Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Note: this post will not display until it has been approved by a moderator.
Other options
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Cap. Fitzgerald
 - Feb 06, 2011, 10:11:45 AM
And this matters or is relevant how?
Posted by Aran
 - Feb 06, 2011, 09:19:13 AM
The Concrete Jungle Predator is the tallest at 9ft.
Posted by samoht
 - Feb 06, 2011, 02:10:42 AM
Quote from: Le Celticant on Feb 05, 2011, 04:50:23 PM
What I noticed from the movie is that beside the head... there's nothing truly different.
And still, Pussyface had somehow a different head shape too compared to Anytime even if it's closer to it than the PREDATORS noobish from Roberto.

What tell us the movie:
-Nolan states that the 'Super' type predators are larger and rules the smaller somehow with this sort of war (anyway it tried to say they are more badass).

What show us the movie:
-3 Predators hunting 8 people... 2 people survived, all of the super were killed.
-The 3 Super dude never shown smart move. They were most of the time dumb.
-Nolan had mental issue.

What show us Predator:
-1 Predator killed 6 men + destroyed an helicopter and killed the people in. Only Dutch survived.
-Until blain death where Mac made him bleed he never committed a mistake.

My conclusion (Personal opinion, right to disagree but it'll still... be mine):
The Super Predators never appeared to be 'larger' than the original. Even more, compared to Anytime vs. Dutch close sequence and Royce vs Berzerker or Hanzo vs Super, they seems even smaller (big lol).
Also, the original vs super predator scene show it perfectly, they share the exact same size (I guess all the guys involved in the movie never tried to put logic. After all, art can be without logic nah?).
About Nolan case, I don't know if he's schizophrenic, mental breakdown or whatever (and I honestly don't care) but he's some trouble minded dude and somehow like to 'make-up' story.
He's some kind of nice story teller to get close to people for killing them after so I wouldn't take his words seriously.

My opinion about the Super:
A bullshit, it's hollywood after all and it's a fashion since years to say that in a sequel you 're-invented' the genre while the movie show us it's a poor copy/paste with the intention of adding more badass element that will beat or arrived at the same status as the original while... it's crap.



So I would say yes for the skin colour, it's just a matter of 'minor' differences between individuals who belongs to the same specie. It's not a sub-specie, just a... let's say it was just nothing and we're dealing with normal Predator here (just remove nolan quote from the movie and everything becomes clear).

That kind of made sense....

Noland may be crazy, but the directors put the line about the supers for a reason. They didn't put it in just to secretly trick the audience into thinking one thing....

And yeah, Berserker was bigger than classic.
Posted by Le Celticant
 - Feb 05, 2011, 04:50:23 PM
What I noticed from the movie is that beside the head... there's nothing truly different.
And still, Pussyface had somehow a different head shape too compared to Anytime even if it's closer to it than the PREDATORS noobish from Roberto.

What tell us the movie:
-Nolan states that the 'Super' type predators are larger and rules the smaller somehow with this sort of war (anyway it tried to say they are more badass).

What show us the movie:
-3 Predators hunting 8 people... 2 people survived, all of the super were killed.
-The 3 Super dude never shown smart move. They were most of the time dumb.
-Nolan had mental issue.

What show us Predator:
-1 Predator killed 6 men + destroyed an helicopter and killed the people in. Only Dutch survived.
-Until blain death where Mac made him bleed he never committed a mistake.

My conclusion (Personal opinion, right to disagree but it'll still... be mine):
The Super Predators never appeared to be 'larger' than the original. Even more, compared to Anytime vs. Dutch close sequence and Royce vs Berzerker or Hanzo vs Super, they seems even smaller (big lol).
Also, the original vs super predator scene show it perfectly, they share the exact same size (I guess all the guys involved in the movie never tried to put logic. After all, art can be without logic nah?).
About Nolan case, I don't know if he's schizophrenic, mental breakdown or whatever (and I honestly don't care) but he's some trouble minded dude and somehow like to 'make-up' story.
He's some kind of nice story teller to get close to people for killing them after so I wouldn't take his words seriously.

