6494 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
No new genes are introduced in the advent of human biotics.  Not one.   No change in the human genome takes place because of the advent of human biotics, especially in the handful of generations there have been human biotics.  

To be absoutely clear -- biotics would not introduce new genes. 

No environmental change introduces new genes, nor does it change the diversity or range of genes for any particular location on any chromosome. 

Please, please, do yourself a huge favor and study the subject before commenting on it any more. 

Environments do change genetic, it's based on how the previous generation handles the evnironment they were in before. This the basics of adaption. If they were no adeption they would be no deversity in race and speices in general.
Boitic would work the same way. In evolution, genetic change is based on environment and mutation. Nothing just changes. This is how we are made devirse in the first place.

NEW GENES DO NOT MAGICALLY APPEAR AS A RESULT OF ADAPTATION.

Adaptation does not change the genome of a species, it does not add new genes.  It only alters the frequency of particular variants of specific genes over time. 

Nothing about the advent of biotics, or the effects of a disease, or any other environmental pressure, changes what genes are present in the genome of a species -- unless it wipes out all the members of that species that carry that gene.  

NEW GENES DO NOT MAGICALLY APPEAR AS A RESULT OF ADAPTATION.

**sigh**

The Reapers do not  need to kidnap millions and render them to goo in order to obtain all the genes in the human genome. 

If you want to decusenew gene variation...We also, have to decuse the bases of gene study...evolution....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution 
Evolution (or more specifically biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals.[1] Inherited traits are distinguishing characteristics, for example anatomical, biochemical or behavioural, that are passed on from one generation to the next. Evolution occurs when there is variation of inherited traits within a population over time. The major sources of such inherited variants are mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow.

Now how this happen is this....http://en.wikipedia....tion#Mechanisms

[Iakus]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Organic-cybernetic fusion... that might be lot like saying "ATM machine". 

Given what we do know about the Reapers, given what the Reapers have said about organic life, it's very unlikely that they have, at their core, a giant organic brain, like some kind of spacegoing Zerg hive...

Looks like you and Smudboy aren't too far off in this :happy:

"Now I could understand if you're destroying a certain organ, say, a muscle, and breaking them down into tissues and using that as building material for a giant muscle organ.  That kinda makes sense.  But melting everything down?  That's just dumb.  We were led to believe Reapers were these super-old AIs who look at organics as ants.  So what would grafting this blended mess of inferior organic goo into a logical efficient giant robot?  What's the possible benefit here?

"Originally I'd have thought some kind of neural net would have been constructed like maybe with nanotechnology.  Kind of like a cybernetic Great Link like Odo from DS9.  But these people are liquified.  Their minds and now their brains are gunk.  If there was some exposition explaining that the mind is preserved or their synapses and neurons and 'this is how it works' then I could buy it.  But we literally get nothing to explain this ridiculous idea.  What the hell is this?"

Smudboy's character analysis, part 5 7:30ish.

[The Interloper]

100k wrote...


Because Shepard is the protagonist of the story, and the 'war' that you speak of hasn't occured yet. It's still the calm before the storm. AND it happens in the beginning of the game. 

Squee argues that, because it was at the beginning of the story, it made his death all the more surprising.  He and I agree that there could've been more done with the death. We both disagree that some metaphyiscal force needs to reveal itself to Shepard -- merely Shepard needs to display some thoughts and feelings on dying besides an occasional comment about "getting better".

 You already agreed with me that Shepard should be able to respond to his death as the player sees fit, in a previous post.

Oh, and keep in mind that the death subplot could just as easily have been spread out throughout the game. Boringness avoided.

"Shouldn't"? No. "Couldn't"? Yes. This distinction is important. In the end, many things are cullled out of any product, even a game. If you aren't able to cull sufficient things, you will not be able to finish the game.

Probably the smartest thing you've said all day. Which is why I don't blame BW. I blame EA. They pressure their top teams to get their products out as soon as possible. 



Fine, that's all I'm saying. The death subplot doesn't have to be the engine of the game at all. It just needs to be there. Maybe a handful of conversations.

For the first comment, it's a covert war between agents. Shepards death makes sense in context.

But that's besides the point. I find that me and Ark seem to agree on most points, and you two guys seem to agree on all the important stuff here, so....why are you two guys arguing again? From what I can tell-

We all agree that more could have been done with the death.

We all agree that things of some substance were actually done with the death.

