You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition
Moderated by Suppiluliuma, PhatFish, Fisk, EpiC_Anonymous, Epd999

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.66 replies
Age of Empires Heaven » Forums » Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition » I Just tried 20Egy ca's vs 15bland ha's and the CA's WIN!!
Bottom
Topic Subject:I Just tried 20Egy ca's vs 15bland ha's and the CA's WIN!!
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
hydarnes
Clubman
posted 07-23-99 08:06 PM ET (US)         
First of all I havn't been smoking crack.

I have just gotten done testing 20Egyptian Ca's lined up in a half-moon, with 15 bland(greek) ha's lind up in the middle. They were both set to post-Iron age. The first time I tested, there were 11 ca's left, the second time there were 9, and the third time there were 12 left. I have not the slitest clue why, so don't ask me.

------------------
Long Live Egypt, Death To The Hittites!

AuthorReplies:
Mark_Aurel
Clubman
posted 07-26-99 01:19 AM ET (US)     26 / 66       
No, Hydarnes. Phoenician is faster than Assy and Yammy. This is a commonly accepted fact among the capable RoR players out there. Assy and Yammy aren't really the powerhouses they were in AoE anymore; they're just slightly faster now than any regular slow civ. The fact that you don't know this just reveals a lack of knowledge about the game in general. I guess you have a hard time doing maths and learning facts.

Of course they die to Helo civs - if the Helo civ can get their hands on Helos, which means they must survive well into Iron with plenty of resources. They won't be able to do that, if they go up against Phoe, unless they're Shang. The thing is, Phoe owns most Helo civs far worse than the Helo civ owns Phoe; even if a civ gets Helos, Phoe will usually defeat them due to the fact that Helos are late-game units. Phoe is an early striker with a generally rotten Iron Age, even compared to Egypt (which has a generally good Iron). If you don't understand this, that's really not my problem. It's just annoying, I guess.

It is also commly known that Egypt has one of the least versatile of all Iron Ages. Their Bronze is also a slight notch behind Phoe. You mix together Bronze Age units with Iron Age units. Phoe gains just about all the units Egypt gets and then some.

SiNCeReFX
Clubman
posted 07-26-99 01:44 AM ET (US)     27 / 66       
being a decent phoe player, i can state for fact that phoe owns egypt (wit players of equal skill). look at it age by age. tool age: phoe owns egy, as phoe gets to tool much faster than them with a better econ. bronze: same as above, phoe gets to it much faster and will have a much better economy. iron: wat counters scythe? more scythe, wit phalanxes/cents mixed in worked for me, i like EA's too, but it doesnt really matter, bc phoe will have a much bigger army than egy, as the wood cutting bonus is the best bonus in the game after shang's cheap vils. there is no age that egy owns a competant phoe player. even in stone phoe does better wit the wood bonus.

u mus be crazy hydarnes (or maybe its the crack u were smoking) to say that yam and assy are faster than phoe. vil speed is not a significant advantage, not nearly as much as the wood chopping. if perhaps u are goin for a very fast tool or very fast bronze and put all ur vils on food, perhaps the yam and assy player will win, but phoe will not be far behind. in most games yam and assy players do not go for fast times, and therefore are slaughtered by the big phoe econ bonus. no one can field an army like them except for shang who will have more real vils most likely.

today i had the pleasure of playing in a 3v3 that turned into me vs 3 as my teammates dropped. being phoe, i took the seas and ran over 2 of the 3 enemies. the last one i didnt hit hard, and had went straight to iron, but i figured i would still win for i had close to 5000 food at that point and maybe 3000 wood. needless to say it was a pain to take out all the scythe's, but i towered up the surrounding area of that player, and built scythes mainly, wit sum phalanxes and eles for support. i eventually pushed him into the corner and he had to resign. there was no way he was competing wit my wood flow or my fishing, as he had to farm after gettin kicked off the sea. and another thing was that i could afford to slaugher as many things as i liked, as i had most all the map, and had collected 24000 gold by games end. he was a competant egy player, as it took me over an hour to kill him, but in the end phoe wins. he even had the advantage of not wasthing resources on others like i did in the beginning.