My opinion about the Super:
A bullshit, it's hollywood after all and it's a fashion since years to say that in a sequel you 're-invented' the genre while the movie show us it's a poor copy/paste with the intention of adding more badass element that will beat or arrived at the same status as the original while... it's crap.



So I would say yes for the skin colour, it's just a matter of 'minor' differences between individuals who belongs to the same specie. It's not a sub-specie, just a... let's say it was just nothing and we're dealing with normal Predator here (just remove nolan quote from the movie and everything becomes clear).
Posted by samoht
 - Feb 05, 2011, 06:12:58 AM
Quote from: Meathead320 on Feb 05, 2011, 02:33:19 AM
Quote from: samoht on Feb 05, 2011, 01:52:57 AM
Quote from: Master on Feb 05, 2011, 12:50:54 AM
I`d say they are even closer. By analogy P1 is like Slavic sub-race of white race and P2 is Nordic sub-race, while BSP and other SPs are black race (different races of same species).

I wouldn't say that close. The supers have major differences in their skull. As in, aspects of it are structured completely differently.

If we were to compare them against humans (which is a good way to do it) you'll notice that the differences between pussy face and anytimes skulls are a similar in the contrast between different races of humans skulls, if not more. IT seems the most plausible to assume they are different races.
Supers skulls are just completely different which alludes to a split in the evolutionary path. Plus it would appear that they have their own races. (the 3 supers have different skin colour to each other).

Now people could pull out the excuse "But they are aliens, so the differences could mean nothing"
But if we look at it from a logical, evolutionary point of view, the differences point to a more conclusive explanation being that the classics, are one predator species (with races) and the Supers are another predator species (with their own races).

With the limited amount of info we have, it is not yet 100% for sure if we are not dealing with different genders within the same species.

Offhand, that seems unlikely, but just pointing out that all options should be left on the table.

It could be something out of left field.


Of course man.

I'm just pointing out the most plausible and most probable explanation.
Posted by Meathead320
 - Feb 05, 2011, 02:33:19 AM
Quote from: samoht on Feb 05, 2011, 01:52:57 AM
Quote from: Master on Feb 05, 2011, 12:50:54 AM
I`d say they are even closer. By analogy P1 is like Slavic sub-race of white race and P2 is Nordic sub-race, while BSP and other SPs are black race (different races of same species).

I wouldn't say that close. The supers have major differences in their skull. As in, aspects of it are structured completely differently.

If we were to compare them against humans (which is a good way to do it) you'll notice that the differences between pussy face and anytimes skulls are a similar in the contrast between different races of humans skulls, if not more. IT seems the most plausible to assume they are different races.
Supers skulls are just completely different which alludes to a split in the evolutionary path. Plus it would appear that they have their own races. (the 3 supers have different skin colour to each other).

Now people could pull out the excuse "But they are aliens, so the differences could mean nothing"
But if we look at it from a logical, evolutionary point of view, the differences point to a more conclusive explanation being that the classics, are one predator species (with races) and the Supers are another predator species (with their own races).

With the limited amount of info we have, it is not yet 100% for sure if we are not dealing with different genders within the same species.

Offhand, that seems unlikely, but just pointing out that all options should be left on the table.

It could be something out of left field.

Posted by samoht
 - Feb 05, 2011, 01:52:57 AM
Quote from: Master on Feb 05, 2011, 12:50:54 AM
I`d say they are even closer. By analogy P1 is like Slavic sub-race of white race and P2 is Nordic sub-race, while BSP and other SPs are black race (different races of same species).

I wouldn't say that close. The supers have major differences in their skull. As in, aspects of it are structured completely differently.

If we were to compare them against humans (which is a good way to do it) you'll notice that the differences between pussy face and anytimes skulls are a similar in the contrast between different races of humans skulls, if not more. IT seems the most plausible to assume they are different races.
Supers skulls are just completely different which alludes to a split in the evolutionary path. Plus it would appear that they have their own races. (the 3 supers have different skin colour to each other).