We seem to agree that the death thing is not completely broken because there's no afterlife vision or something, like smudboy says. Just that it could have been handled better, is all. Ark is just emphasising the point that the death thing stands as it is, and trying to justify the way it is. He is not saying it couldnt' have been better. The two points are not mutually exclusive, unlike what smud seems to think.

We also proably all blame EA more than BW.

Sounds like the only difference between us is you're a bit more pissed off about it. So again, why are we all arguing for five hundred pages?

Also, Captain america totally should have frozen to death. PLOT HOLE!!

100k wrote...

Religion was an option in ME1. Hence, since player choice should carry over through the games, it should've had a relation with Shepard's revival. You're inability to comprehend that is almost staggering.

End of discussion. You can't argue this. 

Ah ah ah. Remember, ME1 had Shepard as a character. There was nothing wrong with that system. Shepard could decide (via conversation options) whether he was religious, what the morals of "justic" were, whether professionalism was better than personal relationships, etc. 

ME2 took all of those elements out. Can't you see how jarring that is, especially in a game that favors previous choices carrying through?

I want to note there that Shepard has always been a combination of player choice and canon presets. Shepard is always human, always an N7 commando, always dedicated to his/her job of saving the galaxy (instead of doing it just because he gets off on killing people). This last part is particular is what makes the cerberus railroading make sense-no matter what, shepard always wants to do his/her job, and TIM offers the quickest way to get back to it. But the player is also given elbow room to work with.

Also, maybe I missed something, but I don't think shepards religious stance was mentioned any more than once. It's not a huge loss that it didn't come up in ME2, when all the important stuff carried over-again, not saying it would have hurt, but the game functions just fine without it. I'm not sure at all what you're talking about when you say ME2 has no conversations or choices of import on morals or SoP.

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Organic-cybernetic fusion... that might be lot like saying "ATM machine". 

Given what we do know about the Reapers, given what the Reapers have said about organic life, it's very unlikely that they have, at their core, a giant organic brain, like some kind of spacegoing Zerg hive...

Looks like you and Smudboy aren't too far off in this :happy:

"Now I could understand if you're destroying a certain organ, say, a muscle, and breaking them down into tissues and using that as building material for a giant muscle organ.  That kinda makes sense.  But melting everything down?  That's just dumb.  We were led to believe Reapers were these super-old AIs who look at organics as ants.  So what would grafting this blended mess of inferior organic goo into a logical efficient giant robot?  What's the possible benefit here?

"Originally I'd have thought some kind of neural net would have been constructed like maybe with nanotechnology.  Kind of like a cybernetic Great Link like Odo from DS9.  But these people are liquified.  Their minds and now their brains are gunk.  If there was some exposition explaining that the mind is preserved or their synapses and neurons and 'this is how it works' then I could buy it.  But we literally get nothing to explain this ridiculous idea.  What the hell is this?"

Smudboy's character analysis, part 5 7:30ish.

Funny thing that he states this but doesn't understand the nature of the reaper in the first place.

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
No new genes are introduced in the advent of human biotics.  Not one.   No change in the human genome takes place because of the advent of human biotics, especially in the handful of generations there have been human biotics.  

To be absoutely clear -- biotics would not introduce new genes. 

No environmental change introduces new genes, nor does it change the diversity or range of genes for any particular location on any chromosome. 

Please, please, do yourself a huge favor and study the subject before commenting on it any more. 

Environments do change genetic, it's based on how the previous generation handles the evnironment they were in before. This the basics of adaption. If they were no adeption they would be no deversity in race and speices in general.
Boitic would work the same way. In evolution, genetic change is based on environment and mutation. Nothing just changes. This is how we are made devirse in the first place.

NEW GENES DO NOT MAGICALLY APPEAR AS A RESULT OF ADAPTATION.

Adaptation does not change the genome of a species, it does not add new genes.  It only alters the frequency of particular variants of specific genes over time. 

Nothing about the advent of biotics, or the effects of a disease, or any other environmental pressure, changes what genes are present in the genome of a species -- unless it wipes out all the members of that species that carry that gene.  

NEW GENES DO NOT MAGICALLY APPEAR AS A RESULT OF ADAPTATION.

**sigh**

The Reapers do not  need to kidnap millions and render them to goo in order to obtain all the genes in the human genome. 

If you want to decusenew gene variation...We also, have to decuse the bases of gene study...evolution....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution 
Evolution (or more specifically biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals.[1] Inherited traits are distinguishing characteristics, for example anatomical, biochemical or behavioural, that are passed on from one generation to the next. Evolution occurs when there is variation of inherited traits within a population over time. The major sources of such inherited variants are mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow.

