Bauke

Bauke, that was extremely rude and uncalled for. I know. I just feel it's extremly [developmentally delayed]ed that people try to take their religious beliefs into this topic. It distracts this topic totally from the original topic: a possible missing link. If you don't believe there is such a thing as a missing link the first place, then don't come posting here. Such a thing fits in the "is there a god?" thread. At least then I won't have to read such nonsense, and so this topic can just be about the interesting (well my opinion ofcourse) stuff about the evolutionary basis of our existance.

There are some flaws in your logic. You don't need lots and lots of information. Most of our DNA is junk anyways. And evolution does not occur solemnly by mixing the DNA of two individuals that create offspring. It's also due to point mutations, homologeous recombination creating different alleles of genes, etc. Yes, DNA miraculously changes by itself. You can get cancer without any external influences, simply by having though luck. That's evolution right there. Creating a cell that is stronger than the cells in its environment. A cell that is able to grow better. (Ofcourse cancer ends due to the limits of the human body, but that's a different subject). As for swine flu... well, in the first place, these viruses don't have DNA, they have RNA. But yes, this particular virus wasn't created due to changes in DNA, but due to recombination. But evolution does not rule out genetic recombination. In fact, it's a major part of changing the DNA of a species. Other viruses can mutate and gain functions. HIV mutates often, and is therefore hard to vaccinate against. The cold virus mutates every year to circumvent our immune system. Bacteria have gained the function to protect themselves against our antibiotics. A changing environment makes for a need for a change in the genome, to gain functions that were not present before, in order to ensure survival of the species in the changed environment. Survival of the fittest makes sure new functions can be created and spread in the population. It's not that hard to induce a gain of function in a whole population. Heck, I've even done it myself with bacteria. (humans would be possible too, but that wouldn't fit in a lab, and would be rather unethical, and would take much longer) And DNA doesn't have to change that much. Our DNA is very, very similar to apes. Yet, we are very different in appearance. That shows what a little change in DNA can do. And conservation of DNA in different species in genes that are extremely important in our embryology show that most species have a lot in common. Check the Hox group of genes. Or signaling pathways that determine growth, differentation and the orientation of an organism. Delta-notch signaling, Wnt, hedgehog... they all have it. While live might be very different in its appearance, the organisation and development is much the same. As on how to built up polymers. It might not be a favorable outcome with nature's laws to build up polymers, yet it does happen. We have molecular machines designated to build up the polymer that our DNA is. I mean, you can even do it yourself. You can use a retrovirus to build in a gene in a human. Wouldn't advice you to, but it is possible. That means elongation of the DNA polymer. Probably also one of the main reason that it is said that the most initial form of life was a virus, though that's pretty much a theory without any evidence. Transposons... well, they usually don't account for a gain of information. All they pretty much do is jump from one place in the genome to an other, usually with a certain pattern (a pattern that can be tracked, also to discover evolutionary patterns) and sometimes cause the number of genes of a certain type to multiply. We have genes in our body that have hundreds of copies. Mostly transcription factors, very important in instructing the cell on what gene products should be made. Transposons can do more, however. They can jump to the middle of a gene. Therefore elongating the gene and adding more amino acids in the mRNA that is transcribed from the DNA. That could cause a gain of function, though in most of the cases it's simply a loss of function. And most of our DNA is junk and not used anyway. Epigenetics are also an important factor in making junk DNA into unusable DNA, but I won't go into detail on that. As for your chaos argument: chaos is simply a higher form of organisation ;) In short: no, your arguments in no way counterfact the development of species. Also, in general, I would like to point out that the evolution theory does not speak about the creation of life, but solemnly about the origin of the species. And evolution itself only speaks of development, and gaining new function in order to stay alive in a changed environment. The theory on the creation of life is abiogenesis, and is subject to a lot of speculation and uncertainty. The evolution theory is a theory based on a hell of a lot of evidence. It's evidence is so overwhelming that the evolution theory is used as a basis of our knowledge in current science. So far, evolution theory is based on solid evidence (though questions still remain) and can't be scientifically disproven (only in the imagination of people). As for evolution itself, that's simply a fact, it does exist. If you're still denying that than you're pretty much living in your imagination. It can simply be proven, by very simple experiments, and has been proven in countless experiments, and is prove pretty much every day, over and over. And to those religious nuts: just stay out of this topic and keep your fantasies to yourself, kay? No lets not do that. Simply because the evolution theory does not seek to answer that question. There are other theories covering that question. Why not? Religion is based on nothing and all reasonable arguments point against religion. All arguments for religion can be used to prove that a flying spaghetti monster exists. I agree. Fine. But people shouldn't post in this thread and just let us here discuss the actual, factual evidence that we can find in regard to the origin and the development of the species. Proof is proof, else it wouldn't be proof. The scientific method is designed to make sure that what is scientifically proven, can be said to be true beyond reasonable doubt. If one chooses to believe otherwise it's his or her own choice, but such a choice is not based on any reasonable or logical argument. It's not about the number of arguments, or the fact that you have arguments in the first place, but it's all dependent on the quality of your arguments. And the quality of the religious folks is just, well... pathetic. And that's just plain not true.

