By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Anti-Spore site launches, cites “attack on Christian values”

Gnizmo on 10 September 2008
slimeattack said:
I think that a Nintendo fanboy created this site, because the game is casual but isn't on the Wii.

 Oh the fun of trolling. The one time you don't have to bother to actually think when typing. There is a Spore already released for the DS and it is being made for all systems but pushed on the Wii in press statements (from what I've seen). You really should be more subtle if you don't want to add bans to your signature.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

Around the Network
Lafiel on 10 September 2008
TruckOSaurus said:
Avalach21 said:
Spore makes a joke out of the evolutionary theory, if anything.

Honestly, playing the game made me more skeptical of the theory of evolution. I'm the player, and I have to decide what body parts will help my animal survive, and it makes me wonder how an unconscious... entity... like nature itself... can make decisions like that. It seems far fetched.

Maybe you should read a bit more on the theory of evolution... nature doesn't decide anything :

The strongest members of a species survive in greater number because of x attribute so that attribute is more likely to be passed on to the next generations while the members with useless attribute y don't survive as well so with time this attribute disapears.

 

 

I wouldn't say strongest, but "fittest".

for example in Australia the bigger snakes die, because they can eat the big cane toads, which produce enough poison to kill those snakes, while the smaller ("weaker") ones of the same species only can eat smaller cane toads, which don't have enough poison an hence land snakes in australia are getting smaller - this is a modern example of evolution

 

@ Gnizmo )

in biological terms "fittest" includes reproduction, so that human in your example wouldn't be the fittest



Sam Yikin on 10 September 2008
Lafiel said:
TruckOSaurus said:
Avalach21 said:
Spore makes a joke out of the evolutionary theory, if anything.

Honestly, playing the game made me more skeptical of the theory of evolution. I'm the player, and I have to decide what body parts will help my animal survive, and it makes me wonder how an unconscious... entity... like nature itself... can make decisions like that. It seems far fetched.

Maybe you should read a bit more on the theory of evolution... nature doesn't decide anything :

The strongest members of a species survive in greater number because of x attribute so that attribute is more likely to be passed on to the next generations while the members with useless attribute y don't survive as well so with time this attribute disapears.

 

 

I wouldn't say strongest, but "fittest".

for example in Australia the bigger snakes die, because they can eat the big cane toads, which produce enough poison to kill those snakes, while the smaller ones of the same species only can eat smaller cane toads, which don't have enough poison an hence land snakes in australia are getting smaller - this is a modern example of evolution

 

@ Gnizmo )

in biological terms "fittest" includes reproduction, so that human in your example wouldn't be the fittest

 

Good idea. I was thinking about that but didn't do it.
Another perfect example is antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The bacteria that are not resistant simply die when they encounter an antibiotic, but ocasionally a strain resistant to the antibiotic is created through mutation. When that happens the resistant strain continues to live and reproduce but the others die out. Scientists then develop a way to counter the new bacteria, but then a resistant strain develops, etc.



TruckOSaurus on 10 September 2008
Lafiel said:
TruckOSaurus said:
Avalach21 said:
Spore makes a joke out of the evolutionary theory, if anything.

Honestly, playing the game made me more skeptical of the theory of evolution. I'm the player, and I have to decide what body parts will help my animal survive, and it makes me wonder how an unconscious... entity... like nature itself... can make decisions like that. It seems far fetched.

Maybe you should read a bit more on the theory of evolution... nature doesn't decide anything :

The strongest members of a species survive in greater number because of x attribute so that attribute is more likely to be passed on to the next generations while the members with useless attribute y don't survive as well so with time this attribute disapears.

 

 

I wouldn't say strongest, but "fittest".

for example in Australia the bigger snakes die, because they can eat the big cane toads, which produce enough poison to kill those snakes, while the smaller ("weaker") ones of the same species only can eat smaller cane toads, which don't have enough poison an hence land snakes in australia are getting smaller - this is a modern example of evolution

 

@ Gnizmo )

in biological terms "fittest" includes reproduction, so that human in your example wouldn't be the fittest

Yeah I agree, the term strongest wasn't accurate, fittest "fits" better.

 



Signature goes here!

Sam Yikin on 10 September 2008
TruckOSaurus said:
Lafiel said:
TruckOSaurus said:
Avalach21 said:
Spore makes a joke out of the evolutionary theory, if anything.

Honestly, playing the game made me more skeptical of the theory of evolution. I'm the player, and I have to decide what body parts will help my animal survive, and it makes me wonder how an unconscious... entity... like nature itself... can make decisions like that. It seems far fetched.

