Species is an evolutionist game

Disagree with the premise of the game? Tell us why we're wrong, and bring the evidence to prove it!
Creaturesofhell
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:46 pm

Species is an evolutionist game

Post by Creaturesofhell » Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:43 am

Even though I have not been able to play the game, the gameplay I have seen shows that this is a pure evolutionist game. You have almost no control over what happens other than dna splicing aka SCIENCE. Arguing that Species is a creationist game is... how do I say this... not very logical. If you have read the FAQ, James Schumacher, the creator of the game if you did not already know, has ******* muscle spasms at this game being compared to Spore. Spore is an awesome game and one of the first I ever played, but if you want a purely creationist game go play spore. To say Species is a creationist game is like saying England is in Antarctica. It does not make any logical sense. What I am trying to get across is that, Species is an essentially pure evolutionist game in all forms. There is no logical way to say Species is a creationist game without mods.

User avatar
AngerDomeAble
Posts: 1319
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Species is an evolutionist game

Post by AngerDomeAble » Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:18 am

swearing is allowed for example I shall now say fuck and not be banned.
20 is against common sense.
Don't believe his lies.

User avatar
Quasar
Site Admin
Posts: 1731
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 2:04 am

Re: Species is an evolutionist game

Post by Quasar » Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:02 am

AngerDomeAble wrote:swearing is allowed for example I shall now say fuck and not be banned.
Swearing? That's fine. :roll:

But tempt not thy banhammer, lest you come to regret your life choices.

Image

Creaturesofhell
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:46 pm

Re: Species is an evolutionist game

Post by Creaturesofhell » Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:43 pm

AngerDomeAble wrote:swearing is allowed for example I shall now say fuck and not be banned.
WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!!!! THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!

MrKyurem
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 1:42 pm

Re: Species is an evolutionist game

Post by MrKyurem » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:40 pm

Creaturesofhell wrote:Even though I have not been able to play the game, the gameplay I have seen shows that this is a pure evolutionist game. You have almost no control over what happens other than dna splicing aka SCIENCE. Arguing that Species is a creationist game is... how do I say this... not very logical. If you have read the FAQ, James Schumacher, the creator of the game if you did not already know, has ******* muscle spasms at this game being compared to Spore. Spore is an awesome game and one of the first I ever played, but if you want a purely creationist game go play spore. To say Species is a creationist game is like saying England is in Antarctica. It does not make any logical sense. What I am trying to get across is that, Species is an essentially pure evolutionist game in all forms. There is no logical way to say Species is a creationist game without mods.
I am very, VERY tempted to yell at you, but I shan't.

Creationists can believe in evolution and still be considered creationists. What they don't agree with is certain theories for biogenesis - the origin of life. Species is both evolutionary and does NOT conflict with creationist beliefs, because it is never stated how the Primus Specium appeared.

Skylimit
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:57 pm

Re: Species is an evolutionist game

Post by Skylimit » Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:10 pm

Creationism afaik refers to rejection of evolution theory.
Maybe with different flavours, but I'm not aware that you can be a creationist and still believe in evolution.
Also, Evolution is a scientific fact, and that we all have common ancestors is also a fact, and in general, how and where life began is not mentioned, as it is not known
It could be that life will always originate, whenever the conditions are suitable... or it could be that life originated only once and is easily transported from planet to planet. Evolution theory only describes the mechanisms by which one species evolves into the next, whereas creationism rejects the evolution theory from a to z, as the species were all "created" as they now appear


From wiki :
Those holding that species had been created separately (such as Philip Gosse in 1847) were generally called "advocates of creation" but were also called "creationists", as in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends. As the creation–evolution controversy developed over time, the term "anti-evolutionists" became common. In 1929 in the United States, the term "creationism" first became associated with Christian fundamentalists, specifically with their rejection of human evolution and belief in a young Earth—although this usage was contested by other groups, such as old Earth creationists and evolutionary creationists, who hold different concepts of creation.[3][4][5]
Today, the American Scientific Affiliation, a prominent religious organisation in the United States, recognizes that there are different opinions among creationists on the method of creation, while acknowledging unity on the Abrahamic belief that God "created the universe."[6][7] Since the 1920s, literalist creationism in America has contested scientific theories, such as that of evolution,[8][9][10] which derive from natural observations of the universe and life. Literalist creationists[11] believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth.[12]