You mean without the runescape search bar?

First, I think you're wrong -- there are no unique slayer monsters between 75 and 80 slayer even though (you've apparently conceded) LOTS of players fall into this range (especially compared to those few who are 90+. I'm talking about the level range. Look what's coming to you from 70 to 85 slayer. Oh cool, so whatever I do, goes for everyone? I'm well aware of this, but this does not relate to this specific situation. If you want to keep your players happy, you make sure they keep having something to do. Someone with level 70 slayer has a lot of exciting new slayer monsters coming up, with decent profit. Ofcourse adding new monsters is never bad. Heck, they should add one for every level between 75 and 80 if possible. But since people have plenty of options to look forward to, I do not understand why the focus is on these low levels, where there is an actual gap at the high levels. By adding a lvl 95 monster, you give people an incentive to train it past 90, to unlock the 95 monster. Everyone who is a high level slayer at this moment will profit from that, as well as the upcoming high levelled slayers. Those people unlocking the monsters between lvl 70 and 85 will want to keep unlocking monsters, and by adding a lvl 95 monster, you give them that opportunity. It makes sure there is more contuinity in the slayer skill. The slayer skill exists for years now. And in all those years, we still haven't seen something new past level 90. I'd have the hope that Jagex would release a high levelled monster soon, because after all those years, it might just not be such a bad idea to finally give something to the higher levels. It makes perfectly sense that most updates are aimed at the average player. But we've had tons of them now. Average players have such a lot of things to do, that they plenty of opportunity to keep them busy till the high levels. And that's where the new slayer updates should come in. To ensure continuity in play and content. And that is lacking now. Sure, add a lvl 78 monster. That's not my complaint. My complaint is that high levelled content (in this case slayer) is out of the focus. And not just by a little. But it seems to be completely forgotten. And the odd thing is, Jagex stated that they're focusing at higher levelled content* (80+). Too bad there's nothing to see on the horizon. *I can't provide a source, since you need to be maxed to enter that particular forum.

This is getting tiresome. With this creature, Jagex filled the gap between 75 and 80 slayer. This is getting tiresome. Like I said before, there are already a lot of monsters in that level range. I know there aren't a lot of people with 90+ slayer. And that's the reason we've been without a lvl 90+ monster all these years. Perhaps give people finally an incentive to train past 90. I don't need my needs met in terms of slayer. I'm happy training slayer the way it is. I just feel this strategy isn't the right one. Trying it to look like whining because supposingly I want more content is pathetic. @Misterknowitall: Yes after tons and tons of low levelled updates, you'd expect a high levelled one once in a while. Perhaps to give high levelled people the feel the game is not a joke after you've passed level 90. But I guess not.

hmm you have a point ... even without the need of mystic robe bottoms aberrats are loaded with people because of the seeds and the herbs ... so that new monster can be useful even without an unique drop ... Killing monsters is more about what the average drop is, and not just what a single drop is. I mean, people camp aviansies, because they give addy bars regularly, not because they drop an epic weapon, or whatever. Monsters can easily be made attractive by giving them frequent drops of useful items, preferably those that stack.

Exactly how I feel about them.

I've never said that. It's just that his arguments are flawed. I just state my opinion, and don't expect Jagex to listen.

6.5/10 Better than cooking/fletching as a first, and comes in handy.

Yeah, that's what I'm doing (in Fx). Works pretty well, except for the search bar, and the fact that a Fx bar will pop up if you hover your mouse too far to the top. But yes... it'll do. It's just not perfect. It's about 95% fullscreen, so I'm 95% happy :P That's true. I wonder if it would still create the crashing problem? Nope, works pretty well.