u need to stop doin crack cuz nothing u r saying makes sense, phoe owns egy, and there is no way to test out who would win in a CA/HA battle against the computer, as the micro-management done by u will obviously alter the results. thats all for now

DaRq FX

jus wanted to add in that game against mix master that sure his army of 10-15 chariots and camels own a similar army of CA's, but not army after army of them and finally around 30-40 of them in his base, wit chariot support and camels of my own. lets not forget chubby hubby's long swordsman either =). would have been worse had apoc not dropped, but the reason it was so bad was cuz of the phoe econ advantage, which allowed me to take out 1 of their players as well as significantly hurt another, and hit jeff a few times.

[This message has been edited by SiNCeReFX (edited 07-26-99).]

Cherub Desert R
Clubman
posted 07-26-99 10:38 AM ET (US)     28 / 66       
Hydarnes, on religion, I can not remember any time where a REAL ARMY (Not a computer Mark_Aurel) backed by God lost a battle in the long run, but I'm sure a time will come where there will be a "loss" militantly wise in the eyes of non-believers, or maybe some historical buff will point a loss out to me. There is a plan for everything, including a loss, so don't boast about winning it all, because there will be a time where it ain't gonna work that way.

And Mark_Aurel, we don't worship the wooden cross, we worship the person who died on it, and the father of the person who died on it. I am 90% sure you are an athiest, so tell me, what proof do you have that shows us that somehow an atom that had all the energy in the universe somehow was there and somehow exploded and somehow cells turned into fish and somehow fish turned into monkeys and somehow monkeys turned into humans. For me it is easier to see that there is an ultimate being here from the start instead of a very powerful atom.

apocalypse77
Clubman
posted 07-26-99 03:34 PM ET (US)     29 / 66       
Yeah!!! Go Desert!!! WAHOO!!!

Good one.

But, returning to the topic...

Personally, I don't believe that either civ "owns" the other. Probably cuz I play mostly team games, that quite often get into iron. Then, I see the phoe vs. egy match-up as...

Greater Military vs. Better Econ

And 'zats how it is, IMveryveryveryveryveryHHHHHHHHHHHO

armagedn
Clubman
posted 07-26-99 04:37 PM ET (US)     30 / 66       
I humbly ask to please leave the religion out of this discussion, or take it to another thread. You can't quantify beliefs (or lack thereof). Hydarnes, and others, can believe whatever they choose (provided they don't shove it down our throats).

Whereas it's quite a simple matter to argue against his ludicrous assertions of Egyptian dominance. All I can say is if he has success with them against Hittite, Phoe, Shang, and other top tier civs, he's clearly battling some inferior players.

For the record, yes, I love Egypt - as I've said, they are quite a bit of fun to play, and pose quite a unique challenge. Unlike many, I love the priest unit, and still believe it causes more psychological damage than any other. Their scythes are superior to others, but, quite frankly, scythe flooding bores the bejeezus outta me. I still prefer Phoe, hands down, and in a competitive game against equal foes, I would certainly choose Phoe over Egypt in most circumstances.

[This message has been edited by armagedn (edited 07-26-99).]

hydarnes
Clubman
posted 07-27-99 12:38 PM ET (US)     31 / 66       
Oh, My there sure is alot of things to deal with here. I agree with apoc, it's just a draw.


Sincerefx(sp?) Could you spell a little better pleaz, I can't even understand what you said. Your spelling sounds just like your name.

------------------
Long Live Egypt, Death To The Hittites!


[This message has been edited by Hydarnes (edited 07-27-99).]

hydarnes
Clubman
posted 07-27-99 01:54 PM ET (US)     32 / 66       
Cherub desert R, I said that an army with God on it's side lost? I totally agree with you on the second paragraph, but I can't make of the first one since I have not the slitest clue of what your talking about.