Now people could pull out the excuse "But they are aliens, so the differences could mean nothing"
But if we look at it from a logical, evolutionary point of view, the differences point to a more conclusive explanation being that the classics, are one predator species (with races) and the Supers are another predator species (with their own races).
Posted by Master
 - Feb 05, 2011, 12:50:54 AM
I`d say they are even closer. By analogy P1 is like Slavic sub-race of white race and P2 is Nordic sub-race, while BSP and other SPs are black race (different races of same species).
Posted by samoht
 - Feb 05, 2011, 12:20:12 AM
Quote from: Meathead320 on Feb 04, 2011, 10:13:57 PM
Quote from: Master on Jan 31, 2011, 12:26:45 PM
Also all of those humans presented above can have fertile offspring with one another. But Neanderthals couldn`t have one with Homo sapiens even though their bone structure and behavioral characteristics weren`t so different.


Even that has come into Question, as far as the Neanderthals. There has been some data now showing a high% of Neanderthal allele patterns displayed in a few groups of humans. Not that this means for sure if they are different species, or perhaps Neanderthals were closer to humans, or even should be in the same species as ourselves. More data is needed, but to political implications it is not an easy field to study.

Then again Ability to produce fertile offspring is not a good indicator of species either, as there are plenty of animals that can produce fertile heterozygous offspring, but almost never do in the wild, and are regarded as different species.

There are a ton of birds that can, Coyotes and Wolves, Bonobos and Chimps etc...

If its that confusing down here I simply cannot fathom applying it to an alien in any sure way.

Yeah.
It is now highly believed by scientists that the Neanderthal species was actually absorbed into the human species. Had I been an expert in the area, I'm sure I could bring forth some more proof.


And something about the Pred debate.

If I were to use the evolution of humans as a loose reference, then I guess we could say the classics are humans. Anytime being white, pussyface being asian (again, just an example). The Classics having there own cultural and racial diversity, like humans.
The "super" preds would be more like the neanderthals. And I say this whilst referring mainly to how they split away from the line that led to humans, but share a common ancestry. A very common ancestry actually.


                                 
Posted by Aran
 - Feb 04, 2011, 11:33:01 PM
They're just bigger and savage. that's all ..
Posted by Meathead320
 - Feb 04, 2011, 10:13:57 PM
Quote from: Master on Jan 31, 2011, 12:26:45 PM
Also all of those humans presented above can have fertile offspring with one another. But Neanderthals couldn`t have one with Homo sapiens even though their bone structure and behavioral characteristics weren`t so different.


Even that has come into Question, as far as the Neanderthals. There has been some data now showing a high% of Neanderthal allele patterns displayed in a few groups of humans. Not that this means for sure if they are different species, or perhaps Neanderthals were closer to humans, or even should be in the same species as ourselves. More data is needed, but to political implications it is not an easy field to study.

Then again Ability to produce fertile offspring is not a good indicator of species either, as there are plenty of animals that can produce fertile heterozygous offspring, but almost never do in the wild, and are regarded as different species.

There are a ton of birds that can, Coyotes and Wolves, Bonobos and Chimps etc...

If its that confusing down here I simply cannot fathom applying it to an alien in any sure way.
Posted by Master
 - Jan 31, 2011, 12:26:45 PM
This is skull of P1 pred P2 pred and BSP:





I can`t find AvP predator skull.

Here you have Black, White and Asian human skull:





Diferences are very noticable, but it gets better. Try to tell to which standard race those skulls belong:


Spoiler
aborigen, black
[close]


Spoiler
north american indian, asian
[close]


Spoiler
polinesian, asian
[close]


Spoiler
south america indian, asian with skull post-natal manipulation
[close]

My point is that we just can`t say if those different races or sub-races or sub-species of thesame race, judgeing on skull shape only.

Also all of those humans presented above can have fertile offspring with one another. But Neanderthals couldn`t have one with Homo sapiens even though their bone structure and behavioral characteristics weren`t so different.