Now how this happen is this....http://en.wikipedia....tion#Mechanisms

Now the challenge is for you to read that, and a lot more, and figure out where you're wrong about ~175 years, a few generations,  and biotics, making any real change to the actual genes in the human genome. 

[Iakus]

Someone With Mass wrote...

True, but it's not like the game just falls apart if these issues aren't addressed that much. It'd been nice if it was done a little better, but I'm not going to complain if it isn't.

I got some moments here and there, and I think that's good enough.

If Shepard was acting like a real human, he would with most certainty suffer from a severe case of PTSD. I don't think that would've helped the game in any way.

By itself, no, the game doesn't fall apart just because of that.  The game could have recovered after a weak start.  But it's the start of a rapid decent.  It's not that it could have been done "a little better" It could have been a lot better.  Nothing was done with a very heavy topic.  It's the first sign that Shepard's part of this story, like the tv show Seinfeld, was ultimately "about nothing".  

I'm not even asking fro a case of PTSD, I'm asking for a the option to have moment of doubt, of worry, of curiousity, of anger, in addition to stoic confidence.  People say that Shepard is a blank slate because it's the players' job to role play Shepard.  How can that be done if we have no oportunity to express it?

[Iakus]

The Interloper wrote...

Also, Captain america totally should have frozen to death. PLOT HOLE!!

Meh, Superman's death and return was handled better anyway 

Modifié par iakus, 09 septembre 2011 - 08:11 .

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Organic-cybernetic fusion... that might be lot like saying "ATM machine". 

Given what we do know about the Reapers, given what the Reapers have said about organic life, it's very unlikely that they have, at their core, a giant organic brain, like some kind of spacegoing Zerg hive...

Looks like you and Smudboy aren't too far off in this :happy:

"Now I could understand if you're destroying a certain organ, say, a muscle, and breaking them down into tissues and using that as building material for a giant muscle organ.  That kinda makes sense.  But melting everything down?  That's just dumb.  We were led to believe Reapers were these super-old AIs who look at organics as ants.  So what would grafting this blended mess of inferior organic goo into a logical efficient giant robot?  What's the possible benefit here?

"Originally I'd have thought some kind of neural net would have been constructed like maybe with nanotechnology.  Kind of like a cybernetic Great Link like Odo from DS9.  But these people are liquified.  Their minds and now their brains are gunk.  If there was some exposition explaining that the mind is preserved or their synapses and neurons and 'this is how it works' then I could buy it.  But we literally get nothing to explain this ridiculous idea.  What the hell is this?"

Smudboy's character analysis, part 5 7:30ish.

Funny thing that he states this but doesn't understand the nature of the reaper in the first place.

Second paragraph posited a logical reason for Reapers having a need for an organic component.  And noted how this is impossible since, as noted, the entire body is liquified and somehow grafted onto or into a metallic frame. Somehow this makes a sentient cybernetic being.  But it seems as logical as dunking a car in yogurt gets you KITT.  

As smudboy himself puts it:  "What the hell is this?"

Or as I put it "What do the genetics of one species have to do with spawning an entirely different cybernetic being?

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Organic-cybernetic fusion... that might be lot like saying "ATM machine". 

Given what we do know about the Reapers, given what the Reapers have said about organic life, it's very unlikely that they have, at their core, a giant organic brain, like some kind of spacegoing Zerg hive...

Looks like you and Smudboy aren't too far off in this :happy:

"Now I could understand if you're destroying a certain organ, say, a muscle, and breaking them down into tissues and using that as building material for a giant muscle organ.  That kinda makes sense.  But melting everything down?  That's just dumb.  We were led to believe Reapers were these super-old AIs who look at organics as ants.  So what would grafting this blended mess of inferior organic goo into a logical efficient giant robot?  What's the possible benefit here?

"Originally I'd have thought some kind of neural net would have been constructed like maybe with nanotechnology.  Kind of like a cybernetic Great Link like Odo from DS9.  But these people are liquified.  Their minds and now their brains are gunk.  If there was some exposition explaining that the mind is preserved or their synapses and neurons and 'this is how it works' then I could buy it.  But we literally get nothing to explain this ridiculous idea.  What the hell is this?"

Smudboy's character analysis, part 5 7:30ish.

Funny thing that he states this but doesn't understand the nature of the reaper in the first place.

