The Energon Pub

This topic started on the review thread here viewtopic.php?f=44&t=54610&start=400 and I felt that is was...

1. Off Topic for that thread

and

2. Might make for a good disscusion in it's own topic so I'm creating this to continue where we left off there.

If you don't want to go back and read everything that's allready been said here's a quick recap of what's gone on so far.

My side of the argument is that the movie Transformers seem to be split up into two groups. Robots created by the AllSpark in a simular fasion to how Vector Sigma gave TFs life in G1. And a second group who only LOOK like robots but have shown signs of haveing some verry organic traits.

Sto vo kor on the other hand seems to think BOTH groups are organic and has claimed twice now that he was able to prove this except the AllSpark bots have not been shown to fit all of the criteria he offered as proof. I'm about to answer his last post there so now it's quoteing time...

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Sence you keep missing the point entirely I'm going to have to respond to the rest of this individually. Now you're right about parts of it however the AllSpark powered TFs do not fit some of the criteria.

You never specified you were only talking about those created by the All Spark.

Actully I have, 6 times in fact...

1.

it looks as if the Transformers in the movie are made up of two different groups. Thoughs brought to life by the AllSpark who seem to be entirely robotic and the Protoforms or "Hatchlings" who are apperently robotic in appearance but some how have organic interiors.

2.

The real defining factor is do you build it or spawn it and like I said before, there seem to be two different groups of Transformers. Thoughs brought to life by the AllSpark are non-organic beings with artifical life and the hatchlings who seem to be the product of reproduction as they seem to hatch from egg sacks.

3.

The AllSpark created Transformers were created from things which were never born and non of them have any organic traits like some of the other Transformers do. They would be mechanical and artifically simulate life but are not organic.

4.

I meant they litterally have to be BORN or HATCHED which the protoforms in the movie were but the AllSpark powered Transformers were not.

5.

Oh and we know for a fact that the AllSpark powered Transformers are not organic because we're the ones who built them in the first place.

6.

The only transformers who have Organic traits are the main characters and Protoforms not the random objects the AllSpark animated.

They've shown two different origins for Bayformers. That of the AllSpark which have to be mechanical because we built them and thoughs who came from Protoforms who have organic traits and even hatch from organic egg sacks. Allthough the organic side seem to die off fairly quickly without energon and they probly created the AllSpark in an attempt to make a stronger race of Transformers. In any case, the AllSpark and anything created by are unquestionably machines. It's the Protoforms and other larger transformers who I question exactly what they are.

... And there's my proof!

CHECK

4.Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.

We saw baby tfs that would have redoubtably grown.

Yes, Protoforms, I have allready agreed with you on this point. But you seem to keep ignoreing the AllSpark TFs who were created from pure technoligy and show no signs of organic material like the others do. Protoforms would probly grow into larger TFs, AllSparkies would not as far as I can tell.

Then you cant tell much.

Once they grew arms,legs and weapons they already made it into this catagory.

And what makes you think that they actully "grew" anything? They were all still roughly the same size as they were originally. Their allready exsisting parts seemed to form their arms, legs, and weapons allthough it's kinda hard to tell for sure with the designs.

CHECK

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

Not only can they change shape [which is adapting] but they can gain new bodies when needed.

Again, we have seen larger TFs do this, we have not seen AllSparkies do this. Their alt modes are whatever they were created from and they've shown no signs of being able to scan new forms like the others.

Just because we havent seen it yet does not mean they arent capable.

Well considering you're offering this as proof that you know for a fact they are capable I can at dissprove you for the time being. New evidence is allways welcome when it becomes avalible but for now you don't have suffecient evidence to prove this as fact.

CHECK

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two parent organisms.


again the babies.

Again, the AllSpark TFs do not fit this criteria,

Same as above.

So lets see what you got....2 possibles out of 3.

Thats not a good score.And even if your right about those 2 they still fit most of the critra.

And "most" is all that is needed.

1. Not same as Abouve at all. We haveing seen them scan new forms yet and while they may be able to do we do know for a fact that non of them meet this critera sence they were all manufactured by humans. That doesn't fit into either the single or double parrent catigory. Technically speaking they don't have any parrents the closest they could consider to be parrents are Megatron, where they were reverse engenered from, the humans who did the reverse enginering, and constructing of them, and the AllSpark but they're not really off spring of any literal sence of the word.

2. And you need more than "most". You actully need "all" to qualify them as organic. As I've said before Organic and Machine are two entirely different things but Organic can be SIMULATED with machines so it can sometimes be difficult to tell them apart. The only real way to do it is to actully match up ALL of the critera of what makes something organic.

SOME of Bays TF's do, others DON'T,

Actually all meet the standard.

Nope.

I belive I just did.

Sorry but you failed because you either forgot or never read this line....[which I posted twice already]

"There is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Therefore, life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena."

And even the All spack created ones fit "most" of the critra.

That's wrong. There are ALOT of things that could fit most of that criteria which are not organic. Hell at least half the robots that have ever exsisted in Sci-Fi fit most of that criteria but ROBOTS ARE NOT ORGANIC!

There's one thing about organic life that has never been simulated in machines. The ability to reproduce, to actully spawn new life, not construct it, but to develop it. Organics are naturally developing organisums. AllSpark TFs are not in any sence organic, they are not naturally developed organisums, they are AllSpark powered pieces of technoligy developed and built by humans.

That one thing alone is enough to dissqualify anything as being organic.

Now I thought of this while I was at work today as something to use for an example.



This is a picture of the cartoon "X-men Evolution" version of Forge. I've familiar with about 3 or 4 different versions of him but there's a reason I'm useing this spicific version. In this cartoon Forge was completly organic able to turn his arm into what you see in the picture. It looks mechanical but that is his actual arm and because it's a natural growing part of his body it would be organic.

Now Luke Skywalker had his hand cut off and replaced with a mechanical implant. Something that was built and attached to him. It was a piece of technoligy.

Now by your reasoning as soon as that mechanical implant was attached to Luke's arm it became organic. It fits "most of" the critera for being organic however it's not a naturally developing part of Luke's body.

I'm of a similar view that there are divisions of types of Transformers in the movies. But "organic" vs "artificial machine"...

The movies don't elaborate on it seeing as the Allspark is a magical/deus ex machina plot mechanism for all intents and purposes. On one hand, it does grant life to lifeless objects so they are not "born" or "developed". On the other hand, what if the Allspark created Transformers could take part in the process of creating hatchlings? I'm not sure if anything of the sort happens but I'm wondering if Cybertronians upload "code" to hatchlings to help develop the hatchling? Or do they have some sort of "machine" they can use to start the development of hatchlings without further interaction from a Cybertronian except for supplying energon?

I'm of the mind that since we're dealing with beings that are "machine" based, their origin isn't as important as what they can do in terms of self development/evolution and propagation of the "species". If Allspark created Transformers can create more Transformers that aren't simply exact copies of themselves then I think that they are as "organic" as other Transformers.

Rial Vestro wrote:Sto vo kor on the other hand seems to think BOTH groups are organic and has claimed twice now that he was able to prove this except the AllSpark bots have not been shown to fit all of the criteria he offered as proof. I'm about to answer his last post there so now it's quoteing time...

Actually no.

You have not asked what I think the "All Spark bots" are nore have I offered that up.

The All spark bots do fit most of the critria but I believe they are something different.

BTW "nice" try at putting it together.....but I see you left out key parts to my argument.

And what makes you think that they actully "grew" anything?

I know your color blind but you should be able to see heads,arms, legs, eyes.mouths,weapons.

They were all still roughly the same size as they were originally. Their allready exsisting parts seemed to form their arms, legs, and weapons allthough it's kinda hard to tell for sure with the designs.

Even if they were made by existing parts, which is debatable considering the eyes, their bodies were still reshaped and reformed into other things.

Well considering you're offering this as proof that you know for a fact they are capable I can at dissprove you for the time being.

Actuality you cant disprove me at all.

To being with I offered that up in debate about the TF's from Cybertron not those created on earth.

Secondly to disprove me you would have to prove that they arent capable.

1. Not same as Abouve at all. We haveing seen them scan new forms yet and while they may be able to do we do know for a fact that non of them meet this critera sence they were all manufactured by humans. That doesn't fit into either the single or double parrent catigory. Technically speaking they don't have any parrents the closest they could consider to be parrents are Megatron, where they were reverse engenered from, the humans who did the reverse enginering, and constructing of them, and the AllSpark but they're not really off spring of any literal sence of the word.

It is the same as above because its "the chicken and the egg".

Reproduction is a 2 way street.They may not have parents.....but they may become parents.

2. And you need more than "most". You actully need "all" to qualify them as organic.

Nope.

By the standards of the scintific comunity , only "MOST" of the critra must be met.

Nope

They do and you have failed to prove other wise.

That's wrong.

No you are.

There are ALOT of things that could fit most of that criteria which are not organic.

Which is irrelevant.

Hell at least half the robots that have ever exsisted in Sci-Fi fit most of that criteria

Possibly.

But lets see if your on the right track.

Provide some examples please.

but ROBOTS ARE NOT ORGANIC!

Bays are.

AllSpark TFs are not in any sence organic,

Like I said....you cant prove that definitively.

This is a picture of the cartoon "X-men Evolution" version of Forge. I've familiar with about 3 or 4 different versions of him but there's a reason I'm useing this spicific version. In this cartoon Forge was completly organic able to turn his arm into what you see in the picture. It looks mechanical but that is his actual arm and because it's a natural growing part of his body it would be organic.

Poor example.

Now Luke Skywalker had his hand cut off and replaced with a mechanical implant. Something that was built and attached to him. It was a piece of technoligy.

Ditto

Now by your reasoning as soon as that mechanical implant was attached to Luke's arm it became organic.

I never said anything like that.

Convotron wrote:The movies don't elaborate on it seeing as the Allspark is a magical/deus ex machina plot mechanism for all intents and purposes.

Exactly what I said in the other topic.

If Allspark created Transformers can create more Transformers that aren't simply exact copies of themselves then I think that they are as "organic" as other Transformers.

Very interesting.

I tend to look at the All Spark created bots as "mutations" or "hybrids"

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:I tend to look at the All Spark created bots as "mutations" or "hybrids"

Actually, that's a great way to look at it. I mean, consider how many artificially developed fruits and vegetables we get in grocery stores these days. They were "created" by artificial means. To go further on this line of thought, consider the more old fashioned way of creating breeds of animals and plants through selective breeding and stem/plant grafting. It's an artificial method, a way for humans to create something that isn't naturally developed. They're still animals and fruits and vegetable, just with a different origin than an animal/fruit/vegetable that came about through "natural selection" in the wild.

Convotron wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:I tend to look at the All Spark created bots as "mutations" or "hybrids"

Actually, that's a great way to look at it. I mean, consider how many artificially developed fruits and vegetables we get in grocery stores these days. They were "created" by artificial means. To go further on this line of thought, consider the more old fashioned way of creating breeds of animals and plants through selective breeding and stem/plant grafting. It's an artificial method, a way for humans to create something that isn't naturally developed. They're still animals and fruits and vegetable, just with a different origin than an animal/fruit/vegetable that came about through "natural selection" in the wild.

Thank you very much.

Althou I know its not the exact same think it is pretty close.

The Cube is pretty much a "God force" in this universe having the ability to take unliving objects and magically alter them into living ones just like The Blue Fairy did in changing Pinocchio into a real boy or Circe transforming Odysseus' men into pigs.

Pinocchio was made into a real boy,Odysseus' men were made into real pigs.

We cant say for sure that the Cube isint capable of doing similar.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

They were all still roughly the same size as they were originally. Their allready exsisting parts seemed to form their arms, legs, and weapons allthough it's kinda hard to tell for sure with the designs.

Even if they were made by existing parts, which is debatable considering the eyes, their bodies were still reshaped and reformed into other things.