The point was that you are mad because its 78 and not 95? Sorry but you seam to be forgetting that 95 slayer'ers can also kill this thing too. Its not exclusive to where only 90- can kill it. That being said, 78 or 95, your getting a new slayer monster to add variety to your tasks on your way to 99. We know very little about the monster. It could turn out to be one of the best tasks you can get, similar to waterfiends, or very fast xp like bloodvelds. It could have a mage drop worth 200k+ and be awesome for overall drops. We know very little about this monster, so saying "its 78 so its going to be worthless" is not a valid argument. Sure there may be some campers when it comes out, but regardless if it was 95 or 78, people are going to camp it when it comes out anyways. Like all other monsters, as time passes people will clear out. Especially if the special attack makes it un-campable. I agree that 90+ monster will be needed in the future, but you are getting a new slayer creature to add variety to your tasks. If you have the level to kill it, why does it matter what slayer level it is? I'm talking about the way Jagex is handling slayer. They obviously have a higher priority in adding low level monsters over high level ones. And I personally find that flawed. Since there is no real use in getting slayer above 85 (dark beasts are pathetic now). I don't see why we need a lvl 78 addition. Sure, yay, another monster to kill. But I don't see the point in focussing on that level range. Yeah that's indeed my opinion. Don't be such a moron. So when we had all these new pots such as magic essence, summoning potions etc, they were right or wrong to have them as a lower level requirement? Not all updates are going to be high level. They have to cater for lower, too. 78, in my opinion, is midway between low and high. It is in no way relevant to the point I was making. But I've just expressed it again in this post, so you can reread it and actually make sense.

If people shouldn't voice negative opinions, then I wonder why you're doing it yourself. And next to that, you totally missed the point. And, if you think your lvl 71 slayer level is high, you probably have no idea how to train it properly.

I hope it won't expand. Just like the slayer cave. They both feel kinda dead. I don't quite get the feeling that it's a spooky tower or a spooky cave. It's just a series of nearly empty rooms linked together. I'd rather have more original, nice looking areas to fight monsters in.

The key problem of slayer is, that we don't have anything to look forward to after lvl 90 (or perhaps, even after lvl 85), and we have a crap load of monsters in the lvl range that this new monster is in. Jagex should bridge the gap in the higher level region, and not add yet another low levelled monster. There's so much low levelled content.. before you've done it all, you're a high level and find it boring. So? I dont have anything to look forward to after 82 herblore and im 99, as I said previously in this post, these skills need fixing first. Slayer already has a level 90-required monster. 78 is a decent, intermediate requirement for any skill. Herblore doesn't need fixing first, that's your personal opinion. And herblore has nothing to do with the decision of releasing a low level monster where a high level one is needed. If Jagex decides to bring out a new monster, and takes the time to develop one, then I have no idea why it should be yet another low one, since we already have plenty of monsters in that region. When it comes to slayer, 90+ should have priority.

The key problem of slayer is, that we don't have anything to look forward to after lvl 90 (or perhaps, even after lvl 85), and we have a crap load of monsters in the lvl range that this new monster is in. Jagex should bridge the gap in the higher level region, and not add yet another low levelled monster. There's so much low levelled content.. before you've done it all, you're a high level and find it boring.

That's what I'm doing now. But I'd like it to be fullscreen nonetheless. But since that won't work, this is a decent option. Too bad dual monitor support in general isn't what it should be, in respect to fullscreen applications.

I wouldn't know why playing fullscreen and keeping focus would crash the game? Although I do know that it is not possible, at the moment.

It is legal, I just can't be bothered to dig the link up again. Jagex just thinks it's not in the spirit of the game, or w/e. So, it's by design, therefore not a bug, therefore not abuse, therefore not bannable, therefore not wrong. Whether you think one should be using this particular feature of the game is a personal question, and will not be solved by any discussion whatsoever.

I don't think he's judging the monster, I think he's judging the level requirement. And the latter one isn't that hard to judge. And getting something new to do every task is a totally different subject. You can't deflect the level requirement argument with the way the slayer skill is built up.

Some say it's for the community. I remember enjoying RSC greatly, in a different way from how I enjoy RS now. Same for me, but that feeling is gone. RSC will never come back in the shape that it was. The pixels might be the same, but I'm sure the feeling is gone. I can imagine people trying it again, getting dissapointed, and leave.

Understandable, if you weren't an old school player. Played since mid 2001, so I'm pretty much as veteran as can be.

I don't see why anyone would want to play RSC in the first place. It's an extremely limited old game with extremely crappy graphics. I can't see anyone being used to RS2 wanting to play RSC. I'm not ever going to play that piece of crap again.

About 6k gold, 3k green, 6k crimson, and 1k blue.

People lower than 78 slayer have plenty to look forward to. People with 85+ only have ONE more monster to unlock. We definitely need more higher level focussed monsters, and Jagex wastes their time on adding yet another low slayer monster -.-

Yay, another low level slayer monster. Just what we needed.