Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: The Precursor, The Flood, and the Acceleration of Evolution (V2)
  • Subject: The Precursor, The Flood, and the Acceleration of Evolution (V2)
Subject: The Precursor, The Flood, and the Acceleration of Evolution (V2)

Great Theories. Might I suggest looking into Biblical correlations as clearly these themes play a large part in the back story of Halo.

  • 06.14.2009 7:41 PM PDT

-blam!- GTFO OF MY SIGNATURE

Posted by: Precursors
I'm not familiar with it, but I'm thinking that if a Monitor is programmed only to see the species of whoever it's interacting with it could account for some of his Forerunner=Human and "When you asked me last time" statements. If Forerunner and Humans are perhaps genetically similar, or to monitors at least are. He would respond that way and would still read the Flood as enemy. We know UNSC AIs can't see with their eyes, so perhaps Sparky can't either, just scan someone and see their species identification.
I believe 343GS can identify beings individually, but I think when he said that "When you asked me last time" statement, he was referring to forerunners and reclaimers as a whole entity.

  • 06.14.2009 8:47 PM PDT

"We sleep peaceably in our beds, because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those that wish to do us harm."

"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of all those who threaten them."

Posted by: Wildcard1992
Posted by: Precursors
I'm not familiar with it, but I'm thinking that if a Monitor is programmed only to see the species of whoever it's interacting with it could account for some of his Forerunner=Human and "When you asked me last time" statements. If Forerunner and Humans are perhaps genetically similar, or to monitors at least are. He would respond that way and would still read the Flood as enemy. We know UNSC AIs can't see with their eyes, so perhaps Sparky can't either, just scan someone and see their species identification.
I believe 343GS can identify beings individually, but I think when he said that "When you asked me last time" statement, he was referring to forerunners and reclaimers as a whole entity.


Yes but concepts like not speaking literally are to complicated for some people and in the strange and unlikely even there isn't evidence that disproves that, it would be easier just to claim that he can only read bio sigs as Human, Elite, Flood, Prophet, Brute etc etc. Rather than identify actual people.

[Edited on 06.14.2009 8:57 PM PDT]

  • 06.14.2009 8:56 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

“To say more would spoil be it’s overall its a game that needs to be played.” - Aristotle

Posted by: LongMasterWolf
Great Theories. Might I suggest looking into Biblical correlations as clearly these themes play a large part in the back story of Halo.

lolololololololololololololol

Ironically enough, one of my entire first theories was based on biblical correlations and I'm practically the father of using every religion I can get my hands on and correlating it to Halo's storyline. I used to use them all the time, but I found them to be entirely too... baseless eventually. It could be easily swung one way or the other, and the "correlative proof" was fairly groundless. It made for theories made out of jello, not theories with at least mild support from within the canon.

Long story short, I've considered it... but no dice. When I see something ridiculously symbolic that Halo and another religion shares, I'll bring it to the forefront. But not unless it's staring me in the face.

  • 06.14.2009 9:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

“To say more would spoil be it’s overall its a game that needs to be played.” - Aristotle

Posted by: Reptilian Rob
Well the biblical bits actually hold a lot of water,

The issue is interpretation: what version, what verse, what lines, what does it mean? Too many "what"s, too many questions that people feel like they have to answer. The previous thread where I included religious aspects to a moderate extent became all about the religious aspects, and almost nothing at all about the theory itself. Theological arguments, debates, and discussion was all there was. It was like the theory itself was in a white-out and all that mattered was the religious links.

Even the new version of the theory which had much less theological elements was destined to have problems; Duardo decided to even warn against it in the second post of the thread, which prevented any flare-ups.

The bottom-line with myself and theological elements is that I'll only include them if it amazingly supports the theory or if the theory is based around it. Save for those, no other way will I work theology into my theory. It's simply too overruling.

It's also a shame I'm an Atheist...
It's not a shame. Being too logical a person will do that to you, one way or the other.