That's what Transformers do. Parts of their alt modes shift position and become parts of their robot modes. However given the designs of movie TFs and how little we actully know about their creations it's hard to tell weather or not they develop new parts to form things or if everything is formed from exsisting parts.

Basically to fit the criteria of "growth and development" their arms, legs, weapons, and other robotic parts would have to be things that weren't formed from their pre-exsisting parts which were all mechanical parts. Basically sugesting that organic life can grow, develop, and adapt inside of a machine to take it's form rather than a machine transforming into another machine.

Well considering you're offering this as proof that you know for a fact they are capable I can at dissprove you for the time being.

Actuality you cant disprove me at all.

To being with I offered that up in debate about the TF's from Cybertron not those created on earth.

Secondly to disprove me you would have to prove that they arent capable.

For one, you never specified a spicific group of TFs. The only specification you made was "Bayformers" which would include all of the Transformers in both movies includeing the ones created on Earth.

Secondly, I said for the time being seeing as how I'm dissproveing your evidence which at this time doesn't exsist. I don't have to prove that they aren't capable to dissprove your evidence, I only have to prove that so far there's no evidence to suposrt that they can which I did.

1. Not same as Abouve at all. We haveing seen them scan new forms yet and while they may be able to do we do know for a fact that non of them meet this critera sence they were all manufactured by humans. That doesn't fit into either the single or double parrent catigory. Technically speaking they don't have any parrents the closest they could consider to be parrents are Megatron, where they were reverse engenered from, the humans who did the reverse enginering, and constructing of them, and the AllSpark but they're not really off spring of any literal sence of the word.

It is the same as above because its "the chicken and the egg".

Reproduction is a 2 way street.They may not have parents.....but they may become parents.

That is something that you can not prove any way on. "the chicken and the egg" has never been answered with any absolute sertainty so it's a rather poor choise to try and use that arguement as evidence.

2. And you need more than "most". You actully need "all" to qualify them as organic.

Nope.

By the standards of the scintific comunity , only "MOST" of the critra must be met.

As I said before, there are ALOT of things that fit most of the criteria that are not organic so I question how ligitamate your source is. A bar of soup or an artifical sponge fit most of that criteria but they are not organic. And yes there are naturally developing sponges that live in the ocean but they are not squares or rectangles like the artifical sponges created by humans.

There's another example for you. The AllSpark TFs and Protoform TFs are about as different as artifical sponges created by humans and a naturally developing sponges that can be found on ocean floors.

There are ALOT of things that could fit most of that criteria which are not organic.

Which is irrelevant.

Not at all. If any non-organic items can fit most of the critera you're offering as evidence it proves that "most" isn't good enough.

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

Any mechanical device even in the real world can fit into this. That's basically what radiator fluid and/or coolant is for in a car.

2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

Everything fits that. Everything is made up of cells.

3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

Again, even in the real world machines can fit into this catigory. Batteries, gasoline, solar, electric, all that stuff that powers machines could be considered part of this.

6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.

The effect you get when metal is heated could be considered a response to stimuli.

That's 4 out of 7 things that can be applied to any real life machine and that right there means that a car fits most of that criteria. Cars are not organic.

4.Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two parent organisms.

These three things are what sepeate organics from machines in the real world. In fiction some Transformers actully fit number 5 but I don't know of any robot who could fit 4 and 7.

At any rate, I've just proved that ALL the criteria is needed for something to be organic, not most, unless you want to start saying that your car is organic.

but ROBOTS ARE NOT ORGANIC!

Bays are.

Nope. They're either robots or they're organic life forms who only appear to be robotic. They can not be both organics and robots. An organic robot is an oximoron. Robots and organics are two entirely different things. It simply is not possible to be both at the same time.

It's possible to be an organic with robotic parts or an organic who appears robotic but they would not be an organic robot.

It's possible to be a robot with organic parts or a robot who appears organic but they would not be an organic robot.

Organics are naturally developing things.

Machines are artifically created things.

They're polar oppisites. It's as possible for them to be both machine and organic as it is for someone to be tall and short at the same time, skinny and fat at the same time, or fast and slow at the same time.

This is a picture of the cartoon "X-men Evolution" version of Forge. I've familiar with about 3 or 4 different versions of him but there's a reason I'm useing this spicific version. In this cartoon Forge was completly organic able to turn his arm into what you see in the picture. It looks mechanical but that is his actual arm and because it's a natural growing part of his body it would be organic.

Poor example.

Now Luke Skywalker had his hand cut off and replaced with a mechanical implant. Something that was built and attached to him. It was a piece of technoligy.

Ditto

No, it's not a poor example. It proves my point.

Convotron wrote:Actually, that's a great way to look at it. I mean, consider how many artificially developed fruits and vegetables we get in grocery stores these days. They were "created" by artificial means. To go further on this line of thought, consider the more old fashioned way of creating breeds of animals and plants through selective breeding and stem/plant grafting. It's an artificial method, a way for humans to create something that isn't naturally developed. They're still animals and fruits and vegetable, just with a different origin than an animal/fruit/vegetable that came about through "natural selection" in the wild.

They may be artifically insiminated but they still develop naturally from two parrents. They're not constructed from spair parts like Frenkinstien's monster or the Vahzilok.

Rial Vestro wrote:That's what Transformers do. Parts of their alt modes shift position and become parts of their robot modes. However given the designs of movie TFs and how little we actully know about their creations it's hard to tell weather or not they develop new parts to form things or if everything is formed from exsisting parts.

But your not grasping the basics.

They formed new joints,bend points,fingers,explosives.....and so much more that just couldnt be formed by the existing parts of a soda machine or a can opener.

Like I said in the other thread....this isint like taking a robot body to Vector Sigma and asking to give it life.

The Cube redesigned and rebuilt their bodies at the very least and or morphed their bodies into a living hibrid at the most.

For one, you never specified a spicific group of TFs.

Yes I did.

Secondly, I said for the time being seeing as how I'm dissproveing your evidence which at this time doesn't exsist.

Doesnt matter because you cant disprove me with evidence that does not exists.

It remains a possibility till they say otherwise.

I don't have to prove that they aren't capable to dissprove your evidence, I only have to prove that so far there's no evidence to suposrt that they can which I did.

Which you failed.

To prove it an impossibility you need to prove they arent at all organic.

There is no definitive evidence that states the "All Spark" created robots all all that different.They dont look all that different by design and the function in pretty much the same way.

That is something that you can not prove any way on.

I dont have to.

Its a possibility that you cant disprove.

"the chicken and the egg" has never been answered with any absolute sertainty so it's a rather poor choise to try and use that arguement as evidence.

No no no.

Thats the beauty of the argument.

I cant lose.

Your talking in absolutes, making claims you cant back uo.

Labeling the AS created TF's as all together different when there is no difintive evidence that states that as a fact.

Thats your mistake.

Me I reconise the possibilities that the movie is suggesting.

I dont have to prove they are capable of having offspring to suggest its possible.....all I have to do is point to a similar events.

You on the other hand have to disprove the possibility to say its not.

As I said before, there are ALOT of things that fit most of the criteria that are not organic so I question how ligitamate your source is.

As I said before it is irrelevant that there are many things that fit.As a matter of fact, when looking for life threw out the universe ,most scientist and researchers will look for anything that exhibits at least 1 or 2 of the mentioned critras.

And the reason for that is we really cant expect to know what shape or form life might take on an other world.

There's another example for you. The AllSpark TFs and Protoform TFs are about as different as artifical sponges created by humans and a naturally developing sponges that can be found on ocean floors.

And yet an other statement you cant back up.

Not at all.

Absolutely.

If any non-organic items can fit most of the critera you're offering as evidence it proves that "most" isn't good enough.

For you maybe.

So I guess its a good thing you arent a scientist.

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

Any mechanical device even in the real world can fit into this. That's basically what radiator fluid and/or coolant is for in a car.

And yet a car doest swet or develop those coolents on its own.

It doesnt mater that many non-living things would fit this caragory,they all still fit the critria.

The critira is not a meresument of fact, its a judgment tool of appearances nd descrpitions.

Failure #1 for you.

2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

Everything fits that. Everything is made up of cells.

But not "THE" cells that are the units of life.

To put it plainly.....the cells of a non living object are quit different then does of a living organism.

But I wouldnt expect you to understand all that so I wont criticize you for not knowing.Hell I dont even understand that all.

3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

Again, even in the real world machines can fit into this catigory. Batteries, gasoline, solar, electric, all that stuff that powers machines could be considered part of this.

No it cant.

While I admit, the end result may be the same, there is a distinct difference between a "Metabolism" and the burning or useing of energy.

Fail #2

6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.

The effect you get when metal is heated could be considered a response to stimuli.

Check 1 for you.

That's 4 out of 7 things that can be applied to any real life machine

Actually you only got 1.....and even that one is a stretch.

And even if you got 5 or 6 it wouldnt change a thing.

The stranded is still "most" not all..

At any rate, I've just proved that ALL the criteria is needed for something to be organic, not most, unless you want to start saying that your car is organic.

Sorry but you proved nothing but your own personal ideas.

The scientific standards stand as a fact not an opinion.One day those standrds may change but I highly doubt your quilifyed to suggest how they change.

Nope.

Yep.

They're either robots or they're organic life forms who only appear to be robotic. They can not be both organics and robots. An organic robot is an oximoron. Robots and organics are two entirely different things. It simply is not possible to be both at the same time.

Yes it is.

No, it's not a poor example. It proves my point.

It is a poor example and proves nothing but you limited imagination.

Rial Vestro wrote:This is a picture of the cartoon "X-men Evolution" version of Forge. I've familiar with about 3 or 4 different versions of him but there's a reason I'm useing this spicific version. In this cartoon Forge was completly organic able to turn his arm into what you see in the picture. It looks mechanical but that is his actual arm and because it's a natural growing part of his body it would be organic.

Now Luke Skywalker had his hand cut off and replaced with a mechanical implant. Something that was built and attached to him. It was a piece of technoligy.

Now by your reasoning as soon as that mechanical implant was attached to Luke's arm it became organic. It fits "most of" the critera for being organic however it's not a naturally developing part of Luke's body.

First of all, I do not want to intrude on yet another notorious RV/St feudlette, for which I am vastly underarmed. (Please don't hit me!) Second, Convotron is right. Whatever he said.

Third--the quote above actually is a false dilemma. It seems to state that there are two choices and only two--organic or mechanical. (Unless I'm vastly misreading and if so, see above--don't hit me: I wear glasses). There's a third: cyborg.

Think about it and not even in a cartoon-sourced way. How many people today are walking around with Kevlar heart valves? Pacemakers? Insulin pumps? Cochlear implants? These are actual people, with clearly mechanical (operational) parts. The last three with external power sources. That doesn't make the pacemaker 'organic'. Nor does it make the human, mechanical. It's a hybrid: a cyborg. Not only do both coexist in the same creature, but that creature now needs to service both his human AND mechanical sides. His (or her) way of thinking is hybridized as well--they can't think of themselves as one or the other--they must think of themselves as both. Can I go here with a pacemaker or will it kill me? Do I have batteries for my insulin pump?

Cyborg theory's got a whole pile of thought on this stuff, that since I'm on like 4 hours of sleep I can't recall now.

HK, Donna Haraway--incomprehensible.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Rial Vestro wrote:That's what Transformers do. Parts of their alt modes shift position and become parts of their robot modes. However given the designs of movie TFs and how little we actully know about their creations it's hard to tell weather or not they develop new parts to form things or if everything is formed from exsisting parts.

But your not grasping the basics.

They formed new joints,bend points,fingers,explosives.....and so much more that just couldnt be formed by the existing parts of a soda machine or a can opener.

Like I said in the other thread....this isint like taking a robot body to Vector Sigma and asking to give it life.

The Cube redesigned and rebuilt their bodies at the very least and or morphed their bodies into a living hibrid at the most.

The soda machine from the first movie just shot soda cans at people which would seem reasonable to assume that it didn't gain any new parts it didn't allready have to form it's weapon systems. It's basically like recycleing, takeing one thing and building something else with it's parts.