Great Job desert!!!


Mark, Really?? Cool, I always thought that assy and yamm were second to shang. That's great!! phoeny is my second favorite civ anyway.

------------------
Long Live Egypt, Death To The Hittites!

[This message has been edited by Hydarnes (edited 07-27-99).]

Mark_Aurel
Clubman
posted 07-27-99 02:02 PM ET (US)     33 / 66       
You can believe whatever you want to for my part. How can you prove my underwear didn't create the universe? If you can't, I'll be assuming you believe my underwear is God.

The main point of this thread, however, remains that Phoenician owns Egypt in any normal Random Map settings. I see that most people who put anything up here and know what they're doing agree with that. Assuming, of course, players of equal quality. Egypt is an average civ, whereas Phoenician is a very strong one. This is why those who have been making "civ balancing" articles generally proposed no changes to Egypt, but did propose some for Phoenician.

Phoenician simply owns Egypt. Learn to live with it. And worship my underwear.

hydarnes
Clubman
posted 07-27-99 02:07 PM ET (US)     34 / 66       
You can believe whatever you want Mark, but Phoe doesn't own Egypt, Period. And if it were true that Egypt is an average civ, but phoe is a better one, than nobody would even play egypt. You could think Greek owns Hittite for all I care.

Mark, do you wanna know why I know your underwear didn't create the universe, because men created your underwear.

-----------------

Long Live Egypt, Death To The Hittites!


[This message has been edited by Hydarnes (edited 07-27-99).]

[This message has been edited by Hydarnes (edited 07-27-99).]

Mark_Aurel
Clubman
posted 07-27-99 02:18 PM ET (US)     35 / 66       
You haven't seen the men create the underwear, have you? So you don't know how it came to exist. Ergo, it could be God, or at least the Son of Man returned to Earth, right? Jesus never did say he wouldn't return as underwear, did he? You can't prove men created my underwear, can you? If my underwear created the universe, don't you think it would have the power to hide that fact from mere men?

Now, don't get me wrong on this - but you're wrong. There is mathemathical evidence to support that Phoe will generally defeat Egypt, meaning that Phoe owns Egypt. Saying that Greek owns Hittite, on the other hand, would be ridiculous, as the Hittite military bonuses and tech tree are far superior to that of the Greeks. I don't really think it is possible to spell it out to you any better, except possibly if you were ever to play a match with someone of roughly equal skill Phoe v. Egypt. Shang owns everyone. Phoe owns everyone but Shang. Then comes the semi-fast civs; Assyria, Persia, Rome and Yamato.

My underwear, however, owns everything. Worship it.

hydarnes
Clubman
posted 07-27-99 02:39 PM ET (US)     36 / 66       
Mark, to you I'm always wrong huh? If Phoe owns Egypt than tell me why people(that arn't morons) would even chose egypt if phoe was better? hmmm.... I wonder why people even chose civs that arn't shang or phoe, since they own everybody. ES why did you even make other civs???


We'll see how much your underwear own everything if you were to cut it up and burn it. Go ahead, cut your underwear up, and burn it, then we'll see how much it owns.


I can see that you really need a medical exam.

------------------
Long Live Egypt, Death To The Hittites!


[This message has been edited by Hydarnes (edited 07-27-99).]

[This message has been edited by Hydarnes (edited 07-27-99).]

Pokeboy151
Inactive
posted 07-27-99 02:50 PM ET (US)     37 / 66       
HEY!! i have 2cents too! i must agree wit arma, in that it is almost a draw. in the end, it depends on wich strategy each player chooses. leave it at that.

Oh, and worship the underwear. IT rules. although i AM a christian......

Underwear rules all!!!