  • 06.15.2009 12:17 AM PDT

Posted by: Lord Snakie
It's also a shame I'm an Atheist...
It's not a shame. Being too logical a person will do that to you, one way or the other.


A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion - Francis Bacon

  • 06.15.2009 12:24 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

“To say more would spoil be it’s overall its a game that needs to be played.” - Aristotle

Posted by: Monkeyman4000
A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion - Francis Bacon

You see what I mean? Already we're starting to talk about religion and philosophy and... well, for Christ's sake (lolirony?) we're quoting Francis Bacon! Back to the theory, or I'll have all your heads!

  • 06.15.2009 12:39 AM PDT

Posted by: Lord Snakie
Posted by: Monkeyman4000
A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion - Francis Bacon

You see what I mean? Already we're starting to talk about religion and philosophy and... well, for Christ's sake (lolirony?) we're quoting Francis Bacon! Back to the theory, or I'll have all your heads!


The theory? ok, well...I can't say I understand it to be honest. Firstly, how do you accelerate evolution? Isn't that a contradiction of the term, in that evolution is the continual response of an organism to it's changing ecological niche, rather than an organism filling out a pre-destined development into something 'superior' or 'more sentient'.

In this way evolution cannot be accelerated or in any way manipulated. It is what is.

To say that you can accelerate an organism's evolution, really, would mean you looked into the future to see some future circumstances in which it will exist, and then modify it's current environment to bring that change you saw in the future on sooner. And that sounds equally as silly.
.

  • 06.15.2009 1:00 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

“To say more would spoil be it’s overall its a game that needs to be played.” - Aristotle

Posted by: Monkeyman4000
Firstly, how do you accelerate evolution? Isn't that a contradiction of the term, in that evolution is the continual response of an organism to it's changing ecological niche, rather than an organism filling out a pre-destined development into something 'superior' or 'more sentient'.

Hey, Bungie coined it, not me. It was in the beastarium content, so it's 100% canon and it's been confirmed that the Precursor can do it. I'm assuming it's speaking about pre-acknowledged common paths of evolution that lead to particularly strong traits for whatever is necessary in the particular species, and that's about as close as I can get to describing it.

  • 06.15.2009 1:12 AM PDT

In my opinion accelerating evolution would be both what snakie is talking about but also the increase in technology similar to what the Covenant used the Forerunner technology to increase their own stance on the technology tier.

  • 06.15.2009 10:51 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

“To say more would spoil be it’s overall its a game that needs to be played.” - Aristotle

Posted by: LongMasterWolf
In my opinion accelerating evolution would be both what snakie is talking about but also the increase in technology similar to what the Covenant used the Forerunner technology to increase their own stance on the technology tier.

You're suggesting that the acceleration of evolution would somehow also correlate to an acceleration in technological advancement?

If so, then I can see where you're coming from, but with the Flood I doubt it. As a race's capabilities increase, their capabilities to produce machines and technology increases... normally. But the Flood are anything but normal; they are a parasite, they require a host's knowledge to have anything past basic necessities and their undying hunger. While their advancement might have brought on more desirable traits for what the Precursor wanted, it gave the Flood their three key weaknesses: it dumbed down individual Flood intelligence (which also gave them another primary weakness: the reliance on a Gravemind or Proto-Gravemind for higher function, such as piloting starships and using advanced tactics), and it made the Flood reliant upon hosts for individual intelligence or calcium to produce a hive mind to give them collective intelligence.

While those may seem relatively small, those are the three weaknesses that allowed the Forerunner to win the war. The Flood's reliance on biomass to gain notable intelligence is what allowed the Halo array to function as it did, wiping out the Flood's ability to create higher intelligences and damning even their ability to gain singular intelligences by infecting hosts with infection forms.

  • 06.15.2009 11:29 AM PDT

Without me, it's just "Aweso".

Posted by: LongMasterWolf
Great Theories. Might I suggest looking into Biblical correlations as clearly these themes play a large part in the back story of Halo.