Posted by Orionjp
 - Jan 31, 2011, 05:57:48 AM
Maybe I'm just not seeing the big picture here, but I think everyone is looking at this in totally the wrong way.  Maybe this has nothing to do with (dog/wolf), baybe its based on society.  It could be as simple as casts.  There could be leader casts, warrior casts, noble casts, worker casts, each cast looking deferent.  They fit into deferent rolls in the society.  This isn't a huge stretch really.  Look at ants, the worker ants look deferent than the warrior ants, who look deferent from the scouting ants, who look deferent from the queen.  Each cast is bread deferently, allowing for whatever they are specialised in.  In doing this their features will change.  Through generations of breeding, certain things will become dominant, such as horns on mandibles, or scales, or even the exagerated desines on the bad blood "berserker".  I understand they are all hunters and warriors, I'm not arguing that.  But it could be that the new preds are a higher cast, maybe a kind of nobility in the Predator society.  Just my thoughts anyway.
Posted by Meathead320
 - Nov 08, 2010, 02:53:57 PM
Quote from: DrGediman on Oct 29, 2010, 11:18:44 AM

Hang on a second.

Wolves and dogs can inter-breed so they are not different species.

If the BSPs are different species.  Then they aren't predators.  They are a different type of lifeform.



Only reason I am pointing it out is that there is a very pervasive myth that ability to interbreed makes two things the same species, or the same sub-species.

Many people think genetics goes all comes down to genes, when actually it goes all the way down to alleles on the genes.

The alleles effect the expression of the genes, and it is the patterns of gene expression that makes a species unique.

Sometimes you can take genes from another and switch them out, and due to genetic compatibility you still get a living and even fertile offspring, but the pattern of gene expression has been so radically changed that the physical and behavioral characteristics make it no longer fitting into either group properly.

Genetic relatedness does not necessarily mean the same species, nor does ability to have fertile offspring.

Some hybrids have hetero sterility, while some mixtures are very fertile.

Wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are a different species (lupus) than coyotes (Canis latrans),

Wolves can also inter-breed with Coyotes, and produce fertile offspring, but are regarded as two separate species.

There are NO separate genes between a Chiwawa and a Rottweiler, all that difference is controlled by the alleles.

They are even closer related than the various races of humans, whom all also have the same genes, yet the difference in alleles accounts for a difference of less than 1%.

Depending on which two human groups you compare, you will get a difference of anywhere from 0.08% to 0.23%, and that is only when the alleles on ALL the genes have been counted. Some groups have the exact same alleles on some individual genes as well.

So using this data, how does this relate to the Super-Predatorss, and Regular Predators? Are they simply racial differences? Are they sub-species within the same Species? Are they different Species within the same Genus?

Its hard to say. Even on OUR on world our taxonomy system has contradictions.

If we base it on physical differences then how could anybody put a pomeranian in the same species as a Rottweiler? They are regarded as the same species.

If we use genetics as our razor, then why aren't the highland and lowland Gorillas regarded as the same species? The genetic distance between the two species of gorilla, Gorilla gorilla and G. beringei, 0.04%. No accredited zoo would ever put them together. They are treated as two seperate speices all together.
(Guillen, 2005; Jensen-Seaman, 2000).

The genetic distance between the two chimpanzee species is 0.103%. (cooper 1997)

Now get this, the genetic distance between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis  is <0.08%.
(Nov. 17, 2006. Sequencing and analysis of Neanderthal genomic DNA. Science, 314(5802):1113-1118)

See how complex this is? There is no one prefect way to go about it, as genetic relatedness can still have vast physical and behavior differences.

Humans share 67% of our DNA with a fruit fly, and 98% with a Chimpanzee.

How would we go about accurately categorizing Extra-terrestrials, who look similar, and behave similar? There is no way to know what the genetic difference is, if they have the same genes and only alleles separate them or not.

Even if they have the same genes, and can interbreed, they may avoid doing so due to a behavior that they have become very unique in physical characteristics.

Heck, for all we know they could be two different genders of the exact same group! Offhand I find that unlikely, but really they are so alien to us it is impossible to say for, let alone weather they are a different race, or in fact different species all together.
Posted by samoht
 - Nov 04, 2010, 02:53:20 AM
Fair enough.
AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News