------------------
<marquee "behavior=alternate"> sarmis_poke!!</marquee>

Field_General
Clubman
posted 07-27-99 03:00 PM ET (US)     38 / 66       
Uhhhhhhhh.....Mark......I advise you to stick to the phoe vs. egypt arguments. you were doing pretty good on those....but you suck at theological arguments. I mean, you REALLY suck...

on the other hand....you are AWESOME at civ. vs. civ. arguments.

IMHO, egypt has an ok bronze....they are not as fast as phoe, but, like minoa, a competent player can sometimes use them to surprise an over confident phoe player.

Unfotunately, egypt has one pathetic iron age. They have basically ONE unit at their command.....

Hittite, Summie, and ANY hellie civ would eat them alive. Well...maybe not carthage.

But, anyway, they can be fun to play.

And Mark, it is as easy as he- er,, as anything to prove your underwear didn't creat a darn thing. There was this point in history when your underwear did not exist. Got it? We can talk to the people who created your underwear -- unless you're wearing really old underwear. But, before I get carried away, I'm gonna say that your theology arguments are so pathetic they don't even deserve an answer.....

Lysimachus
Clubman
posted 07-27-99 03:32 PM ET (US)     39 / 66       
Mark_Aural,

I didn't think this much junk would flow from you:

"Phoe owns everyone but Shang. Then comes the semi-fast civs; Assyria, Persia, Rome and Yamato."

And I don't consider Persia a semi-fast civ, they are one of the slowest civs alive! Even Minoan is a faster civ than Persian!


IMO, Minoan is the fastest of the slow civs due to there tremendous capability of there cheap fishing boat power. There are plenty of civs that can take on Phoeny with not too much trouble at all. let's say a regular civs pumps out 10 fishing boats in stone, while minoan will have 13 boats which means another 45 food extra per boat drop off, which will allow to advance to Tool and Bronze quickly.


I've heard it said many times in this forum, GX sites and others that i don't recall, but Minoan is one civ to pick that can take on Phoeny! In bronze, Minaon compies will overpower Phoeny CA's, even with Phoeny's wood bonus. In Iron, Phoeny ele's are roast beef to Minaon Hele's, and Heavy cats, while Phoeny must rely on their phoeny-bollogna ST's, which i mean....every one knows you can't servive with ST seige alone.

At sea? I say it's a draw with mino vs. phoeny.

------------------
I Lysimachus, as one of the four generals of Alexander the Great, I serve him to the best of my military knowledge.

Mark_Aurel
Clubman
posted 07-27-99 04:01 PM ET (US)     40 / 66       
Nah, it isn't junk. The so-called theology thing is, however. I don't believe that my underwear created the universe. That was just to prove a point. When someone asked me to prove that the universe was created by the Big Bang, which is, of course, very difficult, I rather came up with the point that he couldn't prove my underwear isn't God. Which he can't of course, since God (that is, my underwear) would simply remove all evidence of it being God. It is a silly thing, of course.

I am not a religious person. I am however, interested in theology, mythology, and religious affairs in general, and I respect people who choose to believe in some higher office. Hydarnes, however, annoyed me due to the fact that in another thread he said something like "David defeated 32 000 Chariots because he had God on his side" in response to something wholly unrelated to it. And someone basically stated the same in this thread - that God always supports the victor in the long term. Right. Any thinking person would realise that this is hogwash. But it was only brought up due to the fact that I was annoyed with Hydarnes, who also in other regards displays a general lack of knowledge (Scythe Chariots were widely used in ancient times. Right.). Anyway, I apologise for bringing it up.

And concerning the civ thing - Minoan is fast on water maps, and better than Phoe in the later phases of the game; all Minoan has to do, is survive to win in late Bronze or late Iron. On other maps, Phoe is still able to beat Minoan.

Persian is a semi-fast civ due to the hunting bonus. This bonus can, on some maps, enable Persian to rival even Shang for speed. With Persians, you could very easily do a Gazelle/Wood pit first start, for instance. This would enable them to dock very early, and so be faster than almost anyone. Under the right conditions, Persians are fast, similar to Minoan. They can both be ranked as semi-fast due to the fact that they are map dependant when it comes to speed. The reason I didn't originally include Minoan is complicated, but basically, the hunting bonus and the other bonuses of the other semi-fast civs makes them a tad faster than Minoan on most maps.