Thing is, it doesn't matter.  In this case, Smudboy nails the problem, and it's not about the nature of the Reapers.  The brains of the people being "processed" are turned into formless gunk with no sign or indication that anything is being preserved, and so their minds are gone.  Not preserved -- gone -- and we get nothing to indicate otherwise.  Instead, we get this technobabble about organic and inorganic "energy signatures", and "what are they doing with our genetic material" and so on. 

As much as I love ME2, as many times as I've played it... the "revelations" of the Collector Base just don't stand up to scrutiny as presented. 

I'm not going to call anyone a fanboy, or ignorant, for not agreeing with me.  Maybe they don't care, maybe it works for them, maybe they have a vast and powerful capacity for suspension of disbelief...

[didymos1120]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

No environmental change introduces new genes, nor does it change the diversity or range of genes for any particular location on any chromosome.  

If that change is something that affects the mutation rate, then it can result in genetic alterations.  No guarantee they'll be useful though.

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
No new genes are introduced in the advent of human biotics.  Not one.   No change in the human genome takes place because of the advent of human biotics, especially in the handful of generations there have been human biotics.  

To be absoutely clear -- biotics would not introduce new genes. 

No environmental change introduces new genes, nor does it change the diversity or range of genes for any particular location on any chromosome. 

Please, please, do yourself a huge favor and study the subject before commenting on it any more. 

Environments do change genetic, it's based on how the previous generation handles the evnironment they were in before. This the basics of adaption. If they were no adeption they would be no deversity in race and speices in general.
Boitic would work the same way. In evolution, genetic change is based on environment and mutation. Nothing just changes. This is how we are made devirse in the first place.

NEW GENES DO NOT MAGICALLY APPEAR AS A RESULT OF ADAPTATION.

Adaptation does not change the genome of a species, it does not add new genes.  It only alters the frequency of particular variants of specific genes over time. 

Nothing about the advent of biotics, or the effects of a disease, or any other environmental pressure, changes what genes are present in the genome of a species -- unless it wipes out all the members of that species that carry that gene.  

NEW GENES DO NOT MAGICALLY APPEAR AS A RESULT OF ADAPTATION.

**sigh**

The Reapers do not  need to kidnap millions and render them to goo in order to obtain all the genes in the human genome. 

If you want to decusenew gene variation...We also, have to decuse the bases of gene study...evolution....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution 
Evolution (or more specifically biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals.[1] Inherited traits are distinguishing characteristics, for example anatomical, biochemical or behavioural, that are passed on from one generation to the next. Evolution occurs when there is variation of inherited traits within a population over time. The major sources of such inherited variants are mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow.

Now how this happen is this....http://en.wikipedia....tion#Mechanisms

Now the challenge is for you to read that, and a lot more, and figure out where you're wrong about ~175 years, a few generations,  and biotics, making any real change to the actual genes in the human genome. 

That where your wrong.... What we are doing a lttle now and in ME is Gene flow..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_flow

gene flow (also known as gene migration) is the transfer of alleles of genes from one population to another.

gene flow can be caused by the movement of individuals between separate populations of organisms, as might be caused by the movement of mice between inland and coastal populations, or the movement of pollen between heavy metal tolerant and heavy metal sensitive populations of grasses.

...
This is whats happen to humanity in ME. And this can't happen in 200 years.
What happen to the other races is Genetic drift, the change in the frequency of a gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling... http://en.wikipedia....i/Genetic_drift

And let's not even start withthegenetic change with adaption... http://en.wikipedia....tion#Adaptation

[Killjoy Cutter]

iakus wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Organic-cybernetic fusion... that might be lot like saying "ATM machine". 

Given what we do know about the Reapers, given what the Reapers have said about organic life, it's very unlikely that they have, at their core, a giant organic brain, like some kind of spacegoing Zerg hive...

Looks like you and Smudboy aren't too far off in this :happy:

"Now I could understand if you're destroying a certain organ, say, a muscle, and breaking them down into tissues and using that as building material for a giant muscle organ.  That kinda makes sense.  But melting everything down?  That's just dumb.  We were led to believe Reapers were these super-old AIs who look at organics as ants.  So what would grafting this blended mess of inferior organic goo into a logical efficient giant robot?  What's the possible benefit here?

"Originally I'd have thought some kind of neural net would have been constructed like maybe with nanotechnology.  Kind of like a cybernetic Great Link like Odo from DS9.  But these people are liquified.  Their minds and now their brains are gunk.  If there was some exposition explaining that the mind is preserved or their synapses and neurons and 'this is how it works' then I could buy it.  But we literally get nothing to explain this ridiculous idea.  What the hell is this?"