However there is an incosistancy with the weapons AllSparkers gain. Some of the kitchen bots seemed to be shooting bullets and I question how that's possible unless the bullets were reformed from exsisting parts as well.

I think what the AllSpark does is actully a combination of two different things from G1. Vector Sigma which I've allready mentioned but you're right, Vector Sigma never reformatted the bodies of anything it brought to life. The Matrix and Unicron however did. The Matrix was able to reformat Hot Rod's body to make Rodimus Prime however that seemed to cause him to grow and gain new parts so we'll cross that one out. But Megatron to Galvatron, Unicron took his exsisting body and reformatted it, seemingly taking his allready exsisting parts and turning them into something else.

There's really no way to prove this what happened but it is a reasonable theory I think.

It remains a possibility till they say otherwise.

A possibility yes, but you claimed it was a fact so I did dissprove it as fact untill there is evidence avalible to prove that fact.

I don't have to prove that they aren't capable to dissprove your evidence, I only have to prove that so far there's no evidence to suposrt that they can which I did.

Which you failed.

To prove it an impossibility you need to prove they arent at all organic.

As allways you miss my point. I didn't fail. I wasn't trying to prove it an impossibility. I was trying to prove that it wasn't a fact. You claimed it was a fact and that you had evidence to prove it as fact. All I had to do to dissprove you was show that your evidence was faulty which I did. You have a nice theory but you can't prove your so called fact.

That is something that you can not prove any way on.

I dont have to.

Its a possibility that you cant disprove.

Actully because you claimed it was a fact not a possibilty you do have to prove it. I was only trying to dissprove it as FACT not as a possibilty which I did. I was never trying to dissprove the possibility, only the fact.

"the chicken and the egg" has never been answered with any absolute sertainty so it's a rather poor choise to try and use that arguement as evidence.

No no no.

Thats the beauty of the argument.

I cant lose.

Your talking in absolutes, making claims you cant back uo.

Labeling the AS created TF's as all together different when there is no difintive evidence that states that as a fact.

Thats your mistake.

Me I reconise the possibilities that the movie is suggesting.

I dont have to prove they are capable of having offspring to suggest its possible.....all I have to do is point to a similar events.

You on the other hand have to disprove the possibility to say its not.

Technically speaking what I said was that we know they don't have parrents because we know they were designed and built by humans not that we know they can't be parrents. So you see you CAN loose because you still have to prove they can without a doubt, be able to reproduce. While I on the other hand can rely on the current known facts untill new evidence can be provided to dissprove what we know now. In other words I can't loose unless you prove the chicken came first.

I tried to tell you it was a bad idea to use that as an analigy.

As I said before, there are ALOT of things that fit most of the criteria that are not organic so I question how ligitamate your source is.

As I said before it is irrelevant that there are many things that fit.As a matter of fact, when looking for life threw out the universe ,most scientist and researchers will look for anything that exhibits at least 1 or 2 of the mentioned critras.

And the reason for that is we really cant expect to know what shape or form life might take on an other world.

reasonable but flawed. And before you said most, now you're saying 1 or 2 which is FAR from most. If something only needs to fit 1 or of the criteria for being organic than EVERYTHING is organic. So now I'm REALLY questioning what your source is.

There's another example for you. The AllSpark TFs and Protoform TFs are about as different as artifical sponges created by humans and a naturally developing sponges that can be found on ocean floors.

And yet an other statement you cant back up.

Actully I can and did. There isn't much different from an artifical and organic sponge other than shape, color, and the fact that one is a man made product and the other is a naturally developing life form. I had to study the damn things in high school but I can look up the exact difference for you if you want me to. I'm sure there's something I'm forgetting, another characteristic that seperate the two, but I have no idea what it is right now.

If any non-organic items can fit most of the critera you're offering as evidence it proves that "most" isn't good enough.

For you maybe.

So I guess its a good thing you arent a scientist.

Again, I'm questioning your source. I highly doubt that scientists are stupid enough to classify a car as organic.

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

Any mechanical device even in the real world can fit into this. That's basically what radiator fluid and/or coolant is for in a car.

And yet a car doest swet or develop those coolents on its own.

You never specified they had to. And how do you know any of the Transformers develop any of the liquids we saw on their own? For all we know they could of just been leaking the same non developing car fluids we were just talking about.

2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

Everything fits that. Everything is made up of cells.

But not "THE" cells that are the units of life.

To put it plainly.....the cells of a non living object are quit different then does of a living organism.

But I wouldnt expect you to understand all that so I wont criticize you for not knowing.Hell I dont even understand that all.

Same as abouve. How do you know any of the Transformers are made up of cells that are the units of life? You just helped me with that one.

3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

Again, even in the real world machines can fit into this catigory. Batteries, gasoline, solar, electric, all that stuff that powers machines could be considered part of this.

No it cant.

While I admit, the end result may be the same, there is a distinct difference between a "Metabolism" and the burning or useing of energy.

And again how can you prove which one the Transformers fall into.

That's 4 out of 7 things that can be applied to any real life machine

Actually you only got 1.....and even that one is a stretch.

And even if you got 5 or 6 it wouldnt change a thing.

The stranded is still "most" not all.

It does change alot if the standard is "most" because there are only 7 things listed so 4 or more would be the standard for "most". Allthough I will admit I had trouble understanding some of the more technical terms after you exsplained them it only managed to dissprove one argument and start another. So that criteria, still isn't enough sufficient evidence in the movies to prove how much of it applys to any of the Transformers.

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

We saw BB leaking fluids....fluids are used in cooling and lubricating their insides.

As you stated abouve the fluids have to be naturally produced in their bodies which you can't prove they are. This is a possibility but not a definite answer.

2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

This one is pretty obvious.

As you stated abouve the cells of liveing and non-liveing things are different so this one is not as obvious as you originally sugested in this quote. So again, can not be proven but is a possibility.

3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

It appeared that at least as some points they need energy.

Again as you stated abouve there is a difference in a metabolism and how machines burn through energy and we can't prove how Transformers use energy so yet again, not proven but still a possibility.

Are you keeping count here, that's 3 so far I've dissproven as facts and I only need to dissprove one more as a fact to add reasonable doubt that any of the Transformers are organic.

4.Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.

We saw baby tfs that would have redoubtably grown.

Now I actully agree with you on this one but we don't really know this to be a fact either. There's reason to belive they would have grown but we can't prove it.

That's 4, but I'm going to keep going just to see if any of these can actully be proven one way or another.

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

Not only can they change shape [which is adapting] but they can gain new bodies when needed.

Oh wait that's one. AllSpark creations will not be included with this one because we don't know and can't prove at this time if they have that ability like the other characters do.

6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.

Self explanatory.

That's two.

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two parent organisms.


again the babies.

And that one again is really only an assumetion, one that I would agree with but still it's an assumetion not a fact.

Now given all this, I think there's enough evidence to sugest that we're right about 4 and 7 when applied to the Protoforms and that's enough to make them organic as they would then fit most of this criteria. The evidence I'm refering to is of course the verry organic looking egg sacks which would sugest that Transformers do have parrents, grow, and develop naturally. The fluids can easily be exsplained away as being car fluids not anything that develop in thier bodies naturally but the egg sacks are harder to exsplain away if it's even possible to do so. I can't think of any other exsplination for them but maybe someone else can.

The AllSpark creations however can not be proven to fit any of this except for number 6. They only fit 1 of 7 which does not even qualify them for most of the criteria. There is still the possibility that they could fall under some of the other catigorys as well but there is not enough suffecient evidence to prove any of them.

Given what I've just said do you understand now why I belive the Protoforms are organic but not the AllSparkers.

hellkitty wrote:

Rial Vestro wrote:This is a picture of the cartoon "X-men Evolution" version of Forge. I've familiar with about 3 or 4 different versions of him but there's a reason I'm useing this spicific version. In this cartoon Forge was completly organic able to turn his arm into what you see in the picture. It looks mechanical but that is his actual arm and because it's a natural growing part of his body it would be organic.

Now Luke Skywalker had his hand cut off and replaced with a mechanical implant. Something that was built and attached to him. It was a piece of technoligy.

Now by your reasoning as soon as that mechanical implant was attached to Luke's arm it became organic. It fits "most of" the critera for being organic however it's not a naturally developing part of Luke's body.

the quote above actually is a false dilemma. It seems to state that there are two choices and only two--organic or mechanical. (Unless I'm vastly misreading and if so, see above--don't hit me: I wear glasses). There's a third: cyborg.

You're probly vastly missreading but I'm not going to hit you. I'm not a violent person. I am however going to try and rephraise as it may have more to do with my wording than your reading but first lets see how badly you missunderstood.

Think about it and not even in a cartoon-sourced way. How many people today are walking around with Kevlar heart valves? Pacemakers? Insulin pumps? Cochlear implants? These are actual people, with clearly mechanical (operational) parts. The last three with external power sources. That doesn't make the pacemaker 'organic'. Nor does it make the human, mechanical. It's a hybrid: a cyborg. Not only do both coexist in the same creature, but that creature now needs to service both his human AND mechanical sides. His (or her) way of thinking is hybridized as well--they can't think of themselves as one or the other--they must think of themselves as both. Can I go here with a pacemaker or will it kill me? Do I have batteries for my insulin pump?

Cyborg theory's got a whole pile of thought on this stuff, that since I'm on like 4 hours of sleep I can't recall now.

HK, Donna Haraway--incomprehensible.

Well the arguement was that organics and machines are two verry different things and that argument still stands. You seem to have totally missed the part about Luke Skywalker however. I have included cyborgs in this debate but obviously I haven't exsplained them well enough.

The idea behind something can not be both organic and mechanical at the same time is not really directed at an individual person but the parts that form them. My ex-girlfriend who I was staying with for the 2 weeks when I wasn't posting is a dibetic and has an insoulin pump. She is of course organic but that pump is not. It's not even a part of her body, it's something that attaches to her body.

Body parts are of course things people are born with that are naturally developing parts of them. Anything else, cloths, plastic limbs, insoulin pumps, pacemakers, ect. are non-organic implants.

In order for something to truely be both organic and machanical it would have to be both built and naturally developing which simply is not possible. It would have two totally oppisite origins. Not just part of it being one thing and another part being another but the entire thing would have to be both. The simpleist way I can think of to exsplain it is that a person who lost a leg would have to build and grow a new leg at the same time in order for just that leg to be both organic and mechanical. This is of course impossible because something is either built or grown not both hence it's impossible to be both organic and mechanical. Organic things grow, mechanical things are built.

Rial Vestro wrote:The soda machine from the first movie just shot soda cans at people which would seem reasonable to assume that it didn't gain any new parts it didn't allready have to form it's weapon systems. It's basically like recycleing, takeing one thing and building something else with it's parts.

It did gain, or morphed, other parts into systems that even recycleing shouldnt have been able to do.

However there is an incosistancy with the weapons AllSparkers gain. Some of the kitchen bots seemed to be shooting bullets and I question how that's possible unless the bullets were reformed from exsisting parts as well.

Dont forget the devise brought to life by those Sector 7 guys in the first film.....I* think it was a Nokia cell phone.

And while I can believe that the bullets are "refashioned" from existing parts....whats propelling them can not be.

No less, how many of these bullets can they actually put out????

I think what the AllSpark does is actully a combination of two different things from G1. Vector Sigma which I've allready mentioned but you're right, Vector Sigma never reformatted the bodies of anything it brought to life. The Matrix and Unicron however did. The Matrix was able to reformat Hot Rod's body to make Rodimus Prime however that seemed to cause him to grow and gain new parts so we'll cross that one out. But Megatron to Galvatron, Unicron took his exsisting body and reformatted it, seemingly taking his allready exsisting parts and turning them into something else.

There's really no way to prove this what happened but it is a reasonable theory I think.

No offense but you seem to be stretching a bit.....but I do applaud you for thinking outside the box this time.