Well the biblical connotations mainly are reference to the Forerunners, so they wouldn't have much to do with the Precursors.

And great job Snakie. Having read alot of Tolkien's work, I was intrigued by the similarities you draw between that world and the Haloverse.

  • 06.15.2009 5:06 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

“To say more would spoil be it’s overall its a game that needs to be played.” - Aristotle

Posted by: mike120593
And great job Snakie. Having read alot of Tolkien's work, I was intrigued by the similarities you draw between that world and the Haloverse.

I'm a huge Tolkien fan as well, but the inspiration for the correlation comes from a particular poster on version 1 of the theory back in the Halo 3 Forum. While I came up with the actual correlation itself, that particular user set me on the fast track to thinking of it. I forget his name now, I need to go and find him so I can write him in there....

  • 06.15.2009 5:31 PM PDT

Posted by: Lord Snakie
so it's 100% canon and it's been confirmed that the Precursor can do it.


No and no...


Posted by: Lord Snakie
I'm assuming it's speaking about pre-acknowledged common paths of evolution that lead to particularly strong traits for whatever is necessary in the particular species, and that's about as close as I can get to describing it.


Haha, you can admit it for Bungie, to accelerate evolution doesn't make sense.

  • 06.15.2009 9:00 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

“To say more would spoil be it’s overall its a game that needs to be played.” - Aristotle

Posted by: Monkeyman4000
No and no...

I invite you to look at the booklet information or the DVD information (whichever you have, as I assume that you at least got the Heroic edition game) and tell me why that's not canonical. It states it right in front of everyone's face. They say it word-for-word.

I can understand hesitance, but blatant disregard is just unbelievable.

  • 06.15.2009 10:36 PM PDT

Yes, I am listening to Halo music while playing Halo 3 multiplayer and writing on the Halo 3 forums in between matches in a dark basement. You got a problem with that?

Posted by: Unseen Blade
I love that theory, but I'm highly doubtful it is true. There is simply not enough information on the Precusers for me to believe anything anybody says of them.


Agreed. That said, These kinds of theories are fun to toss around, although I doubt any of this is true. Let speculation continue where there are no facts!

  • 06.16.2009 7:09 PM PDT

Posted by: Lord Snakie
Posted by: Monkeyman4000
No and no...

I invite you to look at the booklet information or the DVD information (whichever you have, as I assume that you at least got the Heroic edition game) and tell me why that's not canonical. It states it right in front of everyone's face. They say it word-for-word.

I can understand hesitance, but blatant disregard is just unbelievable.


The first no is a technicality. Nothing is 100% set in stone canon. Nothing.

Secondly, it has been put in material once...

How is that confirmation? It uses some very loose and speculatory terms. You state it as if it is fact.

  • 06.17.2009 1:11 AM PDT

I miss Halo. Maybe Halo 4 will change that.

Edit: Lol nope

Posted by: Monkeyman4000
Posted by: Lord Snakie
Posted by: Monkeyman4000
A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion - Francis Bacon

You see what I mean? Already we're starting to talk about religion and philosophy and... well, for Christ's sake (lolirony?) we're quoting Francis Bacon! Back to the theory, or I'll have all your heads!


The theory? ok, well...I can't say I understand it to be honest. Firstly, how do you accelerate evolution? Isn't that a contradiction of the term, in that evolution is the continual response of an organism to it's changing ecological niche, rather than an organism filling out a pre-destined development into something 'superior' or 'more sentient'.

In this way evolution cannot be accelerated or in any way manipulated. It is what is.

To say that you can accelerate an organism's evolution, really, would mean you looked into the future to see some future circumstances in which it will exist, and then modify it's current environment to bring that change you saw in the future on sooner. And that sounds equally as silly.
.


It can, all you need is to find the right conditions to accelerate it, and to make it accelerate the way you want it to. This wuld mean a lot of trial an error but luck is in this equation, maybe they found these conditions through luck or mass tests?