Smudboy's character analysis, part 5 7:30ish.

I'm not going to say he's wrong when he's right, that's never been the point. 

[Iakus]

I know. Just pointing something out

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
No new genes are introduced in the advent of human biotics.  Not one.   No change in the human genome takes place because of the advent of human biotics, especially in the handful of generations there have been human biotics.  

To be absoutely clear -- biotics would not introduce new genes. 

No environmental change introduces new genes, nor does it change the diversity or range of genes for any particular location on any chromosome. 

Please, please, do yourself a huge favor and study the subject before commenting on it any more. 

Environments do change genetic, it's based on how the previous generation handles the evnironment they were in before. This the basics of adaption. If they were no adeption they would be no deversity in race and speices in general.
Boitic would work the same way. In evolution, genetic change is based on environment and mutation. Nothing just changes. This is how we are made devirse in the first place.

NEW GENES DO NOT MAGICALLY APPEAR AS A RESULT OF ADAPTATION.

Adaptation does not change the genome of a species, it does not add new genes.  It only alters the frequency of particular variants of specific genes over time. 

Nothing about the advent of biotics, or the effects of a disease, or any other environmental pressure, changes what genes are present in the genome of a species -- unless it wipes out all the members of that species that carry that gene.  

NEW GENES DO NOT MAGICALLY APPEAR AS A RESULT OF ADAPTATION.

**sigh**

The Reapers do not  need to kidnap millions and render them to goo in order to obtain all the genes in the human genome. 

If you want to decusenew gene variation...We also, have to decuse the bases of gene study...evolution....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution 
Evolution (or more specifically biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals.[1] Inherited traits are distinguishing characteristics, for example anatomical, biochemical or behavioural, that are passed on from one generation to the next. Evolution occurs when there is variation of inherited traits within a population over time. The major sources of such inherited variants are mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow.

Now how this happen is this....http://en.wikipedia....tion#Mechanisms

Now the challenge is for you to read that, and a lot more, and figure out where you're wrong about ~175 years, a few generations,  and biotics, making any real change to the actual genes in the human genome. 

That where your wrong.... What we are doing a lttle now and in ME is Gene flow..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_flow

gene flow (also known as gene migration) is the transfer of alleles of genes from one population to another.

gene flow can be caused by the movement of individuals between separate populations of organisms, as might be caused by the movement of mice between inland and coastal populations, or the movement of pollen between heavy metal tolerant and heavy metal sensitive populations of grasses.

...
This is whats happen to humanity in ME. And this can't happen in 200 years.
What happen to the other races is Genetic drift, the change in the frequency of a gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling... http://en.wikipedia....i/Genetic_drift

And let's not even start withthegenetic change with adaption... http://en.wikipedia....tion#Adaptation

NONE of which changes the span of the human genome.  You keep talking about things that change the FRQUENCY of genes, and ignoring the simple fact that none of them ADD genes. 

If a gene variant that was in population A of a species starts showing up in population B of a species because of whatever, you still haven't changed the overall genetic diversity or the overall genome of the species.  If you had sampled every variant of every gene of the species before that happened, you wouldn't need to resample just because the distribution or frequency of that one variant had changed a bit in a few intervening generations. 

What don't you get about that? 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 09 septembre 2011 - 08:34 .

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Organic-cybernetic fusion... that might be lot like saying "ATM machine". 

Given what we do know about the Reapers, given what the Reapers have said about organic life, it's very unlikely that they have, at their core, a giant organic brain, like some kind of spacegoing Zerg hive...

Looks like you and Smudboy aren't too far off in this :happy:

"Now I could understand if you're destroying a certain organ, say, a muscle, and breaking them down into tissues and using that as building material for a giant muscle organ.  That kinda makes sense.  But melting everything down?  That's just dumb.  We were led to believe Reapers were these super-old AIs who look at organics as ants.  So what would grafting this blended mess of inferior organic goo into a logical efficient giant robot?  What's the possible benefit here?

"Originally I'd have thought some kind of neural net would have been constructed like maybe with nanotechnology.  Kind of like a cybernetic Great Link like Odo from DS9.  But these people are liquified.  Their minds and now their brains are gunk.  If there was some exposition explaining that the mind is preserved or their synapses and neurons and 'this is how it works' then I could buy it.  But we literally get nothing to explain this ridiculous idea.  What the hell is this?"

Smudboy's character analysis, part 5 7:30ish.

Funny thing that he states this but doesn't understand the nature of the reaper in the first place.

