've never seen that with my own eyes" but ever so conveniently failing to add "because I've never bothered to actually go and look".

Except good luck seeing things like radiation (aside from visible light) and electrons with your own eyes.

The point is that it's ridiculous to think everything is bullshit just because you don't have firsthand knowledge of it. We have scientists for a reason; it's because we CAN'T go out and test everything for ourselves. If we had to, mankind would get absolutely fucking nowhere because hardly any information would be passed between generations.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Hey, don't you remember me saying that even my own deductions can be false? You seem to have missed the point - I only said I do not take established facts as the ultimate truth. And I don't remember saying I required 'first-hand' experience, anyone else's will do just fine. The research based on the observations is what I like to do myself, often on matters nobody else will want to touch with a ten-foot pole. When someone more educated will see no point in arguing over a long-established piece of research (so as not to stir up a hornet's nest - which seems to be exactly what's happening here), I think that anything is open to interpretation, especially in such complex matters as the underlying principles of current physical laws. I won't argue over simple truths, just the borderline-esoteric stuff. And let's drop the discussion of my views on modern science, it has no relation to the topic at hand.

[Micro102]

what about things that you cant see or touch?

[Sordid]

And I don't remember saying I required 'first-hand' experience, anyone else's will do just fine.

Then there is no reason for your dislike of science, since it's based on, y'know, first hand experiences of scientists. Which are then verified by other scientists.

The research based on the observations is what I like to do myself, often on matters nobody else will want to touch with a ten-foot pole.

Such as?

When someone more educated will see no point in arguing over a long-established piece of research (so as not to stir up a hornet's nest - which seems to be exactly what's happening here), I think that anything is open to interpretation, especially in such complex matters as the underlying principles of current physical laws.

Given that we don't know what the physial laws of the universe are, I'm inclined to agree with you there.

I won't argue over simple truths, just the borderline-esoteric stuff.

Interesting. What expertise do you have that makes you think your opinions on these matters are worth anything, if I may ask?

And let's drop the discussion of my views on modern science, it has no relation to the topic at hand.

On the contrary, it has everything to do with it.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Then there is no reason for your dislike of science, since it's based on, y'know, first hand experiences of scientists. Which are then verified by other scientists.

I have no problem with someone else's first hand experiences. Observing experiments is the only way to check the universal laws, after all. But determining the universal laws is an act of research, and not a factor of whether or not the scientist in question had first-hand experience. And read a few posts up - I dislike the current science, not science in general.

Such as?

Well, such as the matter at hand for example, Evolution. Nobody in their right mind would try to argue about evolution, much less the definition of evolution. You can consider my mind wrong if you like.

Interesting. What expertise do you have that makes you think your opinions on these matters are worth anything, if I may ask?

None. Do I need to? Why are experience and status so required in science for an idea to be even considered?

On the contrary, it has everything to do with it.

Does it now? Let's see: we were discussing... Spore? Evolution? Anything related to games? Like I said, drop the matter now before this degrades into another mindless meta-scientific flamewar. You can't make me change my ways, I won't even try to make you change yours, let alone affect the scientific society in any way, so why bother? Consider me the local russian weird guy and leave me to my devices. Discussion closed.

[Sordid]

I have no problem with someone else's first hand experiences. Observing experiments is the only way to check the universal laws, after all. But determining the universal laws is an act of research, and not a factor of whether or not the scientist in question had first-hand experience. And read a few posts up - I dislike the current science, not science in general.

Yes, you did say that. You failed to explain the difference, though.

Well, such as the matter at hand for example, Evolution. Nobody in their right mind would try to argue about evolution, much less the definition of evolution. You can consider my mind wrong if you like.

Really.
FYI there are quite a few genuine scientific controversies about evolution going on. Only not about whether or not it occurs (because it's been clear since the 19th century that it does) but rather how it occurs.

None. Do I need to? Why are experience and status so required in science for an idea to be even considered?

I didn't say anything even remotely like that, I asked you what expertise do you have that makes you think you know better than the scientific community. Maybe you're right, I don't know (I don't even know what it is you're claiming, for that matter). But what makes you think you are? Have you done any research, forumulated your own hypotheses and tested them out?

Does it now? Let's see: we were discussing... Spore? Evolution? Anything related to games? Like I said, drop the matter now before this degrades into another mindless meta-scientific flamewar. You can't make me change my ways, I won't even try to make you change yours, let alone affect the scientific society in any way, so why bother? Consider me the local russian weird guy and leave me to my devices. Discussion closed.

Yes, I imagine it is. Tell me, though, do you think declaring yourself closed-minded like that makes you... what, respectable? Or what exactly was that supposed to accomplish?

[Sean Mirrsen]

Spoiler: Somewhat long and rather off-topic text (click to show/hide)

Exactly? I can't say exactly. I know that with the way I am and with the way the social system is structured, no matter what idiotic or ingenious ideas I formulate they will never be used. I have no means of testing - as that would require me to obtain specialized equipment, or at least access to that equipment. Therefore I am left with examining what I can and using whatever coherent experiment descriptions I can see to try and devise a different picture than is currently the norm. Additionally, I'm just the average russian lazy man and don't devote myself to research. I read through Wikipedia and other assorted literature, look for interesting stuff on the Discovery channel, and if I see something that can occupy my mind, I think about it. I cannot be called a serious researcher by any stretch of the definition, but I like to look at things and think of logical ways of how these things could work. If I see an experiment with a result that contradicts my earlier view, I keep thinking, sometimes too broadly, to find suitable relationships between similar effects in other fields that would explain the effect. I can't do anything with these thoughts, since I rarely ever express them, but at times it's useful to dump a few kilobytes of thought experiments into a forum and see if anyone can find proof in favor or against them. All I usually see, however, is people pointing me at research by other people, not any sort of experimental or other evidently factual proof that the idea cannot explain.

In other words, there is nothing to discuss here at this point, because there was no point to the discussion in the first place.

"What began as a minor difference in the definition of the word "evolution", escalated into a war that has decimated a billion neurons. Sean Mirrsen and Sordid have all but exhausted the resources of the Internet in their struggle for domination. Both sides now crippled beyond medical help, the remnants of their supporters continue to battle on ravaged forums, their hatred fueled by over four thousand hours of total flamewar. This is a fight to the death. For each side, the only acceptable outcome is the complete humiliation of the other."

We don't want that to happen now, do we?
Text courtesy of the Total Annihilation intro.