Persian isn't a slow civ in that sense - it's just that you must use them to Tool Rush in order to win. Their ellies are good, yes, but by that time, it's all over for the Persians.

The only civs that are truly slow are those that don't have any early economic bonuses or economic bonuses at all, that is Greeks, Carthaginians, Choson, etc. All civs that have such bonuses can be at least just a bit faster than the rest.

People that aren't morons would choose Egypt in a team game, where they can survive and grow strong. I very much enjoy playing Egypt myself. In a 1v1 with Phoenicia, however, Egypt is clearly disadvantaged.

I think this makes a lot of sense. Right?

SiNCeReFX
Clubman
posted 07-27-99 04:32 PM ET (US)     41 / 66       
Persia is a very fast civ, 2nd fastest next to shang. The only problem is that you need game to hunt. Otherwise they are slower than slow.

Lysimachus, phoe is faster than minoa hands down. You obviously do not play much phoenician. I would say a pretty decent bronze wit phoe is 14:45/55 vils/boats. Minoa can come close, probably even match this, but i doubt they would have as much resource wise. Being that phoe will have more wood than any other civ, boats cost a less percentage of their total wood than do other civs, excluding minoan, where im not sure who has the advantage. However, all things that cost wood cost less a percentage of phoe's total wood,whereas only boats do for minoa. You tell me which civ you'd rather have.

As far as comps go, they are way too one dimensional, and die too easy to STs. Comps will not own a good phoe player. They will die as fast as your economy can make them. CA's are a much better unit because they can hit and run. I'd much rather have a weaker unit that costs more, than a cheap one that is more powerful, for one simple reason- I'll kill many more vils with CA's. Iron age yes, heles and hcats and comps will own phoe. It is possible to survive on ST siege alone, but not against a civ that has full siege. As for the water, I too would put it as a draw.

I did have a good game with minoa the other day. I had a horrible start, and dedided to pit one sf/forest. Put 2 of sf and rest on wood. Not sure how many real vils i had when i bronzed, but i probably had around 50 total, and still bronzed in 14 something. Their siege and comps also owned the opponents. A good civ. But if it came down to it I'd rather have phoe.

hydarnes
Clubman
posted 07-27-99 04:48 PM ET (US)     42 / 66       
Mark, Of course it's "hogwash" to you, because you don't believe it the Bible. I do, so it's not hogwash to me.

And just the fact that the small untrained Israelite army(at the time of Joshua) destroyed all of Canaan including the impregnable cities of Jericho, Jebus, Hazor and many others is fact to that. Israel at that time had no seige engines, no chariots, just purely foot troops, and conquered all of Canaan should make anyone think, "Hmmm...maybe there was a bigger power helping them"

Mark, quote: "Hydarnes, however, annoyed me due to the fact that in another thread he said something like "David defeated 32 000 Chariots because he had God on his side" in response to something wholly unrelated to it."

If I'm hearing right, you are reproving me that I brought up that David defeated 32,000 chariots in a subject that had nothing to do with that. Am I not right? But you are bringing up religious replies also in this topic which has nothing to do with religous discussion.

------------------
Long Live Egypt, Death To The Hittites!

Knight_Day
Inactive
posted 07-27-99 04:55 PM ET (US)     43 / 66       
Well...IF Persia is fast WHEN there is lots of hunting.
THEN it's perfically legitimate to say this:
IF there are lots of shorefish THEN Palmeria is a fast civ too.
LIKE I SAID BEFORE!!!!! Every civ has it's advantages and weakness' it's important to know HOW and WHEN to use each civ, an endless debate of what civ could kill what other civ in what map type is pointless because it will depend on many factors...even IF we assume Ceteras Perabas(SP?) that is a latain phrase meaning "All other thing being the same or equal", this discussion is still pointless because each civ has to be used differently per map type so who cares?