Even the Matrix and Unicron [G1 cartoon] never did what the Cube has done.Yes they took robots and -re-formatted" them into other robots.

Thats much different then taking a can opener and making it a robot....or what ever they really are.

A possibility yes, but you claimed it was a fact so I did dissprove it as fact untill there is evidence avalible to prove that fact.

You disproved nothing.

I claimed no facts.

You never asked me my opinion.

All I claimed was that all of Bays TF's fit the critra for organic life by the standards set forth by the scientific community.

And that remains so.

The only way to disprove my words is to disprove the possibility.

And since you just agreed its a "possibility" I'm guessing you cant disprove it.

As allways you miss my point. I didn't fail. I wasn't trying to prove it an impossibility. I was trying to prove that it wasn't a fact. You claimed it was a fact and that you had evidence to prove it as fact. All I had to do to dissprove you was show that your evidence was faulty which I did. You have a nice theory but you can't prove your so called fact.

As always.....you need to bone up on your reading and comprehension skills.

YOU DID FAIL.

As I said above......I claimed no facts.

I never gave you my opinion.

I said they fit the critra as the standards are set.And thats still the case.

To disprove that you need to change the scientific standards.

Good luck with that.

Actully because you claimed it was a fact not a possibilty you do have to prove it. I was only trying to dissprove it as FACT not as a possibilty which I did. I was never trying to dissprove the possibility, only the fact.

You did nothing but demonstrate your poor reading and comprehension skills.

Technically speaking what I said was that we know they don't have parrents because we know they were designed and built by humans not that we know they can't be parrents. So you see you CAN loose because you still have to prove they can without a doubt, be able to reproduce. While I on the other hand can rely on the current known facts untill new evidence can be provided to dissprove what we know now. In other words I can't loose unless you prove the chicken came first.

Sorry but no.

You claimed they didnt fit the critra catagory for "REPRODUCTION" because they didnt have parents because because they were designed and built by humans.

But you "FAILED" to realize that the category or for Reproduction was a 2 way street.They do not need parents if its possible that they can become parents to qualify for the category.

You also failed to reconise the other types or "REPORDUCTION"....[more in a bit]

And all I had to do was point to how its possible.

You also "FAILED" to reconise the possible different causes for some of the abilities the AS created bots have and how they can be called a "sign" of reproduction.

And thats the amount of "bullets" again.....particularly with that Cell phone.Theres no way that the Cell phone would have had that many parts it could "retool" into that many bullets.

Which meens there must be some kind of "CELL DIVISION" in play here.

Cell division would explain the amount of bullets that were expelled and Cell division is a type of reproduction.

So since "Cell Division" is possible in play here my argument still stands.

So you see....I cant lose because you still have to not only , come up with your own plausible theory, but you also have to disprove, without a doubt, that theres no type reproduction in play here.

While I on the other hand can rely on what we were shown in the film and the possibilities they suggest.

In other words I can't loose unless you prove the egg never came from the chicken

I tried to tell you I cant lose.

reasonable but flawed.

Only to your limited understanding.

And before you said most, now you're saying 1 or 2 which is FAR from most.

And again your reading and comprehension skills fail you.

I said the "STANDARD TO BE MET WAS MOST".But when looking , scientist will look for just about anything that "MAY" fit simplely because they cant expect to know what shape or form life might take.

The standards apply in the testing phase.

Actully I can and did.

Actually you cant and didn't.

Because you havent been able to prove "definitively" how different the Cube bots are from those from Cybertron.

Again, I'm questioning your source. I highly doubt that scientists are stupid enough to classify a car as organic.

No one said they would.

That was your limited understanding that lead you to that conclusion.

You never specified they had to.

No....the scientific standards did that......which are standards in identifying biological life.

Maybe you should look up the defintions of the words you quote and how they apply to the subject at hand before you go around quoting them????

The critria is used to see if they show signs of the named category....if they do then other test must be made to prove if they are organic.

But even if the test proves they arent organic they still fit the critiria.

And how do you know any of the Transformers develop any of the liquids we saw on their own? For all we know they could of just been leaking the same non developing car fluids we were just talking about.

Because...despite appearances, TF's are not cars,trucks and planes.....they just look like cars,trucks and planes.

That much was evident with B's engine.

Same as abouve. How do you know any of the Transformers are made up of cells that are the units of life? You just helped me with that one.

You got no help at all since even I said I wasnt attacking you on that one.

But since you brought it up....if TF's are alive then their cells are made of the units of life.....as it developed on their planet.

Which is why I didnt argue this point because we cant be expected to be able to identify what a unit of life is on every other world.

And again how can you prove which one the Transformers fall into.

For the perpos of this debate.......I dont have to prove it all all.

Again its about the standard in idenifying life.

But in the real world....an examination of their waste would most likely reveal the defining answer.

It does change alot if the standard is "most" because there are only 7 things listed so 4 or more would be the standard for "most". Allthough I will admit I had trouble understanding some of the more technical terms after you exsplained them it only managed to dissprove one argument and start another. So that criteria, still isn't enough sufficient evidence in the movies to prove how much of it applys to any of the Transformers.

You changed nothing.

The standards stand.

You disproved nothing....you only managed to raised questions.

As you stated abouve the fluids have to be naturally produced in their bodies which you can't prove they are. This is a possibility but not a definite answer.

Covered above.

As you stated abouve the cells of liveing and non-liveing things are different so this one is not as obvious as you originally sugested in this quote. So again, can not be proven but is a possibility.

And again.

Again as you stated abouve there is a difference in a metabolism and how machines burn through energy and we can't prove how Transformers use energy so yet again, not proven but still a possibility.

Again.

Are you keeping count here, that's 3 so far I've dissproven as facts and I only need to dissprove one more as a fact to add reasonable doubt that any of the Transformers are organic.

Ohh I'm keeping count....of your Failures.

That's 4,

You can keep trying......

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

Not only can they change shape [which is adapting] but they can gain new bodies when needed.

Oh wait that's one. AllSpark creations will not be included with this one because we don't know and can't prove at this time if they have that ability like the other characters do.[/quote]

And your limited understandings shows.

"determined by the organism's heredity" and they are cololy related to the TF's of Cybertronian orgin.They share in the transforming ability.

Those 2 points alone put them in this category.

Adaptation is also about behaivor of the mind...meaning how one adapt to a new involvement.....which the Cube created bots showed they were capable of in many ways.

That's two.

2 what????

And that one again is really only an assumetion, one that I would agree with but still it's an assumetion not a fact.

Covered above with the Cell division.

So sorry but you failed again.

The AllSpark creations however can not be proven to fit any of this except for number 6.

They fit.

Given what I've just said do you understand now why I belive the Protoforms are organic but not the AllSparkers.

Nope because you failed to prove what you were suggesting.You failed to reconise the different types or reproduction....you failed at every attempt to question the standards.

Rial Vestro wrote:In order for something to truely be both organic and machanical it would have to be both built and naturally developing which simply is not possible. It would have two totally oppisite origins. Not just part of it being one thing and another part being another but the entire thing would have to be both. The simpleist way I can think of to exsplain it is that a person who lost a leg would have to build and grow a new leg at the same time in order for just that leg to be both organic and mechanical. This is of course impossible because something is either built or grown not both hence it's impossible to be both organic and mechanical. Organic things grow, mechanical things are built.

Even your conclusions here are debatable.

Having a DNA based cybernetic being (or CNA rather ) doesn't make it not a machine. It's not like the Bay universe is first fiction to use DNA based robotics, another one is the Megaman series. Reploids, the next generation of robots that were created after X and Zero are that way as well. Why the X series bosses are animal based, and X and Zero gain weapons from extracting DNA from fallen bosses.

Look at what the autobots name was short for..

By transformers wiki on autobots

http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Autobot

In the movie it is Ratchet who provides the name Autobot, claiming it is an abbreviation after Optimus' line, "We are autonomous robotic organisms from the planet Cybertron". This may imply that "Autobot" is the species name for the Transformers (or at least a name they probably used to refer to their kind before the war).

In the novelization of the movie, when Optimus states that they are "independently cognitive mechanical entities from a very distant world [...] You could also think of us as autonomous robotic organisms" (p.169, Chapter , Mikaela murmurs "Autonomous robots--Autobots" (Autonomous Robots) (p.169, Chapter . Later, after Optimus has the glasses, and has analyzed them, he thinks of what would be an "appropriate indigenous designation for bots of this kind?" (p.221 Chapter 11), Optimus says "Autobots--roll out!". This means that, in the novelization, they didn't call themselves Autobots.

Look at right there in clear as day. They re robotic organisms..meaning they re both organic and robots. No reason something can't be both. It's not a contradiction as the OP seems be insisting. Beast wars was same deal, as organic based machines was an evolvution of their race, as they are designed to adapt.

Though I suppose its possible argue cybertronians are actually energy based beings that simply inhabit mechical bodies heh. But I'll leave as autonomous robotic organisms.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Rial Vestro wrote:The soda machine from the first movie just shot soda cans at people which would seem reasonable to assume that it didn't gain any new parts it didn't allready have to form it's weapon systems. It's basically like recycleing, takeing one thing and building something else with it's parts.

It did gain, or morphed, other parts into systems that even recycleing shouldnt have been able to do.

However there is an incosistancy with the weapons AllSparkers gain. Some of the kitchen bots seemed to be shooting bullets and I question how that's possible unless the bullets were reformed from exsisting parts as well.

Dont forget the devise brought to life by those Sector 7 guys in the first film.....I* think it was a Nokia cell phone.

And while I can believe that the bullets are "refashioned" from existing parts....whats propelling them can not be.

No less, how many of these bullets can they actually put out????

I'm going to respond to both of these at the same time rather than individually like I normally do.

The Cell Phone, and yes it was definatly a cell phone but I didn't think they ever said what brand it was so no idea if it was a Nokia or not, I'd agree with part of what you said. A phone has no systems to begine with that could be turned into the propelling device at least by human means but the AllSpark may be able to reshape things in ways that we can't. In the case of the soda machine, it allready has the systems to shoot out the soda cans but they are not that powerfull to become projectiles normally. They can however, even by human means be changed to fire with more force than just dropping the soda. Allthough with human technoligy it would probly require changeing out parts to boost the power but again the AllSpark can probly boost exsisting abilitys in ways that we can't without changeing it's exsisting parts.

I think what the AllSpark does is actully a combination of two different things from G1. Vector Sigma which I've allready mentioned but you're right, Vector Sigma never reformatted the bodies of anything it brought to life. The Matrix and Unicron however did. The Matrix was able to reformat Hot Rod's body to make Rodimus Prime however that seemed to cause him to grow and gain new parts so we'll cross that one out. But Megatron to Galvatron, Unicron took his exsisting body and reformatted it, seemingly taking his allready exsisting parts and turning them into something else.

There's really no way to prove this what happened but it is a reasonable theory I think.

No offense but you seem to be stretching a bit.....but I do applaud you for thinking outside the box this time.

Even the Matrix and Unicron [G1 cartoon] never did what the Cube has done.Yes they took robots and -re-formatted" them into other robots.

Thats much different then taking a can opener and making it a robot....or what ever they really are.

It's still a form of reformatting if that's what's really going on but like I said, no proff, just a theory.

A possibility yes, but you claimed it was a fact so I did dissprove it as fact untill there is evidence avalible to prove that fact.

You disproved nothing.

I claimed no facts.

You never asked me my opinion.

All I claimed was that all of Bays TF's fit the critra for organic life by the standards set forth by the scientific community.

And that remains so.

The only way to disprove my words is to disprove the possibility.

And since you just agreed its a "possibility" I'm guessing you cant disprove it.

I did.

You did.

I don't know what that's got to do with it, you never gave your opinion either.

And I proved they don't.

Doesn't.

Nope because your words state it as a fact not as a possibility.

You never claimed it was possibility, you stated it as a fact and provided evidence to back up said fact, and your evidence was dissproven.

