erm pros are good at exploiting stuff, that’s why they are pro and that’s what they do most of the time. and we all know now changing the game around exploitation is not the answer now.
i was at master when goats happening if not wrong, only very little goat happening in my games, and nope, mei still dominate goats in those games.
double shield same too, enemy player play too much “meta” hero, that’s why double shield work most of the time.
and in the end, dev still sway to their opinion right? 222 and all those tanks nerf
and, you say you hated playing goats and double shield, if you are affected by those game’s and your teammate’s opinion on “that’s the meta” i dont think your statement will be critical enough for why this topic matters.
If the devs were only interested in balancing for the pro scene, they wouldn’t release a character that completely countered a much-loved meta, nor would they force them into months-long metas that they don’t want to play or that viewers don’t want to watch. What would be the benefit from them trying to sabotage their own professional league?
I didn’t say that, the pro/semi-pro players did. DPS heroes were rendered useless unless they could adapt to Brig/Zarya and double shield saw MT players forced onto Orisa.
Only a creationist can ask such a stupid question. The chicken didn’t just drop into existance. Neither did the egg. It was a process of many evolutionary steps. The egg might have been invented by nature a long time ago within the strain of a species that later would evolve into what we today call a chicken.
But very obviously the egg cannot be there without the animal laying it. So the animal was there first.
it’s not unusual for casual gamers to swap games, if the game is good enough they will come around to playing it here and there still, that’s kinda what it means to be casual.
Scientists in the respective field deny the idea that there is a single point in history where you can identify a specific sub species. You cannot point at one of these evolutionary steps and say: Ah, here the chicken appears for the first time. It doesn’t work like that. Evolution is a flow of transformation and it never ends.
The differences between each generation are so small you wouldn’t notice them at all. Only in the context of long periods of time you can see how evolution and natural selection have changed a species.
yeah but a humans wasn’t allways human, they had to evolve from somewhere, and they evolve through birth, egg is birth which means that is the closest conclusion you can come to, a chicken wasn’t allways a chicken, it had to be a bird first, and a bird wasn’t allways a bird, it was a reptile prior to that etc.
so the bird who laid the egg didn’t have to be what we constitute as a chicken for the egg to have evolved into a chicken.
if you are arguing that the bird had to be a form of chicken you’re just pushing the definition of what a chicken is and the answer would still be the same down the line anyways.
The problem - as you correctly assume - is the definition.
The names we use mostly refer to certain attributes and properties an animal has to fulfill in order to qualify for said name. But what are those attributes and properties? How is the bird that laid the egg giving birth to the first chicken (as you proposed) not a chicken aswell?
What you are saying is that it wasn’t a chicken but instead another bird from the fowl family. And that is not how it works. At least not in the scientific field.
well that depends on the point of view, my view is as i stated before.
the other view point is that a chicken is only a chicken when you first decide to call it that.
but to me that’s just a definition, the chicken was allways a chicken before you started calling it that, you just found a name for it that’s how i see it.
but anyways to respond to this
if you start going down the line this way, the first bird had to be a chicken and prior to that it was a reptile so you’ll end up with a reptile giving birth to the first kind of chicken if you classify the first bird a chicken.
so to me you’re only postponing the inevitable.
The time span we are talking about here is gigantic. According to science the first life appeared in the oceans (or water for that matter). So we can assume that all life derives from water animals.
Now try to imagine a fish laying eggs out of which come a sort of geckos, and one of those geckos then laying an egg spawning the first chicken. It’s absurd, right?
Again the differences between each generation are much more subtle and you couldn’t tell at what point the chicken appears first.
For the fish to become a gecko it needs some sort of limbs, a different breathing system and so on. I don’t need to tell you that this doesn’t happen from one generation to the next. It’s a long, very long process.
Btw the house chicken derived from the red junglefowl, and if you google that it looks basically the same as the house chicken. That is because we domesticated the red junglefowl. You see the naming thing is very misleading. Names give the impression races and species are a finite thing, but that’s just wrong.
Because your concept of evolution is techically and scientifically incorrect.
not if you constitute the first bird a chicken and if you constitute the first bird just being a reptile with feathers, then no it’s not farfetched that a gecko can birth a gecko with feathers.
we’re talking about definitions here, we’re not going from crocodile directly to your ordinary farm chicken.
we’re talking about the definitions of what makes a chicken a chicken and that has no relevance as that chicken had to be birthed from a non-chicken at some point no matter how you see it from that view.
but if you actually just view it from the first point you name it a chicken and then it becomes a chicken by that definition you wouldn’t be wrong in saying so technically.
but scientifically it’s a chicken before you call it a chicken.
no my definitions of evolution isn’t incorrect, you’re either misrepresenting what i am saying or misunderstanding it. because i just told you exactly the same thing you told me but you still told me i was wrong for saying the same thing you did.
if this isn’t evolution then i don’t know what you’re talking about.i just didn’t want to go to the microbial organism stage to keep it brief.
Well, IF you’d do that, yes. But noone with any scientific responsibility or understanding does that and with good reason.
Evolution is more about definition of classification, because genetically every life form is unique. So at one point you might find what you personally and specifically call a chicken, but only once for all eternity, which is the reason why your concept is futile at best.