[Edited on 06.17.2009 1:18 AM PDT]

  • 06.17.2009 1:17 AM PDT

Posted by: rraaaaawwwwwwwr
Posted by: Monkeyman4000
Posted by: Lord Snakie
Posted by: Monkeyman4000
A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion - Francis Bacon

You see what I mean? Already we're starting to talk about religion and philosophy and... well, for Christ's sake (lolirony?) we're quoting Francis Bacon! Back to the theory, or I'll have all your heads!


The theory? ok, well...I can't say I understand it to be honest. Firstly, how do you accelerate evolution? Isn't that a contradiction of the term, in that evolution is the continual response of an organism to it's changing ecological niche, rather than an organism filling out a pre-destined development into something 'superior' or 'more sentient'.

In this way evolution cannot be accelerated or in any way manipulated. It is what is.

To say that you can accelerate an organism's evolution, really, would mean you looked into the future to see some future circumstances in which it will exist, and then modify it's current environment to bring that change you saw in the future on sooner. And that sounds equally as silly.
.


It can, all you need is to find the right conditions to accelerate it, and to make it accelerate the way you want it to. This wuld mean a lot of trial an error but luck is in this equation, maybe they found these conditions through luck or mass tests?


That doesn't make sense. Evolution isn't predetermined or destined. Evolution is response to an environment.

Where are you accelerating towards? To have movement you need a starting point and an aim. Evolution has neither.

  • 06.17.2009 5:10 AM PDT

-blam!- GTFO OF MY SIGNATURE

Posted by: Monkeyman4000
That doesn't make sense. Evolution isn't predetermined or destined. Evolution is response to an environment.
Technically.. You are wrong-ish.

When a species has a random mutation, sometimes it is beneficial(like specific patterns of camoflauge or stronger venom), sometimes it is not(cancer?). When it is beneficial, that individual creature with the mutation will go on to produce more offspring because it has survived longer or better than it's counterparts due to that mutation. If that happens, evolution has taken place as the species' gene pool will be populated with that mutation due to an individual surviving better.

Evolution isn't a response to an environment, because living things cannot change their genetic code. Random mutations cause evolution, not the living things themselves, on purpose.

  • 06.17.2009 7:23 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

“To say more would spoil be it’s overall its a game that needs to be played.” - Aristotle

Posted by: Monkeyman4000
Secondly, it has been put in material once...

How is that confirmation? It uses some very loose and speculatory terms. You state it as if it is fact.

If it's put in material once, it's confirmation. They used it. That's about all there is to it.

If you want to continue on saying it's not, be my guest. But you're just ranting as far as I'm concerned, and I'll not continue this train of discussion further.

  • 06.17.2009 7:28 AM PDT

Posted by: Wildcard1992
Posted by: Monkeyman4000
That doesn't make sense. Evolution isn't predetermined or destined. Evolution is response to an environment.
Technically.. You are wrong-ish.

When a species has a random mutation, sometimes it is beneficial(like specific patterns of camoflauge or stronger venom), sometimes it is not(cancer?). When it is beneficial, that individual creature with the mutation will go on to produce more offspring because it has survived longer or better than it's counterparts due to that mutation. If that happens, evolution has taken place as the species' gene pool will be populated with that mutation due to an individual surviving better.

Evolution isn't a response to an environment, because living things cannot change their genetic code. Random mutations cause evolution, not the living things themselves, on purpose.


No. Gene mutation is only one type of speciation. Polyploidy, hybrid reproductions, these biological selection mechanisms are only one cause of speciation. The selection pressures which cause certain organisms to have a higher chance of passing on their genes are environmental. It isnt random. ZFirst you have new genetic combinations, then selection pressures which decide whether the changes survive, then an inheritance in new generations. Evolution isn't random, it is more like a stacked lottery.

  • 06.17.2009 9:09 PM PDT