Here's your original quote.

According to what they said in the first film.....they are organic.

This claims an absolute, not a possibility. You said that they ARE organic. You've made many other claims like this but I'm too tired to look for them.

As allways you miss my point. I didn't fail. I wasn't trying to prove it an impossibility. I was trying to prove that it wasn't a fact. You claimed it was a fact and that you had evidence to prove it as fact. All I had to do to dissprove you was show that your evidence was faulty which I did. You have a nice theory but you can't prove your so called fact.

As always.....you need to bone up on your reading and comprehension skills.

YOU DID FAIL.

As I said above......I claimed no facts.

I never gave you my opinion.

I said they fit the critra as the standards are set.And thats still the case.

To disprove that you need to change the scientific standards.

Good luck with that.

And now you're contridicting yourself again. Going to respond to each line here in order.

No.

No.

As I said abouve, you did claim it as a fact.

And there's the contridiction. It's either a fact or it's an opinion and you're claiming you gave neither. Well you're right on that you gave no opinion because you stated it as a FACT!

Which is a description of a fact and that's not the case because I proved there isn't enough evidence in the movie for them to fit that criteria.

No, don't need to change the scientific standards because I just proved that the TF don't even fit the scientific standards. You need more evidence from the movie to prove that they do fit thoughs standards.

Break a leg with that.

Actully because you claimed it was a fact not a possibilty you do have to prove it. I was only trying to dissprove it as FACT not as a possibilty which I did. I was never trying to dissprove the possibility, only the fact.

You did nothing but demonstrate your poor reading and comprehension skills.

See abouve.

Technically speaking what I said was that we know they don't have parrents because we know they were designed and built by humans not that we know they can't be parrents. So you see you CAN loose because you still have to prove they can without a doubt, be able to reproduce. While I on the other hand can rely on the current known facts untill new evidence can be provided to dissprove what we know now. In other words I can't loose unless you prove the chicken came first.

Sorry but no.

You claimed they didnt fit the critra catagory for "REPRODUCTION" because they didnt have parents because because they were designed and built by humans.

But you "FAILED" to realize that the category or for Reproduction was a 2 way street.They do not need parents if its possible that they can become parents to qualify for the category.

That's not a failer because I never claimed they couldn't reproduce. You maid the claim that they could and stuck them in that catigory without any proof that they could. The failer is on your part because you can't just stick them in the catigory without any proof that they even belong there in the first place. You need proof that they can reproduce first before you can catigorize them saying that they can.

You seem to be neglecting that proper scientific proccedure relys on cold hard facts, not assumetions. You can't catigorize something as a reproductive organizum if you have no proof of it and that's basically what you were doing.

You also failed to reconise the other types or "REPORDUCTION"....[more in a bit]

And all I had to do was point to how its possible.

You also "FAILED" to reconise the possible different causes for some of the abilities the AS created bots have and how they can be called a "sign" of reproduction.

And thats the amount of "bullets" again.....particularly with that Cell phone.Theres no way that the Cell phone would have had that many parts it could "retool" into that many bullets.

Which meens there must be some kind of "CELL DIVISION" in play here.

Cell division would explain the amount of bullets that were expelled and Cell division is a type of reproduction.

So since "Cell Division" is possible in play here my argument still stands.

So you see....I cant lose because you still have to not only , come up with your own plausible theory, but you also have to disprove, without a doubt, that theres no type reproduction in play here.

The egg never came before the chicken? That metiphor doesn't even make sence.

As for all the stuff about the bullets... well, it's Holly Wood, they use to make movies where cow boys would shoot up to 15 bullets from 6 shooters without ever reloading or changing weapons.

And before you said most, now you're saying 1 or 2 which is FAR from most.

And again your reading and comprehension skills fail you.

I said the "STANDARD TO BE MET WAS MOST".But when looking , scientist will look for just about anything that "MAY" fit simplely because they cant expect to know what shape or form life might take.

The standards apply in the testing phase.

It sounds to me like all you're doing is changeing your arguement every time I prove you wrong. And if not why is it that you didn't state all of this in the begining and suply your source? That just seems a little fishy that if that's true that you didn't say it to start with insted of waiting till now.

Actully I can and did.

Actually you cant and didn't.

Because you havent been able to prove "definitively" how different the Cube bots are from those from Cybertron.

I don't need to prove "definitively" how different the Cube bots are from those from Cybertron. I never stated anything as an absolute fact. I only stated opinions based on the current evidence we know of within the movie. Opinions which can be changed when more evidence is provided. You're the one who's been dealing with absolutes and you're the one who can be proven wrong.

You never specified they had to.

No....the scientific standards did that......which are standards in identifying biological life.

Maybe you should look up the defintions of the words you quote and how they apply to the subject at hand before you go around quoting them????

Technically I wasn't quoteing them, I was quoteing YOU sence YOU and YOU alone are the one who posted the bloody thing in the first place maybe you should of proved the link to where you got the information or at the verry least quote your source properly so as not to leave out important information like that.

And again it really sounds like all you're doing is changeing the arguement right after it's been dissproven to go back in your favor because that again is something that should of been included with your original argument and not wait till now to be brought up.

And how do you know any of the Transformers develop any of the liquids we saw on their own? For all we know they could of just been leaking the same non developing car fluids we were just talking about.

Because...despite appearances, TF's are not cars,trucks and planes.....they just look like cars,trucks and planes.

That much was evident with B's engine.

Exsplane? B's engine from Makala's descirption was just a normal car engine except that she found it odd that engine was in that car because it was normally for race cars not the "Piece of crap Camaro" that Bumblebee was at the time so I fail to see what his engine has to do with this.

Same as abouve. How do you know any of the Transformers are made up of cells that are the units of life? You just helped me with that one.

You got no help at all since even I said I wasnt attacking you on that one.

But since you brought it up....if TF's are alive then their cells are made of the units of life.....as it developed on their planet.

Which is why I didnt argue this point because we cant be expected to be able to identify what a unit of life is on every other world.

I have no idea what you just said but I'll try to make this really simple.

Everything is made up of cells.

Liveing things are made up of different types of cells than non-liveing things.

Now even though this is sci-fi I still doubt that even in a fictional world it's possible to simulate life on a cellular level so if Transformers are "Alive" in an artifical and simulated way then I'm guessing they still would not have these cells.

And again how can you prove which one the Transformers fall into.

For the perpos of this debate.......I dont have to prove it all all.

Again its about the standard in idenifying life.

But in the real world....an examination of their waste would most likely reveal the defining answer.

For the perpos of this debate, you do have to prove it. You're the one who provided it as evidence.

Are you keeping count here, that's 3 so far I've dissproven as facts and I only need to dissprove one more as a fact to add reasonable doubt that any of the Transformers are organic.

Ohh I'm keeping count....of your Failures.

Nothing has failed. I'm dissproveing facts, not possibilitys.

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

Not only can they change shape [which is adapting] but they can gain new bodies when needed.

Oh wait that's one. AllSpark creations will not be included with this one because we don't know and can't prove at this time if they have that ability like the other characters do.

And your limited understandings shows.

"determined by the organism's heredity" and they are cololy related to the TF's of Cybertronian orgin.They share in the transforming ability.

Those 2 points alone put them in this category.

Adaptation is also about behaivor of the mind...meaning how one adapt to a new involvement.....which the Cube created bots showed they were capable of in many ways.[/quote]

I still wouldn't count them.

Transforming alone is not really an adaption in their case because they didn't take the transformations to adapt, they were created from them which is totally the oppisite.

A comelian has the ability to change color to adapt and hide in it's enviorment which is basically what Transformers do only with alt modes insted of color. Now if any other lizzard just happens to sitting on a green back drop, that's not really adapting. They didn't do anything to blend in, lizzards are just naturally green anyway.

As for the mind thing, their behavier doesn't even show that. All the AllSparkers have been refered to as Decepticons and that's one theory but another is that while they're newly created they're basically just angry and confused, not evil. Which would mean that they're acting from pure emotion, not thought, and just blasting anything that moves.

It's basically the reaction you would probly get if you stuck a man who'd been in a coma his whole life in a room with a gun and what his first instinct would be when he woke up.

That's two.

2 what????

Two catigorys that the Transformers irrefutibly fit into.

And that one again is really only an assumetion, one that I would agree with but still it's an assumetion not a fact.

Covered above with the Cell division.

So sorry but you failed again.

Um, no and how does what you said abouve apply to this? It's not covered.

Given what I've just said do you understand now why I belive the Protoforms are organic but not the AllSparkers.

Nope because you failed to prove what you were suggesting.

So I see you still haven't even got a clue what I'm talking about even after I've clearly stated multiple times that I'm not dealing in facts and because of this I don't have to prove anything. Nothing I've said can be proven, I'm stateing opinions. You're asking me to prove my opinions. If I could prove them they would then be facts and I'm not trying to prove anything as a fact. I started out in the review topic by stateing my opinions and I have continued to stand by thoughs opinions as you have said nothing to change them.

What you seem to be failing to grasps is that I have said nothing which can proven right or wrong. You on the other hand, have. You are the only one in this debate who has said anything as a fact and as such you are the only one who can be proven either right or wrong. You stated as a fact that the transformers are organic (quoted somewhere abouve) when there really isn't enough evidence to prove it at this time which means you are WRONG. Now if you would like to continue with that same argument but change it to an opinion rather than a fact then go ahead and do so and we can just agree to dissagree for now but as a fact, it is, WRONG!

Lastjustice wrote:Having a DNA based cybernetic being (or CNA rather ) doesn't make it not a machine. It's not like the Bay universe is first fiction to use DNA based robotics, another one is the Megaman series. Reploids, the next generation of robots that were created after X and Zero are that way as well. Why the X series bosses are animal based, and X and Zero gain weapons from extracting DNA from fallen bosses.

Look at what the autobots name was short for..

By transformers wiki on autobots

http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Autobot

In the movie it is Ratchet who provides the name Autobot, claiming it is an abbreviation after Optimus' line, "We are autonomous robotic organisms from the planet Cybertron". This may imply that "Autobot" is the species name for the Transformers (or at least a name they probably used to refer to their kind before the war).

In the novelization of the movie, when Optimus states that they are "independently cognitive mechanical entities from a very distant world [...] You could also think of us as autonomous robotic organisms" (p.169, Chapter , Mikaela murmurs "Autonomous robots--Autobots" (Autonomous Robots) (p.169, Chapter . Later, after Optimus has the glasses, and has analyzed them, he thinks of what would be an "appropriate indigenous designation for bots of this kind?" (p.221 Chapter 11), Optimus says "Autobots--roll out!". This means that, in the novelization, they didn't call themselves Autobots.

Sto allready made that argument and I'll tell you the same thing I told him. NOT POSSIBLE.

Megaman, as that's the only example you provided that I'm actully familiar with, is not organic. It's stated verry clearly that he was a robot designed to think, act, and look like a real human boy. His an organic simulation but is still a non-organic machine.

Look at right there in clear as day. They re robotic organisms..meaning they re both organic and robots.

It's right there makeing absolutly no sence.

No reason something can't be both. It's not a contradiction as the OP seems be insisting.

Plenty of reason something can't be both, it is a contridiction, they're polar oppisites. Same as tall and short. Fat and skinny. Big and small. Full and empty. ect. ect.

Beast wars was same deal, as organic based machines was an evolvution of their race, as they are designed to adapt.

Not at all the same deal as Beast Wars. I've allready covered this as well. They were robots with organic componants which is not the same as one thing being both organic and a robot. That's like saying a chicken salad is both meat and vegitarian. It's not, it has a mixture of meat and vegitarian but putting chicken inside a salad does not make the lettice both a meat and a vegitarian food nor does it make the chicken both a meat and a vegitarian food.

Though I suppose its possible argue cybertronians are actually energy based beings that simply inhabit mechical bodies heh. But I'll leave as autonomous robotic organisms.

Again that would still mean that they are actully organics not organic machines.