No. The traits you refer to when calling it a chicken might have appeared already before in many ancestors of that chicken. So how do you justify your decision to call it suddenly a chicken? The differences between each generation are so small that simply giving it a different name than before would be absurd and scientifically confusing.
According to the status quo of this field it is. Just as you cannot point out the exact moment when the first human appeared you cannot point out when the first chicken appeared. That’s just how it is, and it’s not my fault if you don’t like this answer. It is the scientific point of view and you either accept that or you get a degree to deepen your understanding.
so you’re refuting that mutation happens through birthing new organisms?
so how do you define the process of species evolving to other types of species?
because a reptile have several steps before it becomes a bird and a bird have several steps before it becomes a chicken and along that trail you can’t call that bird a chicken before the mutation happens that which occurs when a new organism is birthed.
a bird doesn’t mutate into a chicken while it’s living, it’s birthed,
birth = mutation.
mutation = new species.
new species = chicken.
ergo a non-chicken had to have given birth to a chicken and thusly the egg comes first.
there’s something called a progenitor, the progenitor of a species.
these doesn’t fall from the sky, they are mutations from other species.
i can say a modern day human is a human, but where i want to put the distinction from where in the long ancestry line of evolution between monkeys to humans is how i define what a human is, but this is only pushing back or forward of what i would call a human and has no relevancy in the sense that a human had to be born out of something i wouldn’t call human, but very human like.
if you want to read into it more minutely here’s a scientific summary. https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg
birth does not produce mutation, DNA replication does
This is profoundly incorrect and a perfect example of the common misunderstanding on how evolution and taxonomy works.
Mutations are manifold, but never change the organism fundamentally, except over long periods of time due to accumulation of many mutations (which is, as I already said, the reason why your concept doesn’t work).
And in any case of a mutation that doesn’t make the organism unable to survive, the mutation first has to endure the test of life. For example shorter legs for Jaguars might reduce the chances of success when hunting/praying, while longer legs have the opposite effect.
So in conclusion a single mutation will not create a new species or race, but rather improve or impair the specific animal. But you wouldn’t give it a new name just because it has longer legs.
This article mentions proto-chickens creating chickens, which is just another way of saying that chickens already existed before. There is still no point in history where you could distinct one generation from the next one.
It also explains that the egg in evolutionary terms existed long before the chicken, which of course is a different take on your initial question. And yet you still need an animal to lay the egg. So in order to have a chicken you need an egg, and for the egg you need 2 chickens.
if you are to believe this youtube channel there’s no species because there’s no clear distinction when one began and one stopped being what it was.
but that’s because based off of this assumption you are not making distinctions between evolutionary traits.
but there is, something had to have made a leap in evolution for eggs to come about, so goes for other traits.
where you make that distinction seems to be a personal one as people have their own ideas of what makes a thing a thing.
as chickens go, you would need proto-chickens to create chickens.
but are proto-chickens actually chickens?
well i’m making the distinction that they aren’t because they aren’t domesticated.
so a proto-chicken giving birth to a domesticated chicken isn’t a chicken in it’s true sense.
and hence why i call it that.
i mean you can’t call a kid an adult and give them beer, we make distinctions.
that’s how we operate, but we also disagree as humans where the line goes.
if you would run down that rabbit hole there would be no point to a judicial system or a school system or a healthcare system that treats kids and adults differently.
there’s a reason we call it, wild cats and not just cats.
there’s a reason why we call it child labour and not just labour.
we make distinctions.
even if eggs do come from chickens, an egg without the proper mix isn’t a chicken egg.
but also ponder this.
eggs existed before chickens, but they weren’t specifically chicken eggs.
so eggs did exist before chickens did.
no one made the distinction if it was a chicken egg or a lizard egg or a fish egg.
There IS no clear distinction from one generation to the next. That is a fact. Only by broad classification we are able to distinct species that are related to each other.
It’s a field of science. So no, it’s not personal. Don’t even try to go there.
You also need proto-renegades to create renegades, does that mean these are 2 different species? No, obviously not. Because otherwise your offspring would be a different species aswell. In that case you are the proto-type and your offspring the new whatever. You see the word proto really doesn’t mean much.
Domestication usually is a process of artificial and selective breeding, so even here you cannot make a clear distinction of when the chicken wasn’t / was domesticated. At a certain point it just seemed “enough” domesticated to call it that.
This analogy is terrible and with only a little bit of brain power you’ll see why.
This is true and I agree. However since the question mentioned specifically the chicken it is only natural to assume the egg is a chicken egg. But technically you are right.
so where do you draw the distinction between species? when there’s been enough iterations to classify it as something else?
or is it when you treat it differently?
i mean if i bring a farmer a wild chicken they wouldn’t buy it because it’s not a chicken they would be willing to buy.
that’s my view of it.
you gotta make these distinctions or else you would be conducting felonies.
anyways, i hope you do understand my assessment of it, but i’m just gonna be team egg no matter how things turn out because you can spin that conundrum too many ways in either direction, but i try to keep it as simple as possible
because one of my many mottos is:
if you can’t explain it to a kid, then how are you gonna explain it to anybody else.