Knight_Day

Thorfinn
Clubman
posted 07-27-99 05:12 PM ET (US)     44 / 66       
Actually, Knight_day, Palmyra is best on maps where no one has shore fish or animals, or if there are animals, there are no Persians. If everyone is relying on foraging, they are 44% faster gathering, almost balancing the 50% premium in villager cost. Where they really shine is when you stop villager production, because then they are still raking it in 44% faster, i.e., if everyone else stops at 24 villagers, they have an ideal collection rate of 10.8 food per sec, or 46 seconds to "wait" to click tool. Palmy can produce villagers longer, as their 18 will collect the tool food in 43 seconds. If everyone goes shore fish, Palmy has only a nominal 33% advantage.

Keep your stick on the ice.

Mark_Aurel
Clubman
posted 07-27-99 05:15 PM ET (US)     45 / 66       
I didn't say the Bible was hogwash. It contains some really good stories and is an important historical document, despite the fact that it quite often does numerical tricks, similar to most texts written in the really old days. The Bible, for some time, was the only source we could use to write the ancient history of the Middle East. Today, scientists and archaeologists have uncovered many better sources and corrected a lot of the inaccuracies the Bible fed us with. I do believe the Bible exists, as you say you do. I don't believe all the nonsense in it, however. And there are things that aren't nonsense in it.

Since you don't object to Phoenicia being generall better than Egypt, I take it you've finally been enlightened on this issue. Or?

hydarnes
Clubman
posted 07-27-99 05:25 PM ET (US)     46 / 66       
I agree that in a 1v1 phoeny will win definatly!! I thought you were saying that phoeny wins in any settings. Phoeny wins early Egypt wins late.


I have a question for you. Do you believe in God? And if you don't, then how did the world come about?

------------------
Long Live Egypt, Death To The Hittites!

Mark_Aurel
Clubman
posted 07-27-99 05:50 PM ET (US)     47 / 66       
Explaining my beliefs about how the world "came about" is rather difficult unless you to some degree understand at least the idea behind advanced physics.

To put it very simply, the universe exists in a number of dimensions, only a few of which we are able to experience or comprehend. Due to certain phenomena that occurred during the "birth" of the universe as we know it, not all dimensions are of equal "size" - therefore, we only experience four of the dimensions, and of these, we only comprehend the fourth (time) as a straight line, so to speak. Had we been four-dimensional, we would not perceive the passage of time as such, in the way that we do. The point is that the existence of any dimensions is directly tied to the existence of the universe itself. Therefore, time itself did not exist "before" the universe; there is nothing beyond the universe, nor will there ever be anything "beyond" the universe as such. The normal image of the Big Bang where the universe exists as some kind of bubble in a sea of nothingness is simply wrong.

How matter and energy came to be is a result of early quantum phenomenons which I cannot explain here. Suffice it to say that it is indeed possible that matter can come to be from nothing within the laws of quantum physics, just highly improbable. The conditions created in the Big Bang were very different, however, and actually made possible the creation of large amounts of matter and energy.

Alas, I am no Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein, so I can't really put it to you in very clear or comprehensible terms.

The point is simply that the source of the common human myths of creation has always been man's limited ability to comprehend the universe as it is. We simply cannot comprehend a four-dimensional existence, even though it is possible to exist as such. Therefore, our comprehension will always be one of "beginnings" and "ends" where there really are none. The moment lasts forever, so to speak. The moment is simply a kind of coordinate.

You may be happy though, Hydarnes, that modern physics doesn't really rule out the theorethical existence of a divine being, nor do I. However, within the framework created, such a being is not strictly necessary and would anyway be far to remote to correspond to the standards of any of the major religions - that would simply be to limiting for a being that is truly divine. It is a bit like Kabbala in this regard. In a way, the Universe itself can be considered identical with a divine being in this regard. But I still do not believe in such a being, at least not in any Earthly sense. The Bible, Qu'ran, and such are all simply to limited in their outlook to produce any credible true divine figure.

