PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed: Syndicate and Charles Darwin



king-hailz
05-09-2015, 01:00 AM
Okay so we are pretty sure now that the next AC is set during Victorian London, we don't know the exact time but it's got to be some time after 1837. We know that Charles Darwin was born close to this time and that The Origin of Species was published during this era! In the AC universe this was all a cover up, the Templars always covered it up! As seen in this puzzle from AC2:

http://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/assassinscreed/images/4/40/Glyph_20_5.png/revision/latest/thumbnail-down/width/340/height/340?cb=20131112015000&format=webp


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynntKx4xk3g&feature=youtu.be

So we know that he was alive during this era! However do you think this will play a major role in the story! I think it could!

ze_topazio
05-09-2015, 01:14 AM
What the Templars covered up was the fact the ancestral monkeys suddenly evolved in to humans out of nowhere, by fabricating the "Lucy" skeleton they made up the, at the time, missing link in Human evolution, the theory of evolution is still valid and maybe monkeys would have eventually evolved in to Humans anyway, but as we know TWCB used their science to unnaturally evolve monkeys in to humans, something that the Templars and maybe even the Assassins don't want humankind as a whole to know.

I-Like-Pie45
05-09-2015, 01:35 AM
Darwin am wrong!

Meow am not a once a monkey!

ze_topazio
05-09-2015, 01:44 AM
Meow was once a majestic Smilodon.

Goxxi
05-09-2015, 01:56 AM
What the Templars covered up was the fact the ancestral monkeys suddenly evolved in to humans out of nowhere, by fabricating the "Lucy" skeleton they made up the, at the time, missing link in Human evolution, the theory of evolution is still valid and maybe monkeys would have eventually evolved in to Humans anyway, but as we know TWCB used their science to unnaturally evolve monkeys in to humans, something that the Templars and maybe even the Assassins don't want humankind as a whole to know.

Well it's true , Darwinism is just a theory which even the founder himself did not realize that much seriously and as something questionless.

Personally I am not a supporter of his theory and I simply believe that there is no mechanism whereby the ameba or monkey evolved into the man and also I do not believe that life could start from a dead matter, especially now when science proved that DNA contain the "informations" which are made from the binary codes which are very difficult to believe that they could arise by itself , spontaniously.


Also on some way the Charles Darwin became very fast the cosset of establishment and capitalism , couse he claims that man is just a more developed animal and that order of things is one human society is like a those in animal kingdom , where big fish eat a small fish , which completely justify the exploitation , colonialism and that imperialistic and expansionistic order of western colonial powers , and know when is everything allowed , relativized and no more a moral boundaries that gave a big stimulus and strong wind into the back to the ruling elite and establishment who gained their power by exploitation of others.

Also it's not some big surprise why darwinism made such a success and why they insist on it so much , couse darwinism (social darwinism to be precise) is a mirror of capitalistic order.

D.I.D.
05-09-2015, 02:24 AM
Well it's true , Darwinism is just a theory which even the founder himself did not realize that much seriously and as something questionless.

Personally I am not a supporter of his theory and I simply believe that there is no mechanism whereby the ameba or monkey evolved into the man and also I do not believe that life could start from a dead matter, especially now when science proved that DNA contain the "informations" which are made from the binary codes which are verydifficult to believe that they could arise by itself , spontaniously.

"Theory" doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean "a guess" or "a supposition", and it doesn't mean "a thing that could go either way". It's a solid description of the way life works which can be tested and repeated. A theory is potentially refutable, but this one has held up for rather a long time. The theory of evolution is observable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment), there's a pretty much complete fossil record to back it up and new fossils slide right into the order in exactly the way we expect them to do. Not only is evolution demonstrably true, there's also an observable shift in the functions of proteins that have no DNA (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5967/869.abstract?searchid=1&HITS=10&hits=10&sortspec=date&resourcetype=HWCIT&maxtoshow=&RESULTFORMAT=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fulltext=Weissmann) when they're moved from one environment to another. To argue against it is to insist on so many layers of interlocked millions-to-one chances that we might as well give up on science or knowledge all together.

As for Darwin's certainty about what he was observing, people like to cherry-pick within the following quote to support the idea that he was unsure, but he was not:


To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

It doesn't matter if you think "life" cannot form from "non-life". That's a question for chemists and theologians. If you believe in a creator god, then your god created an evolving system, and yes, we are apes.

There are no "binary codes" in DNA.