Adding mechanical parts to an organic or vice versa does not make them both. Luke Skywalker is not an organic robot, he's an organic with a robotic hand. The mechanical hand did not become organic from being attached to him and he did not become robotic. Both Luke and the hand were still exactly what they were originally. Luke is ONLY an organic and the hand is ONLY robotic, neither is both at the same time.

Wow, there's a lot here. Sadly I don't have the time to get drawn fully into this debate. A shame really.

However, for the time being I offer up the following as a sidepoint on being two things at once (in this case robotic or organic):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

I don't think it would be fair to 'take sides' at the moment, I'm simply offering this up as food for thought.

don't know how much of a difference this is going to make but, going back to the first film where scoponok lost its tail after the fight with lennox's team and the airforce. they took the tail for examination, the guy who examined it ended up saying that it's like some kind of regenerating molecular armour, then the scene ends with lennox saying that the metal skin reacts to extreme heat. sorry couldn't fine a clip on youtube.

Lastjustice wrote:Having a DNA based cybernetic being (or CNA rather ) doesn't make it not a machine. It's not like the Bay universe is first fiction to use DNA based robotics, another one is the Megaman series. Reploids, the next generation of robots that were created after X and Zero are that way as well. Why the X series bosses are animal based, and X and Zero gain weapons from extracting DNA from fallen bosses.

Look at what the autobots name was short for..

By transformers wiki on autobots

http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Autobot

In the movie it is Ratchet who provides the name Autobot, claiming it is an abbreviation after Optimus' line, "We are autonomous robotic organisms from the planet Cybertron". This may imply that "Autobot" is the species name for the Transformers (or at least a name they probably used to refer to their kind before the war).

In the novelization of the movie, when Optimus states that they are "independently cognitive mechanical entities from a very distant world [...] You could also think of us as autonomous robotic organisms" (p.169, Chapter , Mikaela murmurs "Autonomous robots--Autobots" (Autonomous Robots) (p.169, Chapter . Later, after Optimus has the glasses, and has analyzed them, he thinks of what would be an "appropriate indigenous designation for bots of this kind?" (p.221 Chapter 11), Optimus says "Autobots--roll out!". This means that, in the novelization, they didn't call themselves Autobots.

Look at right there in clear as day. They re robotic organisms..meaning they re both organic and robots. No reason something can't be both. It's not a contradiction as the OP seems be insisting. Beast wars was same deal, as organic based machines was an evolvution of their race, as they are designed to adapt.

Though I suppose its possible argue cybertronians are actually energy based beings that simply inhabit mechical bodies heh. But I'll leave as autonomous robotic organisms.

Thank you.

Wow.....just wow.

I'm going to try to shorten this mainly because I seem to continue to repeat myself and you just seem not to be capable or grasping the fundimentals.

And because I may not be tired of being your friend but I am tired of being your teacher.

Rial Vestro wrote:The Cell Phone, and yes it was definatly a cell phone but I didn't think they ever said what brand it was so no idea if it was a Nokia or not,

They did mention the Brand Name.....I double checked last night.

but the AllSpark may be able to reshape things in ways that we can't.

Sorry but that barely explain's half of the issue.

The phone also had "seeking missles" with explosives.

It's still a form of reformatting if that's what's really going on but like I said, no proff, just a theory.

Its more a form of "mutation".

I did.

You didnt.

You did.

I didnt....and I challenge you to show me where I did.

I don't know what that's got to do with it, you never gave your opinion either.

You never asked me what I felt,you never asked me what I thought they were.

You asked what they were and I gave you what the critra was and how they fit.

Not by my opinion but by example of what was shown.

And I proved they don't.

You proved nothing.

You even said as much when you said it was still a possibility.

You never claimed it was possibility, you stated it as a fact and provided evidence to back up said fact, and your evidence was dissproven.

I never claimed it was a fact.

I said they fit the critra.

They do.

And you havent disproved anything.

You failed....as you always fail.

Here's your original quote.

According to what they said in the first film.....they are organic.

This claims an absolute, not a possibility. You said that they ARE organic. You've made many other claims like this but I'm too tired to look for them.

Read my statement again....

"According to what they said in the first film.....they are organic"

Are you denying what was said in the first film?????

And read it again....the film said they were organic....not I.

You cant dispute it.

And now you're contridicting yourself again.

Theres no contradiction at all.

Going to respond to each line here in order.

No.

No.

As I said abouve, you did claim it as a fact.

Yes

Yes

And I claimed no facts.

Just because theres evidence that points to you committing a murder does not meen you actully did it.

So....just because Bays TF's fit the critra does not meen its a fact that they do.

But they do fit the critra.

As for the rest of this section....I suggest you bone up on your reading skills.

You just dont seem to understand what the crtira represents.

And thats why your wrong.Saying they fit the crtria is not the same as saying they are definitely organic.Saying they fit the critra is not saying they are organic as a fact.

If they fit the critra it is possible that they are organic.

When you say they dont fit the critra you claiming as a fact that they arent organic.And thats why your wrong.

because I proved there isn't enough evidence in the movie for them to fit that criteria.

When???

Nothing you stated proved anything.As the crtria stands all they have to do is qulify for most.....you barely raised questions about 1.

Break a leg with that.

Why bother.

You havent provided any proof at all.

See abouve.

To see how you failed again????

That's not a failer because I never claimed they couldn't reproduce. You maid the claim that they could and stuck them in that catigory without any proof that they could. The failer is on your part because you can't just stick them in the catigory without any proof that they even belong there in the first place. You need proof that they can reproduce first before you can catigorize them saying that they can.

Like I said itsa failer because you didnt reconise the different signs of reproduction.

The egg never came before the chicken? That metiphor doesn't even make sence.

Excuse me???

No offence but thats got to be one of the dumest things I ever read.

Do you even understand what the metaphor means???The very questing is predicated on the idea of the possibility that the egg came first.

Its a paradox.

Here it is.

"what came first....the chicken or the egg??"

See it right there in the question........its asking if the egg came before the chicken or vicversa.

Forgetting what we think about evolution , The chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

Chickens hatch from eggs, but eggs are laid by chickens, making it difficult to say which originally gave rise to the other. To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.

So yes....the metaphor works both ways.....hence the paradox.

As for all the stuff about the bullets... well, it's Holly Wood, they use to make movies where cow boys would shoot up to 15 bullets from 6 shooters without ever reloading or changing weapons.

As always you deflect any questions you just cant answer.

It sounds to me like all you're doing is changeing your arguement every time I prove you wrong.

Dont you wish.

You havent proved anything wrong in this debate yet.

As a matter of fact you have never proved me wrong about anything.

And if not why is it that you didn't state all of this in the begining and suply your source? That just seems a little fishy that if that's true that you didn't say it to start with insted of waiting till now.

Why must everything be spoon fed and spelled out for you???

Theres nothing contradictory in the statement.

You want a source....just look up what constitutes life in any encyclopedia because its obvious you failed to learn it in school.

I don't need to prove "definitively" how different the Cube bots are from those from Cybertron. I never stated anything as an absolute fact.

You do and you did.

You said they couldnt be organic at all because we built them.

Thats a statement of fact....that you cant back up because you cant say difintively what the Cube did to them.

Technically I wasn't quoteing them, I was quoteing YOU sence YOU

'
And thats still your mistake.

Why would you quote anyone when you dont fully understand what your quoting?????

Thats ignorance at its best.

and YOU alone are the one who posted the bloody thing in the first place maybe you should of proved the link to where you got the information or at the verry least quote your source properly so as not to leave out important information like that.

Nothing was left out.

You should have looked up the meaning of the word and how it applied before you went around useing it.

Thats your mistake not mine.

And again it really sounds like all you're doing is changeing the arguement right after it's been dissproven to go back in your favor because that again is something that should of been included with your original argument and not wait till now to be brought up.

In your dreams.

Exsplane? B's engine from Makala's descirption was just a normal car engine except that she found it odd that engine was in that car because it was normally for race cars not the "Piece of crap Camaro" that Bumblebee was at the time so I fail to see what his engine has to do with this.

This is why I always tell you to research.

If you knew anything about engines you would know that the engine she described was not what was shown.

I have no idea what you just said

Thats no shock.

but I'll try to make this really simple.

Everything is made up of cells.

Liveing things are made up of different types of cells than non-liveing things.

Now even though this is sci-fi I still doubt that even in a fictional world it's possible to simulate life on a cellular level so if Transformers are "Alive" in an artifical and simulated way then I'm guessing they still would not have these cells.

Now your confusing me.

I'll try to make this simpleer.

Life as we know it consist of "A" typical cells while non-living things consist of "B" typical cells.

What we dont know is if Alien life will fit into any known catagory of life or if even the same laws would applyies

For the perpos of this debate, you do have to prove it. You're the one who provided it as evidence.

Sorry but no.

I said they fit the crtria....and they do.

I did not say for a fact that they were organic....the writters did that.

Nothing has failed. I'm dissproveing facts, not possibilitys.

You have done nither.

I still wouldn't count them.

You wouldnt.......

Transforming alone is not really an adaption in their case because they didn't take the transformations to adapt, they were created from them which is totally the oppisite.

A comelian has the ability to change color to adapt and hide in it's enviorment which is basically what Transformers do only with alt modes insted of color. Now if any other lizzard just happens to sitting on a green back drop, that's not really adapting. They didn't do anything to blend in, lizzards are just naturally green anyway.

None of that made any sence.

As for the mind thing, their behavier doesn't even show that.

Yes it does.

They gave chase, they formulated plans when chaseing sam, they attacked what they were unfamiliar with, they adapted to chasing same and reacted when he attacked back.

I can list more then that if you like.

Two catigorys that the Transformers irrefutibly fit into.

So now your saying thay Do FIT???

Seems to me your agreeing.

Um, no and how does what you said abouve apply to this? It's not covered.

If you cant see it I cant help you.

What you seem to be failing to grasps is that I have said nothing which can proven right or wrong.

Thats a load or crap.

You were the one that said they dont fit the crtria.

Thats a statement of fact......which you were wrong about because they do fit.

You said you proved crtria should be all not most.

Thats a statement of fact.....which you werent qulified to make.

You said that the AS created bots could not be in any way organic because we built them

Thats a statement of fact.....which you cant back up because we dont know exactly what the cube did to them.

Thats why your wrong.

Ion the other hand, have made no statements of fact.

Just because something fits the crtria does not meen they are definitively organic.

But they do fit the crtria.

And the writters said they were organic in dialog.

So if you want to continue and try to prove me wrong....your welcome to try.

But I warn you....its almg going to server to make a fool of you.

Iron Prime wrote:Wow, there's a lot here. Sadly I don't have the time to get drawn fully into this debate. A shame really.

However, for the time being I offer up the following as a sidepoint on being two things at once (in this case robotic or organic):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

I don't think it would be fair to 'take sides' at the moment, I'm simply offering this up as food for thought.

Nice add.

Rial , just cause you lack the imagination understand how goes together doesn't make it a contradiction. Life can take many forms, we know too little about the universe to claim everything is an absolutes.

The megaman X series and beyond is infact DNA based in same manner transformers bayverse is. The 4 guardians in the Zero games are cloned from X's DNA and theres acopy X running around. The generation of reploids Axl comes from copies the DNA of other reploids and came assume their form. (which they copy Sigmas.) In the Zx games biometals are infused with the DNA of heroes and fuses them with both humans and reploids to create a new techno-organic being. The Legends games Megaman Trigger and the Guardian Sarah demolition each other, Trigger body becomes so damaged he has to reduce himself to a protoform like state and be reborn as a human child like form. His memories are locked in the sidekick who says data as an external harddrive.

The line between man and machine radically blurs in the techno organic world. It's not as crude as simply cybernetic limbs. It's goes beyond that, as its a fusion of the two.

Your example of Forge is a bad example. Apocalyse reformed his body to appear as a machine. But simply looking like a machine and being one are two different things. Any shapeshifter could do same thing, as Clayface in batman animated series makes his hand look like a metal claw.