Cherub Desert R
Clubman
posted 07-27-99 06:46 PM ET (US)     48 / 66       
Matter coming out of no-where, rather interesting, I know God coming out of now where is wild also but if God was there I would like to be on his good side.

And Mark, here is another thing I would like explained, how was something so complex as the eye was formed from a single cell organism? I can't see why an eye would somehow just pop on an animal? If evolution was the way all things happened, how could it be formed?

All things unexplained can be explained by the theory that a God was there, like your super mass of energy, and he formed it himself in his liking.

And yes, I do know that the theory of evolution is very complex and I wouldn't mind learning about it just because it seems interesting, but, highly unlikly in my book. It seems more likely that a being of high inteligence knew exactly what he was doing here.

And do you find it strange that the Bible, has within it encoded messages unlike any other book, and the messages are true and even at times future predicting. I kinda see it as more proff that a higly inteligent being had a hand in writing the book and it wasn't all human.

Ohh, another interesting tidbit, God mentioned all things in the future as past tense and all things in the future past tense, some Jewish scientists see this as time flowing in reverse, and I believe according to quantam phisics time flows just as well in both directions. And, the only reason I know the time thing is because that is what it says in the book, so I wonder if you can clear that up for me, whether or not time can flow in both directions?

I have no hard feelings against ya, I hope you don't see me as attacking you, just some beliefs of yours, like you did with the cross attack.

Desert

[This message has been edited by Cherub Desert R (edited 07-27-99).]

Potejon
Clubman
posted 07-27-99 07:09 PM ET (US)     49 / 66       
Scytes? Hit has scytes,mix with phalx or eles and something else to kill priests. Come on!

Kinda funny saw 2-3 pages with every second post Mark_AUrel and Hydarnes and then some throw ins from the lil bro.

Mark_Aurel
Clubman
posted 07-27-99 07:09 PM ET (US)     50 / 66       
Actually, as I remember it, a fellow Norwegian delivered the first so-called empirical evidence of evolution last year. It was a bizarre experiment involving birds in a cage and some such.

Evolution is a very complicated process, of course. It has taken roughly 4 billion years of evolution to get where we are today. In human lifespans, this is about 160 000 000 generations. A rather long time. And remember that, since practically all known lifeforms have significantly shorter lifespans than humans, they tend to mutate quicker, and thus evolve faster.

I really have no expertise in this area, but I do not have any problems seeing life as anything but extremely complicated chemical reactions. Now, on Earth, life is carbon-based. In the universe, carbon is created by a process of ever heavier fusion in dying stars, which tend to create ever heavier elements until they go nova. This is where the very small percentage of matter in the universe that consists of elements heavier than Hydrogen and Helium comes from. In this regard, humans are the living remains of dead stars (poetic, right?). Life need not necessary have its origin on Earth either - the first living structures might have arrived via comets colliding with Earth, for instance. However, in a vast, for all purposes infinite, universe, it is highly conceivable that during all the time available, somewhere, there should be just about every possible chemical reaction imaginable, occuring naturally, a certain number of times. Therefore, it is quite conceivable that life on Earth is merely a product of some random chemical process.

Humans are unique in the history of evolution in that humans are the first beings ever to be able to consciously speed up or control evolution according to goals that man itself sets. It is quite inevitable that humans in a not-so distant future will evolve at a much quicker pace than at present, due to ever more advanced techniques of genetical engineering and technology in general. In fact, it is even conceivable that humans will eventually leave behind our current forms of flesh and blood in favor of far forms far better adapted to the universe itself.

And I'm not a madman. I'm just talking about the possible future evolution of the human race, so far the only conscious race we know of.

« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires Heaven | HeavenGames