Goxxi
05-09-2015, 02:37 AM
There is a binary codes in DNA , those binary codes are "informations" which makes our physical and mental characteristics ............and no we are not apes ( but it's your right to call yourself an ape and to believe that your ancestors were an apes)

And yes I do believe in God , Creator...........but I do not believe that is a "God" a physical entity nor old man with a white beard (that is more metaphorical image) , notion of God is something which our mind can not comprehend and something out of sensors of our 5 senses , but that is already the area of metaphysics and philosophy ..........and there are many scientists and educated persons from different areas who study that very seriously.

Altair1789
05-09-2015, 04:00 AM
There is a binary codes in DNA , those binary codes are "informations" which makes our physical and mental characteristics ............and no we are not apes ( but it's your right to call yourself an ape and to believe that your ancestors were an apes)

And yes I do believe in God , Creator...........but I do not believe that is a "God" a physical entity nor old man with a white beard (that is more metaphorical image) , notion of God is something which our mind can not comprehend and something out of sensors of our 5 senses , but that is already the area of metaphysics and philosophy ..........and there are many scientists and educated persons from different areas who study that very seriously.

(very basic biology) DNA is simply composed of nucleotides (among other things) that code for certain amino acids which make certain proteins which make us who we are. Sorta like a computer's 0's and 1's, except it's with the 4 nucleotides adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine

Now about religion vs. evolution (or science in general) there are quite a few ways evolution and Adam and Eve COULD coexist. At least in my religion


Personally I am not a supporter of his theory and I simply believe that there is no mechanism whereby the ameba or monkey evolved into the man and also I do not believe that life could start from a dead matter, especially now when science proved that DNA contain the "informations" which are made from the binary codes which are very difficult to believe that they could arise by itself , spontaniously

I hate to quote wikipedia, but here you go (about the "I do not believe life could start from a dead matter") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

VestigialLlama4
05-09-2015, 04:53 AM
Bear in mind that the glyph puzzles were created by a brain-damaged, undead, mentally unbalanced Subject 16. It was intended to be spooky and set rails for where the games could go in the future but isn't 100% accurate.

Like the glyph puzzles state that George Washington had the Apple of Eden which implied he was a Templar, AC3 says he wasn't a Templar and he in fact rejected and turned down the Apple.

As for Darwin, I am absolutely sure he'll be in the games. There are other great scientists, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, from this era as well.

Civona
05-09-2015, 05:59 AM
I hope that if he's in at all, they use it as an excuse to clear up common misconceptions about him and expose some of the more inane objections to his theory. And judging by this thread, yeah, they should probably explain what a "theory" means too.

king-hailz
05-09-2015, 08:19 AM
(very basic biology) DNA is simply composed of nucleotides (among other things) that code for certain amino acids which make certain proteins which make us who we are. Sorta like a computer's 0's and 1's, except it's with the 4 nucleotides adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine

Now about religion vs. evolution (or science in general) there are quite a few ways evolution and Adam and Eve COULD coexist. At least in my religion



I hate to quote wikipedia, but here you go (about the "I do not believe life could start from a dead matter") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

What religion are you?

Also I know they could just change it but this is quite important and we know that the first civilization created mankind in the AC universe so Charles Darwin may have wanted to cover it up... He could he an assassin or Templars but I say Templar because of not telling the truth...

Also I know what a theory is and Evolution is not a guess like someone said before. However it is no 100% proven and is not 100% correct otherwise it would be called the law of evolution...

Some people believe and some don't! An argument people have is that we can see dogs have evolved by natural selection to the breed we want! HOWEVER! Since we started breeding dogs we have not once ever seen it evolve to another species by evolution! There is no recorded data that shows a species evolving to another species, which is what claimed to happen with humans, unless humans are the same species as apes???

VestigialLlama4
05-09-2015, 09:22 AM
What religion are you?

Religion has absolutely nothing to do with scientific facts and observations. Those things will remain the same regardless of any doctrine or belief that will make you sleep soundly at night.


Also I know they could just change it but this is quite important and we know that the first civilization created mankind in the AC universe so Charles Darwin may have wanted to cover it up... He could he an assassin or Templars but I say Templar because of not telling the truth...

Per the Lore. The First Civilizations are part of "the Missing Link" before Homo Sapiens. Ergo, evolution absolutely happened and did take place. It's only slightly altered. All the Animus details comes from DNA and genetics, none of that would have gained much ground if it had not been for Charles Darwin.


Also I know what a theory is and Evolution is not a guess like someone said before. However it is no 100% proven and is not 100% correct otherwise it would be called the law of evolution...

A scientific theory is quite different than what a fan theory of headcannon. Evolution is pretty much 100% proven, its just the structure, possibilities and all kinds of details that need ironing out. Darwin himself was a little fuzzy on inheritance and he essentially said that's a road for future researchers. It's only later when the Catholic Monk Gregor Mendel's research became available to a wider science community that genetics gained greater ground.

D.I.D.
05-09-2015, 11:01 AM
There is a binary codes in DNA , those binary codes are "informations" which makes our physical and mental characteristics ............and no we are not apes ( but it's your right to call yourself an ape and to believe that your ancestors were an apes)

And yes I do believe in God , Creator...........but I do not believe that is a "God" a physical entity nor old man with a white beard (that is more metaphorical image) , notion of God is something which our mind can not comprehend and something out of sensors of our 5 senses , but that is already the area of metaphysics and philosophy ..........and there are many scientists and educated persons from different areas who study that very seriously.

You don't understand mathematics, evolutionary biology, or how many senses a human being has.

D.I.D.
05-09-2015, 12:12 PM
Some people believe and some don't! An argument people have is that we can see dogs have evolved by natural selection to the breed we want! HOWEVER! Since we started breeding dogs we have not once ever seen it evolve to another species by evolution! There is no recorded data that shows a species evolving to another species, which is what claimed to happen with humans, unless humans are the same species as apes???

Yes, we are a type of great ape, down a branch of them. There is massive variety among the great apes, and we accept that, yet so many of us struggle to see ourselves among them.

Arguably, we have seen dogs evolve into different animals. My sister's flat-faced, short-legged, barrel-chested monstrosity of a dog is nothing like its original wild dog ancestors. In fact, it's more different to them physiologically than other animals you accept as being different species, although they all remain dogs. The domestic dog represents a diversion in its super-family. My sister's dog's features would be detrimental to survival in the wild, and it's unlikely dogs with its features would have met to breed again and again (and indeed, in the wild, they never have). We created the artificial conditions in which they would. The reason you don't see something more dramatic happening, like a dog becoming an aquatic animal, is that there is no evolutionary pressure on them to do so. We breed them for variety, and then we preserve those types and interbreed their genes further. We've only been doing this for perhaps 15,000 years, and intensively for much less than that. This is not how environmental circumstances affect an animal over generations.

We have observed evolution in complex animals, by reviving dead species. If you're familiar with the children's pet marketed as "Sea Monkeys", you'll know that it's possible for life to stop without dying and to be revived later. Researchers found preserved 'dead' species of water fleas and parasitic mites preserved in mud from the bottom of a lake, brought them back to life, and then interbred species from different eras to allow us to observe the traits of one animal being passed on in the inter-species offspring.
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7171/abs/nature06291.html)
But because we're talking about scales of millions of years for natural circumstances to produce fully new animals, our observation has to be done via the fossil record, and it's remarkably tight. We can see distinctly that animals changed stage by stage from a land-based shoreline hunter into a wading animal into a sea-bound animal, and we can trace these stages back to Pakicetus and Indohyus. Dolphin embryos still have the buds of hind limbs, which are useless to the dolphin and are reabsorbed during the foetus's growth; a strange mechanism for a god to place in an animal through choice. We can look at unique creatures in closed environments, such as the Olms of isolated cave systems in the Plitvice forests, and see that they found themselves in dark prisons and adapted to prosper in their new circumstances - a different animal to their salamander relatives outside.

There are drugs that have probably quietly saved your life or the life of someone you love which are products of evolutionary understanding. The diseases we fight with them are a threat because they evolve. We use it to create vastly different foods than our ancestors ate, possibly triggering gluten sensitivity in the population due to breeding choices of wheat in the mid-1900s. We see different regional populations and racial inheritance of genetic problems, such as lactose intolerance or sickle-cell anaemia.

If all creatures were created by a god one by one, with deliberate action, that presents a number of problems for any believer in a conscious god (especially a loving god). It makes little sense to say that a god created and discontinued countless lifeforms in such a way that it would match up perfectly with the expectations of an evolutionary system to an intelligent species later on. It makes no sense that a creator god would mess about for hundreds of millions of years with so many rewrites of the planet's flora and fauna if what he/she was really aiming for was to create human beings with the atmosphere and environment we have today. Most pressingly, anyone who believes in a god ought to realise that evolution gets their creator off the hook for some major crimes of omnipotence if they would just accept that their god must have set evolution going but didn't design the whole business - otherwise. your god intentionally made worms whose entire existence is a loop based around children drinking their eggs in water and then having the adult eat its way out of the child through its leg, or its major organs, or its eye, leaving the host lifeless or crippled. Creationists love to talk about the complexity of our eyes, but they don't like to hear that our eyes are not the "best" in nature, and indeed contain major flaws due to the routing of nerves through the retina, blocking receptors: an error that left us with blind spots. But we work, and we work well, so we live well and breed well.