Luke is a human with a replacement limb. But how much of the person can you replace before they stop being called a human? this the question ghost in the shell asks. What is the defination of humanity? There's people mind's placed in robotic bodies are they actually people then, or are they simply machines emulating human's thought they've uploaded?

Thank you.

No probelm Stov

Plenty of reason something can't be both, it is a contradiction, they're polar opposites. Same as tall and short. Fat and skinny. Big and small. Full and empty. ect. ect.

In your mind. If you were take a make a golem of clay, stone, flesh or metal, it's animated being its still same thing made of different substances. Life isn't defined by flesh or organs in my life, its defined by lifeforce. Transformers are clearly alive, beings, may be they re composed in a manner we don't understand(its science fiction, not science fact atm , but who knows one day...), but they're organisms. As saying goes I think there for I am. Johnny 5 is alive regardless of his genesis. They are sentient life, as Prime regularly reminds us in his quote, "Freedom is right of all sentient life." Unless you can disprove their sentience, my point perfectly stands.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

And I proved they don't.

You proved nothing.

You even said as much when you said it was still a possibility.

OK I see the problem. I'm not being clear enough.

I have said multiple times that I wasn't trying to dissprove the possibility, I was dissproveing the fact and that much is 100% true.

The quote you have there wasn't worded properly on my part. It really should be "I proved there's a lack of evidence that they do." or "I showed that there's not enough evidence to prove that they do."

You never claimed it was possibility, you stated it as a fact and provided evidence to back up said fact, and your evidence was dissproven.

I never claimed it was a fact.

I said they fit the critra.

They do.

And you havent disproved anything.

You failed....as you always fail.

Did.

Did again just then right after claiming you didn't.

They MIGHT but can't be proven and you did AGAIN for the SECOND time after claiming you didn't. Note, you said they DO which means you're stateing a fact.

I have.

And I haven't.

Here's your original quote.

According to what they said in the first film.....they are organic.

This claims an absolute, not a possibility. You said that they ARE organic. You've made many other claims like this but I'm too tired to look for them.

Read my statement again....

"According to what they said in the first film.....they are organic"

Are you denying what was said in the first film?????

And read it again....the film said they were organic....not I.

You cant dispute it.

Oh but I can because as I said before in reply to that quote when you originally made it, they ALLSO said in the first film that they ARE NOT organic. And they were refered to as robots MUCH more offten than they were refered to as organics. The organic thing only had one line while the robot thing was throughout both movies.

While I still doubt that they couldn't figure out Megatron was organic if he actully was there's allso the added reasoning of ROTF taking place 2 years later and they're still refering to them as robots. So you're not only exspecting me to belive that they studied Megatron and came to the WRONG conclusion that he's non-biological but you allso exspect me to belive that after 2 years of working togeather that the Autobots never corrected the humans they were working with?

So....just because Bays TF's fit the critra does not meen its a fact that they do.

But they do fit the critra.

As for the rest of this section....I suggest you bone up on your reading skills.

Or maybe you should speak more clearly. The two lines before you made the reading comment don't make any sence what so ever. Just like alot of the stuff you type, it's contridicting. You fliped twice starting at they fit the criteria then suegested that they may not then went back to they definatly do. Make up your mind.

You just dont seem to understand what the crtira represents.

No what I don't understand is you.

And thats why your wrong.Saying they fit the crtria is not the same as saying they are definitely organic.Saying they fit the critra is not saying they are organic as a fact.

If they fit the critra it is possible that they are organic.

When you say they dont fit the critra you claiming as a fact that they arent organic.And thats why your wrong.

Absolutly not. You got that TOTALLY BACKWARDS.

You're claiming that they for a fact, fit the critera. There is not enough evidence in the movies to actully suport that as a fact.

I said that they don't fit the critera given the current evidence. That doesn't mean that new evidence can't be introduced to say that they do later. I went through each one and said where they fit and where it's only a POSSIBILITY. I didn't say they don't fit, I said that there wasn't suffeciant evidence to say that they do.

Again, you're the one claiming facts here. Your original statements regarding each piece of the critera stated as facts that they do fit the criteria and even now you're still doing it but you're contridicting yourself saying you aren't when you're still wording it as a fact.

I've probly contridicted myself too a few times but I'm posting late at night responding to you and my brain is scrambled so I'm just doing it subcontiously because I'm seeing it from you.

because I proved there isn't enough evidence in the movie for them to fit that criteria.

When???

Nothing you stated proved anything.As the crtria stands all they have to do is qulify for most.....you barely raised questions about 1.

I'm not going to bother looking for it but the basic gist of it is that in regards to Protoforms, only 2 of the criteria can actully be proven and in the case of AllSparkers only 1 can actully be proven. Anything else would only fit by your personal opinion but you haven't stated anything as an opinion. Two of the criteria, growth and reproduction, I think would fit the Protoforms for example. I belive they would fit but there is not enough evidence to actully prove it as a fact that they do. You stated that the Transformers for a fact could grow and reproduce when there is no solid proof of it. The Protoforms would SUGEST that it's right but they are not sufficiant evidence to prove it on their own.

Break a leg with that.

Why bother.

You havent provided any proof at all.

And why would I have to? I keep telling you, I'M NOT TRYING TO PROVE ANYTHING, I'VE ONLY STATED MY OPINIONS! What part of that aren't you understanding? You are the only one in this debate who has made any claims to facts. You are the only one in this debate who can be proven right or wrong. You're the only one in this debate who seems to want to prove what can't be proven. I have nothing to prove and therefore have no reason to provide any proof. Why do you keep insisting that I provide proof of my opinions? Which by the way is another oximoron.

That's not a failer because I never claimed they couldn't reproduce. You maid the claim that they could and stuck them in that catigory without any proof that they could. The failer is on your part because you can't just stick them in the catigory without any proof that they even belong there in the first place. You need proof that they can reproduce first before you can catigorize them saying that they can.

Like I said itsa failer because you didnt reconise the different signs of reproduction.

The different signs of reproduction have nothing to do with it. Reproduction in ANY form can not be proven that they are actully capable of. It's a possibility yes but it is not a fact.

The egg never came before the chicken? That metiphor doesn't even make sence.

Excuse me???

No offence but thats got to be one of the dumest things I ever read.

Do you even understand what the metaphor means???

Yes, do you? That's why I made the remark. The way you reworded it doesn't even apply to anything I said.

The very questing is predicated on the idea of the possibility that the egg came first.

Its a paradox.

Here it is.

"what came first....the chicken or the egg??"

See it right there in the question........its asking if the egg came before the chicken or vicversa.

Forgetting what we think about evolution , The chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

Chickens hatch from eggs, but eggs are laid by chickens, making it difficult to say which originally gave rise to the other. To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.

So yes....the metaphor works both ways.....hence the paradox.

OK so you do understand it but apperently didn't understand me. As I said abouve, I made that remark because the way you reworded it didn't even apply to anything I said. It seemed the only reason you said it was because right before that I said you had to prove that the chicken came first which makes sence because you're suggesting that something that never had a parrent can be a parrent. You made the oppisite remark to me which makes no sence because I never made that claim. I said it was a possibility.

Forgetting the Transformers for a moment and just useing the Metaphor itself. You said the Chicken came before the egg. I said it's possible but can you prove it? And you responded by telling me to prove the egg came first. That's why the metaphor didn't make sence, you were basically ordering me to prove a claim that I never made in the first place.

I don't need to prove "definitively" how different the Cube bots are from those from Cybertron. I never stated anything as an absolute fact.

You do and you did.

You said they couldnt be organic at all because we built them.

Thats a statement of fact....that you cant back up because you cant say difintively what the Cube did to them.

And now you just continue to not make any sence what so ever.

Because we built them is a statement of fact, a fact which is the reason for my opinion which preseeds it.

I can back it up because what the cube did to them does not change that fact. If the cube did indeed turn a soda machine into an organic creature that does not in any way change the fact that said soda machine was built by humans unless of course you would like to sugest that the AllSpark not only has the power to alter the malecular structure of inaminate objects but can allso change the course of history to make it so said object was never built yet some how still exsists as something else.

In case that was too complicated for you here's the simple version.

Even if you could prove for a fact that the AllSparkers were organic it would not change the fact that they were originally pieces of technoligy created by humans and that is the only fact I stated in that quote.

Technically I wasn't quoteing them, I was quoteing YOU sence YOU

'
And thats still your mistake.

Why would you quote anyone when you dont fully understand what your quoting?????

Thats ignorance at its best.

No, as I said before. That's YOUR mistake. You quoted them, you left out information in the quote, you were useing the quotes as your evidence. I have nothing to do with it. I was dissproveing the evidence that you provided, it's not my fault that you can't suport yourself.

I was quoteing you and the evidence you provided because I was attempting to dissprove your evidence. Again, I had nothing to do with it, it's not my fault you can't suply proper evidence.

That's, you're lucky I quoted anything at all. I'm in tech week you know and I can't be bothered to pick up your slack quoteing job.

Here's a simple version for you. In order for me as the reader to be at fault I have to actully have all of the text I'm supose to be reading. Then and only then can you blame my reading skills. Otherwise it's your fault as the wrighter that I can't understand what you're trying to prove by providing the criteria if you leave part of it out.

and YOU alone are the one who posted the bloody thing in the first place maybe you should of proved the link to where you got the information or at the verry least quote your source properly so as not to leave out important information like that.

Nothing was left out.

You should have looked up the meaning of the word and how it applied before you went around useing it.

Thats your mistake not mine.

Something was left out.

How should of known to look up the meaning of the word and how it applied when I thought it was allready there in the quote, hence what you left out.

That's you're mistake not mine.

Exsplane? B's engine from Makala's descirption was just a normal car engine except that she found it odd that engine was in that car because it was normally for race cars not the "Piece of crap Camaro" that Bumblebee was at the time so I fail to see what his engine has to do with this.

This is why I always tell you to research.

If you knew anything about engines you would know that the engine she described was not what was shown.

And? That sounds like a mistake on the movie's part to me. What was shown was suposidly the same thing she was looking at. It's just like all the continuity errors in Transformers like Bonecrusher being in ROTF when he was killed in the first movie.

As for research I know absolutly nothing about cars, I would probly have to research for the next 16 years to learn what the hell it is Makala was even talking about, what the hell was actully shown, and even after all that I still would not know what the hell it has to do with the criteria for being organic.

but I'll try to make this really simple.

Everything is made up of cells.

Liveing things are made up of different types of cells than non-liveing things.

Now even though this is sci-fi I still doubt that even in a fictional world it's possible to simulate life on a cellular level so if Transformers are "Alive" in an artifical and simulated way then I'm guessing they still would not have these cells.

Now your confusing me.

Well at least I've accomplished something.

For the perpos of this debate, you do have to prove it. You're the one who provided it as evidence.

Sorry but no.

I said they fit the crtria....and they do.

Sorry but yes.

You said they fit the criteria....and you have not proven that.

Transforming alone is not really an adaption in their case because they didn't take the transformations to adapt, they were created from them which is totally the oppisite.

A comelian has the ability to change color to adapt and hide in it's enviorment which is basically what Transformers do only with alt modes insted of color. Now if any other lizzard just happens to sitting on a green back drop, that's not really adapting. They didn't do anything to blend in, lizzards are just naturally green anyway.

None of that made any sence.

I'll break it down for you.

A comelian which I'm spelling the name wrong is a type of lizard with the ability to change it's color to blend in with it's enviorment. This color changeing ability is comparible with the Transformers ability to scan new alt modes which several characters have shown they can do at will.

Transformers created by the AllSpark have not been shown to have this ability and are simply created with the alt mode of whatever it is that they were created from. This is compairible to any other lizard which are normally just green all the time. If a normal green lizard just happens to be sitting on something that's green it's not really adapting in a physical sence, it was allready like that to begine with just like the AllSpark created Transformers don't turn into into human things because they're trying to blend in on Earth but because they were created from Human things.

Better?

As for the mind thing, their behavier doesn't even show that.

Yes it does.

They gave chase, they formulated plans when chaseing sam, they attacked what they were unfamiliar with, they adapted to chasing same and reacted when he attacked back.

No it doesn't.

They gave chace? OK why? To hunt for food? That's really the only reason that would apply here, any other reason has nothing to do with adaption. Well maybe, but I can't think of another that applys. They formulated plans? When, how? They don't speak English and they didn't even make any gestures to sugest that's true. They attacked what they were unfamiliar with? They were just created, that would be EVERYTHING includeing themselfs. They adapted to chasing same? Oh Sam, hello Mr. Typo. You allready said chaseing but you rephraised it this time and I still think they were just shooting at anything that moves which has little to do with adaption. reacted when he attacked back? We're talking about adapting to the enviorment not responce to stemuli which is where that last one should be catigorized.

Two catigorys that the Transformers irrefutibly fit into.

So now your saying thay Do FIT???

Seems to me your agreeing.

Into 2 catigorys yes, 2 out of 7.

No, not exactly. You claimed they fit into MOST of the 7 and 2 hardly qualifys as MOST.

Um, no and how does what you said abouve apply to this? It's not covered.

If you cant see it I cant help you.

I didn't understand how what you applied to what I said. There's a two way street here, don't automatically assume that I just don't understand what you said.

Simply put if I can't see how it applys to what I said there's a 50% chance that you don't understand what I said of course we'll never know for sure if you're not even going to try to exsplain it.

What you seem to be failing to grasps is that I have said nothing which can proven right or wrong.

Thats a load or crap.

You were the one that said they dont fit the crtria.

Thats a statement of fact......which you were wrong about because they do fit.

I said that they can't be PROVEN to fit AT THIS TIME which I am not wrong about because you have failed to provide any evidence to prove that they do.

You said that the AS created bots could not be in any way organic because we built them

Thats a statement of fact.....which you cant back up because we dont know exactly what the cube did to them.

You've said that twice and I don't feel the need to respond twice so see previous responce.

Ion the other hand, have made no statements of fact.

You have made statements of fact. I've quoted several of them in this verry post. There's one that you made right after makeing this claim that you haven't.

Just because something fits the crtria does not meen they are definitively organic.

But they do fit the crtria.

And BTW I have added bold lettering to all your quotes this time showing every single statement of fact you have made and failed to prove.

Rial Vestro wrote:OK I see the problem. I'm not being clear enough.

I have said multiple times that I wasn't trying to dissprove the possibility, I was dissproveing the fact and that much is 100% true.

The quote you have there wasn't worded properly on my part. It really should be "I proved there's a lack of evidence that they do." or "I showed that there's not enough evidence to prove that they do."

Thats just part of your problem.

You started this debate claiming "flatly" that theres no way the AS created bots were organic.

Which is incorrect because we dont know what exactly the AS did,

You also seem to think that by fitting the crtria it meens with out a doubt that they are organic.

Thats an other mistake.

The crtria is a guide not a defining test.

Did.

Did again just then right after claiming you didn't.

They MIGHT but can't be proven and you did AGAIN for the SECOND time after claiming you didn't. Note, you said they DO which means you're stateing a fact.

Did not.

Never did.

They do.

And as always you just dont get it.

Try to pay attention.

As you said yourself.....just because something fits the crtria for organic does not meen they are defiantly organic.

The crtria is a guide...a diagnostics tool, but just like all diagnostics tools there is a margin for error or mis-diagnosis.

So its like saying some one has all the symtoms of cancer but not knowing if its really cancer.

So saying they fit the crtria for organic is not a statement of fact claiming they are with out a doubt organic.

It is saying that they show all the symtoms of being organic.Its saying they fit the crtria for what is considered a organic form of life as it developed on their world.

So again...the only thing you prooved is your poor understanding.

And I haven't.

Oh but I can because as I said before in reply to that quote when you originally made it, they ALLSO said in the first film that they ARE NOT organic.

Oh but you cant because as I pointed out.....those that claimed a they werent organic had no reason to know that they were.

Theres no logical reason any of the humans we saw would have realised what a TF really was.

The TF's called themsefs "organic" and thats what counts.

So your argumnt fails again.

And they were refered to as robots MUCH more offten than they were refered to as organics.

And theres nothing precluding the idea that they are "organic robots".....WHICH IS WHAT THEY CALLED THEMSELFS.

but you allso exspect me to belive that after 2 years of working togeather that the Autobots never corrected the humans they were working with?

WHY WOULD THERE BE A NEED TO CORRECT ANYONE???

They are organic robots.....they called themselfs that and the evidence supports it.

Or maybe you should speak more clearly.

Your the only one not understanding.

So maybe you need to go back to school.

No what I don't understand is you.

And yet everyone else does.

Because I'm not the only one telling you your wrong.

Absolutly not. You got that TOTALLY BACKWARDS.

Absolutely right.

You're claiming that they for a fact, fit the critera. There is not enough evidence in the movies to actully suport that as a fact.

Yes there is.

I said that they don't fit the critera given the current evidence.

And you failed to demonstrate that.

Again, you're the one claiming facts here.

Nope

Your original statements regarding each piece of the critera stated as facts that they do fit the criteria

They do fit the crtria.

I'm not going to bother looking for it

Because it failed the first time.

And why would I have to?

Because you made the claim that they didnt fit the crtria......and in that you were proven wrong.

I made no claims that can be proven wrong or right other then about the dialog in thne film.

The different signs of reproduction have nothing to do with it. Reproduction in ANY form can not be proven that they are actully capable of. It's a possibility yes but it is not a fact.

One does not need to prove it to claim that they fit the crtria.

All I need to do is point out something that may be a sign of a kind of reproduction to say they fit the crtria.

And I did that with the signs of cell division.

Yes, do you? That's why I made the remark. The way you reworded it doesn't even apply to anything I said.

Then obviously you dont understand.

OK so you do understand it but apperently didn't understand me. As I said abouve, I made that remark because the way you reworded it didn't even apply to anything I said.

Then you didnt understand because it did apply.

Forgetting the Transformers for a moment and just useing the Metaphor itself. You said the Chicken came before the egg. I said it's possible but can you prove it? And you responded by telling me to prove the egg came first. That's why the metaphor didn't make sence, you were basically ordering me to prove a claim that I never made in the first place.

My point was that neither can be proved.

The issue with the category or "reproduction" in the crtria is that its a 2 way street.

One does not need parents to qualify for the category if they can become parents or reproduse in some way.

So it doesnt matter is the chicken [parent] or the egg [that which was re-produced] came first.

And now you just continue to not make any sence what so ever.

Because we built them is a statement of fact, a fact which is the reason for my opinion which preseeds it.

You didnt word it as an opinion and you neglected to factor in what the cube did to those devises.

Thats why you were wrong.

I can back it up because what the cube did to them does not change that fact.

You cant back it up because ewhat the cube might have done does change the fact of what they might be.

If the cube did indeed turn a soda machine into an organic creature that does not in any way change the fact that said soda machine was built by humans

But it does meen its possible its part organic.

Which you originally said was impossible.

In case that was too complicated for you here's the simple version.

Nothing from you could ever be "too complicated"

Even if you could prove for a fact that the AllSparkers were organic it would not change the fact that they were originally pieces of technoligy created by humans and that is the only fact I stated in that quote.

that was not the only fact you stated.

No, as I said before. That's YOUR mistake.

I made no mistake.

I researched every word I quoted to make sure I understood what I was talking about.The info was correct.

Your understanding of the info was wrong.

You made the mistake of quoting words and terms you had little understanding of.

Thats your mistake.

I've told you before....if you go around quoting info you dont understand incorrectly then your the one thats wrong.

you left out information in the quote,

I left out no relevant info in the quote.

Its not my fault you werent bright enough to figure out that you should have used the word as it applied to organics.

After all werent we on a topic of how they fit the crtria of organic????

And BTW....even if I was wrong.....you would be wrong for quoting wrong info and not researching it yourself.

Thats an other thing I've told you before.

[/quote]
That's, you're lucky I quoted anything at all.[/quote]

Why would I be lucky????

I'm in tech week you know and I can't be bothered to pick up your slack quoteing job.

Boy what a failure.

Dude....almost everyone here has proved you wrong at one time or an other.

You have tried, and tried so hard, over the past 2 years to prove me wrong and failed at every attempt.

I'm not the one slacking at gathering evidence.

Here's a simple version for you. In order for me as the reader to be at fault I have to actully have all of the text I'm supose to be reading. Then and only then can you blame my reading skills. Otherwise it's your fault as the wrighter that I can't understand what you're trying to prove by providing the criteria if you leave part of it out.

Sorry but thats totally incorrect.

Mainly because when you quoted the words you transformed into the writter and were no longer the reader.

And no less, because of your poor reading and comprehension skills....you qouted the words with a poor understanding of what they ment.

Wether the info was incorrect or you misunderstood it or took it out of context, when you quote it you are making it your own.

So you should research everything you quote to insure you understand it.

If your in school and someone gives you the wrong answers to a test and you use them, then your going to fail on those questions right???

Something was left out.

Nothing was.

How should of known to look up the meaning of the word and how it applied when I thought it was allready there in the quote, hence what you left out.

Why would the meaning of the word and how it applied to organics already be there????

Here it is again.

Homeostasis

And what is Homeostasis????

Its the regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

But there was no need to tell you that you sholuld look up how it applies to the organic or biological because thats part of the topic and theme of my post.

like I said.....I'm not your teacher and I'm not going to spoon feed you.

That's your mistake not mine.

And? That sounds like a mistake on the movie's part to me. What was shown was suposidly the same thing she was looking at.

Or he was mimicing the appearance of that engine.

It's just like all the continuity errors in Transformers like Bonecrusher being in ROTF when he was killed in the first movie.

Actuality I think they said that was a different character.....but thats not the point.

Well at least I've accomplished something.

Sorry but yes.

Nope

You said they fit the criteria.

and they do.

I'll break it down for you.

All of that was pointless because I never mentioned that they could scan new forms.

As for the mind thing, their behavier doesn't even show that.

Yes it does.

They gave chase, they formulated plans when chaseing sam, they attacked what they were unfamiliar with, they adapted to chasing same and reacted when he attacked back.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

They gave chace?

Yep

OK why?

Does it really matter??

New formed bots were seen chaseing Sam, fighting other humans.....fighting BB.

Even if it was being "feral" or new born scared as you suggested earlier it still shows a distinkted sign of adaptability.

They ducked when BB fired,they faught back, they reacted when sam ran and turned a corner...these are all signs of adaptive thinking.

Into 2 catigorys yes, 2 out of 7.

No, not exactly. You claimed they fit into MOST of the 7 and 2 hardly qualifys as MOST.

But you havent been able to refute the others effectively.

I didn't understand how what you applied to what I said. There's a two way street here, don't automatically assume that I just don't understand what you said.

Again your the only one not getting it.

I said that they can't be PROVEN to fit AT THIS TIME which I am not wrong about because you have failed to provide any evidence to prove that they do.

No you said they couldnt be organic as a FACT because we built them.

Here's the proof again.

Oh and we know for a fact that the AllSpark powered Transformers are not organic because we're the ones who built them in the first place.

You have made statements of fact.

The only fact I claimed was the dialog.

I've quoted several of them in this verry post.

Fail.

And BTW I have added bold lettering to all your quotes this time showing every single statement of fact you have made and failed to prove.

And you still failed to grasp the basics.

Everything I said has been backed up.

So if you want to keep trying....go ahead and waste your time.

I'm normally all about my long posts and going back and forward counter pointing. This seems be going back and forward to point it's hard tell whats even being said heh. I said my piece for most part, so I'll just sit back and watch the fireworks lol. I'd likely only make it more confusing going back and forward line by line.