AnarchCassius
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:02 am

Re: Species is an evolutionist game

Post by AnarchCassius » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:30 pm

Maybe with different flavours, but I'm not aware that you can be a creationist and still believe in evolution.

although this usage was contested by other groups, such as old Earth creationists and evolutionary creationists, who hold different concepts of creation.
Creationism is in it's most basic form the belief that something is responsible for our existence. This can be young Earth creationism rejecting all evolution, young Earth creationism accepting micro evolution, old Earth creationism accepting evolution guided by intelligent design, and so on.

We have documented evidence of evolution in laboratory condition, we can say it's fact. We can say evolution is the best theoretical model we have. We can't say for certain there aren't factors we don't understand or other forces at work.

For someone interested in finding gaps in the evolutionary explanation a program like Species could be a useful simulation. Species is modeled on how evolution SHOULD work, some things are unnecessarily and unrealistically automated now (like limbs and gait) but the program assumes that the laws of evolution work and will take hold. If the simulation shows significant divergence from the predicted model and doesn't converge with greater realism that is useful data. As far as I am concerned evolution is correct but a primitive model that fails to account for our modern understanding of genetics. Homeotic mutation, horizontal gene transfer and epigenetics all provide adaption mechanisms that have not really been accounted for yet.

So if evolutionary theory is inaccurate in some noticeable way and Species is well modelled than that should become apparent. For example creature show a tendency toward increasing complexity. Things rarely loose limbs. This may be an artifact of coding, but if not than we can say this matches the tendency we expect to see. On the other hand if it IS an artifact and upon fixing it the species don't show any tendency to remain complex than we need to look for other factors that would drive such an increase. If increased environmental complexity, increased world size, detailed genetic simulations, longer run-times and so on all fail to work that can be taken as evidence that evolutionary theory is incomplete.

Species is evolutionist in that it assumes most of evolutionary theory is true, but if it's wrong that should show as well due to how it is programmed.

AnarchCassius
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:02 am

Re: Species is an evolutionist game

Post by AnarchCassius » Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:34 pm

This seems strangely appropriate:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3232#comic

AnarchCassius
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:02 am

Re: Species is an evolutionist game

Post by AnarchCassius » Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:27 pm

Another reason to think Species might be Creationist (well not really but I feel it's valid to cross post this here)

Me arguing against the current limb settings:
The fact that leg slots are there ready to be filled makes an easy refutation to true evolution occuring. Seeing species develop gene parts and assemble them more dynamically and randomly will slow the rate of progress but increase the variety of forms and the veracity of the simulation. We can't be accused of saying they are following "designed" paths which the current limb and head forms basically are.

Skylimit
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:57 pm

Re: Species is an evolutionist game

Post by Skylimit » Tue Jan 14, 2014 6:30 pm

It is not possible to simulate an entire planet from bateria to the overpopulated state we are now in
it would probably take all datacenters millennia, or who knows, billions of years

Yet, like with behaviour, if we list options, without pushing creatures in any direction, this still qualifies as true evolution
It will enable us to witness interesting things happen without having to wait forever
A framework shrinks down the options, and does not allow anything to happen that does not fit in, but it is still complex web of real choices

As I understand from earlier comments you wrote, you will still call species creationist, as long as we start off with primum specium
Well, you win, in that case :geek:

I happened to watch another debate between Dawkins and a creationist yesterday, and it appears the creationist did believe in young earth, and completely rejects evolution... for instance, depite of examples we can find of semi-developed eyes in several species, he could not be convinced that the eye may have improved/evolved over time. So, I do think the more common understanding of what creationism really means, is to be found in that corner

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest