guarana Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Ever since the begining we seen Nintendo games give us clues on were Nintendo may get its inovation from . These clues we seen in past games , to me atleast are clear signs of where some ideas might have came from ... . mario eating Mushrooms , and then growing big ... .mario getting the ability to use fire , just from touching a Special Flower (its like the flower is asking to be smoked) .Toad is a cool guy , maybe even one coolest Nintendo characters , he just happens to be a mushroom ... and he lives in the mushroom kingdom ... and in mario party he eats mushrooms as a special ability (hey ... thats canablism.. ) .PIKMIN ...everything about Pikmin .And who ever could have come up with the concept of the DS and Revmote , must have been smokin something stronger then QUAZICOTEL from Final Fantasy 8 was on ... Im not even sure what these clues truely add up to . But the investigation continues ... for the good of all humanity im done .. anyone else have any thoughts on the matter? P.S. Its not easy being stupid ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masaki86 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Wow; I think everyone has already read/thought/dismissed everything you have said in other posts over the past decade. Toad/= powerup mushroom He is a mushroom person, so it isn't really cannabalism. However, it does bring into question the whole Goffy/Pluto thing. Pluto and Goofy are both dogs, but how come Goofy can walk upright and talk, and pluto is just a plain old dog? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MunKy Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Because Pluto is just that little bit dumber than Goofy. We don't notice because he isn't anthropomorphic. And the Mario and drugs is old. Has been for quite some time. Its not surprising that a colourful experience involving mushrooms would bring about drug jokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konfucius Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I have an idea, where they could have the idea of Donkey Kong from, but it's not funny unless you think about why there's Donkey in his name. However, it does bring into question the whole Goffy/Pluto thing. Maybe it's the same as monkeys and humans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksnowman Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Didnt Donkey Kong get his name because he's as stubborn as a mule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stefkov Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 i thougt Donkey kong only got Donkey because Monkey was spelt wrong but they liked it.... also was it in a nintendo magazine that i read. pacman was formed when the people (who made him) ordered a pizza.. and there was a slice missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintendork Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 * Free hand controller or FHC for short, Not rev-mote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I read an anecdote about shigsy the other day about him getting a pen or something from his jacket and a bit of hash came out with it. The man clearly uses drugs anyway. he seems so chilled out and cool =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtle Squad Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 There's also a lot of racism in Starfox!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamba Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Wow; I think everyone has already read/thought/dismissed everything you have said in other posts over the past decade. Toad/= powerup mushroom He is a mushroom person, so it isn't really cannabalism. However, it does bring into question the whole Goffy/Pluto thing. Pluto and Goofy are both dogs, but how come Goofy can walk upright and talk, and pluto is just a plain old dog? Ahhh but thats cos goofy isn't a dog, he's a bear. I know he doesn't look like one but hey... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mario114 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Toad also has his dots and head colour reversed from that of a mushrom, prosumly to stop little kids thinking they are canabals... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Maybe it's the same as monkeys and humans It might be if humans were monkeys. Did you mean apes? 'cos if you did, you were still wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konfucius Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 It might be if humans were monkeys. Did you mean apes? 'cos if you did, you were still wrong. Yeah, I meant apes. Basically I tried to argue that Goofy is more evolved than Pluto, following the theory that humans evolved from apes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Yeah, I meant apes. Basically I tried to argue that Goofy is more evolved than Pluto, following the theory that humans evolved from apes. Maybe Goofy has a tumour like John travolta in that film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guarana Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 It might be if humans were monkeys. Did you mean apes? 'cos if you did, you were still wrong. heh , yeah because Humans were created by GOD...4 thousand years ago , when the PLANET WAS MADE ....heh....I mean whos really looking at the fossil record anyhow? ... Dinosaurs are really lived with man too.... Who needs science to explain things the hard way when Religion is just so easy? SCIENCE asks questions that may never be answered... RELIGION answers questions that may never be questioned... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Odwin Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 heh , yeah because Humans were created by GOD...4 thousand years ago , when the PLANET WAS MADE ....heh....I mean whos really looking at the fossil record anyhow? ... Dinosaurs are really lived with man too.... Who needs science to explain things the hard way when Religion is just so easy? SCIENCE asks questions that may never be answered... RELIGION answers questions that may never be questioned... I'm fairly sure that MoogleViper wasn't making reference to religion. Anyway, religious discussions generally don't go down well round here so it's best to just steer clear of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtle Squad Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Ahhh but thats cos goofy isn't a dog, he's a bear. I know he doesn't look like one but hey... I think everybody's ignoring your post because it's utter tosh!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Evolutionary theory doesn't say man evolved from apes, it says man and ape shared a common ancestor. Oh, and you can't be "more evolved" than something else - evolution isn't a linear process turning less evolved organisms into more evolved ones, it's the environment selecting which creatures survive to breed. You could look at a t-rex killing machine and a little lizard and say that a t-rex is "more evolved" but if the environment changes into one which cannot support large meat eating creatures which need huge amounts of food to survive, it is the little lizard that has the advantage and will survive the natual selection process. EDIT: Hold on, I'll just clarify something - if a creature is extinct, a currently living creature could be considered more evolved than it, because the creature still living has been part oft he evolutionary process for longer. But a primitive looking creature is no "less evolved" than one that appears complex. If you do "primitive" well, then you can be very sucessful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtle Squad Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Evolutionary theory doesn't say man evolved from apes, it says man and ape shared a common ancestor. Yes, it does say that, but that's just so people don't think we evolved from the apes of today I believe. The thing is, biologically speaking we are apes anyway, so therefore our ancestors (until you start going a bit too far back) are apes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html 1. Did we evolve from monkeys? Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids. EDIT: I see you've edited your post. Even if you want to be pedantic and change the meaning of ape from it's common usage to mean all members of the great ape family now and throughout history (including humans) , how can you have "evolved from apes" when you're an ape? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtle Squad Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Well that depends on what your defenition of an ape is.... Until a handful of decades ago, humans were thought to be distinctly set apart from the other apes (even from the other great apes), so much so that many people still don't think of the term "apes" to include humans at all. However, it is not considered accurate by many biologists to think of apes in a biological sense without considering humans to be included. The terms "non-human apes" or "non-human great apes" is used with increasing frequency to show the relationship of humans to the other apes while yet talking only about the non-human species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape So anything before us at least until that common ancestor is an ape anyway.... That quote of yours is too loose term of the word ape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 See my edit. Even if you take your looser definition of "ape", rather than the more specific general usuage "We evolved from apes" doesn't really make sense. The generally held view of that statement is that we used to be apes, now we are humans. Not we used to be great apes and we are still great apes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtle Squad Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Yeah, Okay, Point taken. I wasnt really looking at the 'from'. Please don't say it's a "looser" definition of ape; I don't even see how you can come to that conclusion, or how it's MY definition. That page tells you what an ape is, and though Wikipedia is not always entirely accurate, I'd be surprised if you can prove that we aren't aactually biologicaly apes. Plus, a general usage does not mean it is more specific in any way at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 What I meant by looser was that the general usuage definition specifcally refers to modern, non human apes, the definition you used (which is what I meant by your definition) includes far, far more animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtle Squad Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Okay....END Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts