安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
Russian Federation 
At the end of day, disagreements ultimately comes down to opinion differences, everyone adhere to sets of axioms that are not deductively proven but rather first principle premises that grounds one's deduction.
When someone is comparing something to something, it is being done for the sake of comparing the similarities, and not the differences.
Then the other person points out the differences, and further states that the similarities are become voided due to these differences.
I'll give you an example (1+1)=2. I have 2 oranges. But the other person says, "no, you don't have 2 oranges, because one is smaller than the other, and is a lighter shade of orange".
This is trivial, and it derails the purpose of the description to aid in defining the topic.
These concepts about evolutionary advantage can either be empirical claims or metaphysical and either cannot be verified nor are they relevant to moral and ethics. In addition, by the logic of evolutionary effectiveness, well, prokayrote cells are certainly optimized for that, they can reproduce rapidly as single cell organisms and survive in extreme conditions.
Have a great day! God bless you!