MGS3_GrayFox wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
He sounds like someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Evolutionary principles do not apply when firearms are in the equation or other equalizers.
You think evolutionary principles do not apply when tools are in the equation?
Explain me that please.
Evolutionary principles do not apply when the person neither made the tool nor was smart enough to make the tool. Taking essentially an incredibly cheap shot does not prove one's physical superiority, at best it shows mental cunning. In this case however there was no mental cunning involved, he killed those who didn't realize they were in competition with him with the pull of a trigger.
IF he killed them with his bare hands then the argument for evolutionary would be stronger, but he didn't and hand to hand combat changes the situation entirely. I would be willing to put a lot of money on him not having the balls, much less the physical skill to kill that many people. Then really the entire evolutionary advantage thing is ruined by the fact that he killed himself.
IF he proved some sort of genetic superiority over the rest of us he still didn't pass on his genes, the sole goal from an evolutionary perspective and he failed at it.
So you have clearly never studied evolution. Not identifying yourself to a group of people with a common goal (by violating societal rules) is not an evolutionary advantage, no matter how strong you are you need friends to back you up because your enemies will have friends to back them up. Mental sickness is a random event and not an evolutionary trait, and for all intents and purposes these people might as well have been struck by lightning. Random events do not facilitate evolution.