Also on AOL
- Autos
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Gaming
- Finance
- Entertainment on AOL
- Lifestyle on AOL
- Sports on AOL
- Travel on AOL
- More on AOL
Featured Galleries
Joystiq
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-15-2009 @ 2:32PM
Robert said...
There's the general theory of evolution, and then the specific theory of evolution. Macroevolution vs microevolution. Creationist scientists (yes they exist and no it's not an oxymoron) agree with microevolution, that evolution occurs WITHIN a species. Think of dog breeding. Think of birds whose beaks grow or shrink. This is the only kind of evolution I think you can compare WoW to, because from level 1 to 80 a character's stats increase. Then again, every naked level 1 Dwarf warrior has the same stats, and every naked level 80 Dwarf warrior has the same stats. So could that even be defined as microevolution, or just normal growth, akin to a human progressing from infancy to adulthood? (not accounting of course for differences in personality, environment, influences of gathering profession etc)
Macroevolution applied to WoW would mean that a Dwarf could become a troll. Won't happen, period, you can't even pay for it. Sure, you can pay for a gender reassignment, but you're still a Dwarf...with the same stats.
Even if you try to apply [SPOILER ALERT] evolution of Iron Dwarves to the Azerothian varieties, or those mecho-Gnomes to Azerothian fleshly Gnomes...they're still Dwarves and Gnomes.
This whole comparison of WoW to evolution is just someone's pathetic attempt to jump on the 150th Darwin anniversary bandwagon.
Reply
2-15-2009 @ 5:23PM
xnn said...
There is only one difference between micro and macroevolution.... time. The processes which create variation remain relatively unchanged.
Although the whole WoW to evolution comparison is horribly flawed, you must understand that it might not be best compared to a "dwarf turning into a troll." The best analogy I can muster is that it would be more like a troll and a dwarf having a common ancestor a great deal of time ago.
We simply have not been around long enough to even observe macroevolution (although there is some interesting observations regarding microevolution), and it would not be some magic "ah ha!" moment where we would see a dwarf giving birth to a baby troll. The variations are slight, and as certain groups of a given species in various areas find a new niche, or deal with any change in environment, those whose genes allow them to more easily survive and pass on those genes. Given enough time, those variations would continue until there would be distinct differences (such as say a wolf and a domesticated dog). As even more time progresses, the differences in genes would be so much that they could no longer mate and produce viable offspring... and so on and so forth until we would consider them a "different species."
I won't even dare touch on the subject of "creationist scientists," as I'm trying to keep this civil.
2-15-2009 @ 5:38PM
Cambro said...
I don't even know what to reply with. It's all so convenient how it works out that macroevolution simply must be true even though we haven't been around long enough to observe it, yet by the same token creationism is completely out because it would have happened so long ago that it simply can't be observed. Creationist scientists don't deny science itself, my friend. Creationism is simply another, viable (yes) explanation for how we are here, like intelligent design and evolution. One hinges on random chance events, the other two hinge on a designer with or without a purpose. Science's job is to answer how, not why. And science certainly must not rule out a reasonable hypothesis simply because it cannot be completely observed.