Maybe you should read a bit more on the theory of evolution... nature doesn't decide anything :

The strongest members of a species survive in greater number because of x attribute so that attribute is more likely to be passed on to the next generations while the members with useless attribute y don't survive as well so with time this attribute disapears.

 

 

I wouldn't say strongest, but "fittest".

for example in Australia the bigger snakes die, because they can eat the big cane toads, which produce enough poison to kill those snakes, while the smaller ("weaker") ones of the same species only can eat smaller cane toads, which don't have enough poison an hence land snakes in australia are getting smaller - this is a modern example of evolution

 

@ Gnizmo )

in biological terms "fittest" includes reproduction, so that human in your example wouldn't be the fittest

Yeah I agree, the term strongest wasn't accurate, fittest "fits" better.

 

 

I sort of meant genetically strongest (most fitting traits) but fittest is the best way to put it.



Around the Network
largedarryl on 10 September 2008
Sam Yikin said:
TruckOSaurus said:
Lafiel said:
TruckOSaurus said:
Avalach21 said:
Spore makes a joke out of the evolutionary theory, if anything.

Honestly, playing the game made me more skeptical of the theory of evolution. I'm the player, and I have to decide what body parts will help my animal survive, and it makes me wonder how an unconscious... entity... like nature itself... can make decisions like that. It seems far fetched.

Maybe you should read a bit more on the theory of evolution... nature doesn't decide anything :

The strongest members of a species survive in greater number because of x attribute so that attribute is more likely to be passed on to the next generations while the members with useless attribute y don't survive as well so with time this attribute disapears.

 

 

I wouldn't say strongest, but "fittest".

for example in Australia the bigger snakes die, because they can eat the big cane toads, which produce enough poison to kill those snakes, while the smaller ("weaker") ones of the same species only can eat smaller cane toads, which don't have enough poison an hence land snakes in australia are getting smaller - this is a modern example of evolution

 

@ Gnizmo )

in biological terms "fittest" includes reproduction, so that human in your example wouldn't be the fittest

Yeah I agree, the term strongest wasn't accurate, fittest "fits" better.

 

 

I sort of meant genetically strongest (most fitting traits) but fittest is the best way to put it.

Of course reproductive speed/efficiency/etc is an evolutionary trait and something that is very specific to survival of the fittest.

 



Avalach21 on 10 September 2008
Lafiel said:
TruckOSaurus said:
Avalach21 said:
Spore makes a joke out of the evolutionary theory, if anything.

Honestly, playing the game made me more skeptical of the theory of evolution. I'm the player, and I have to decide what body parts will help my animal survive, and it makes me wonder how an unconscious... entity... like nature itself... can make decisions like that. It seems far fetched.

Maybe you should read a bit more on the theory of evolution... nature doesn't decide anything :

The strongest members of a species survive in greater number because of x attribute so that attribute is more likely to be passed on to the next generations while the members with useless attribute y don't survive as well so with time this attribute disapears.

 

 

I wouldn't say strongest, but "fittest".

for example in Australia the bigger snakes die, because they can eat the big cane toads, which produce enough poison to kill those snakes, while the smaller ("weaker") ones of the same species only can eat smaller cane toads, which don't have enough poison an hence land snakes in australia are getting smaller - this is a modern example of evolution

Your example isn't evolution... it's survival of the fittest.  Nothing evolved, the bigger snakes die out and the smaller snakes live.  Nothing has evolved.

 



Here's a video from my band's last show Check out more (bigger) videos here http://www.youtube.com/user/icemanout
Lafiel on 10 September 2008

@ Avalach21 )

wrong, the same species changes it's form, it's getting smaller (over time) and evolves to adapt to a new factor (the cane toads were brought to australia by humans and reproduced explosively within several decades)



TruckOSaurus on 10 September 2008
Avalach21 said:
Lafiel said:

 

I wouldn't say strongest, but "fittest".

for example in Australia the bigger snakes die, because they can eat the big cane toads, which produce enough poison to kill those snakes, while the smaller ("weaker") ones of the same species only can eat smaller cane toads, which don't have enough poison an hence land snakes in australia are getting smaller - this is a modern example of evolution

Your example isn't evolution... it's survival of the fittest.  Nothing evolved, the bigger snakes die out and the smaller snakes live.  Nothing has evolved.

 

Yes this particular type of snake will slowly evolve to be smaller.



Signature goes here!

Thatmax on 10 September 2008

so because someone who is toerant of homosexuals designed the game it will make your children gay if they play it???