Thing is, it doesn't matter.  In this case, Smudboy nails the problem, and it's not about the nature of the Reapers.  The brains of the people being "processed" are turned into formless gunk with no sign or indication that anything is being preserved, and so their minds are gone.  Not preserved -- gone -- and we get nothing to indicate otherwise.  Instead, we get this technobabble about organic and inorganic "energy signatures", and "what are they doing with our genetic material" and so on. 

As much as I love ME2, as many times as I've played it... the "revelations" of the Collector Base just don't stand up to scrutiny as presented. 

I'm not going to call anyone a fanboy, or ignorant, for not agreeing with me.  Maybe they don't care, maybe it works for them, maybe they have a vast and powerful capacity for suspension of disbelief...

That fact that the goo itself is being perserved is an indication of what the reapers are doing. We know that the form of the body is gone but the cells are still there. The ego of the person is not important in a case that they are turn to goo. They are all just being turn to one form,  one organisum. The reapers are just turning people into Endothelial Cells.

Modifié par dreman9999, 09 septembre 2011 - 08:35 .

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
No new genes are introduced in the advent of human biotics.  Not one.   No change in the human genome takes place because of the advent of human biotics, especially in the handful of generations there have been human biotics.  

To be absoutely clear -- biotics would not introduce new genes. 

No environmental change introduces new genes, nor does it change the diversity or range of genes for any particular location on any chromosome. 

Please, please, do yourself a huge favor and study the subject before commenting on it any more. 

Environments do change genetic, it's based on how the previous generation handles the evnironment they were in before. This the basics of adaption. If they were no adeption they would be no deversity in race and speices in general.
Boitic would work the same way. In evolution, genetic change is based on environment and mutation. Nothing just changes. This is how we are made devirse in the first place.

NEW GENES DO NOT MAGICALLY APPEAR AS A RESULT OF ADAPTATION.

Adaptation does not change the genome of a species, it does not add new genes.  It only alters the frequency of particular variants of specific genes over time. 

Nothing about the advent of biotics, or the effects of a disease, or any other environmental pressure, changes what genes are present in the genome of a species -- unless it wipes out all the members of that species that carry that gene.  

NEW GENES DO NOT MAGICALLY APPEAR AS A RESULT OF ADAPTATION.

**sigh**

The Reapers do not  need to kidnap millions and render them to goo in order to obtain all the genes in the human genome. 

If you want to decusenew gene variation...We also, have to decuse the bases of gene study...evolution....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution 
Evolution (or more specifically biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals.[1] Inherited traits are distinguishing characteristics, for example anatomical, biochemical or behavioural, that are passed on from one generation to the next. Evolution occurs when there is variation of inherited traits within a population over time. The major sources of such inherited variants are mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow.

Now how this happen is this....http://en.wikipedia....tion#Mechanisms

Now the challenge is for you to read that, and a lot more, and figure out where you're wrong about ~175 years, a few generations,  and biotics, making any real change to the actual genes in the human genome. 

That where your wrong.... What we are doing a lttle now and in ME is Gene flow..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_flow

gene flow (also known as gene migration) is the transfer of alleles of genes from one population to another.

gene flow can be caused by the movement of individuals between separate populations of organisms, as might be caused by the movement of mice between inland and coastal populations, or the movement of pollen between heavy metal tolerant and heavy metal sensitive populations of grasses.

...
This is whats happen to humanity in ME. And this can't happen in 200 years.
What happen to the other races is Genetic drift, the change in the frequency of a gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling... http://en.wikipedia....i/Genetic_drift

And let's not even start withthegenetic change with adaption... http://en.wikipedia....tion#Adaptation

NONE of which changes the span of the human genome.  You keep talking about things that change the FRQUENCY of genes, and ignoring the simple fact that none of them ADD genes. 

http://evolution.ber...variation.shtml

Genetic Variation
Without genetic variation, some of the basic mechanisms of evolutionary change cannot operate.
There are three primary sources of genetic variation, which we will learn more about:

• Mutations are changes in the DNA. A single mutation can have a large effect, but in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations.
  
• Gene flow is any movement of genes from one population to another and is an important source of genetic variation.
  
• Sex can introduce new gene combinations into a population. This genetic shuffling is another important source of genetic variation.

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...

That fact that the goo itself is being perserved is an indication of what the reapers are doing. We know that the form of the body is gone but the cells are still there. The ego of the person is not important in a case that they are turn to goo. They are all just being turn to one form,  one organisum. The reapers are just turning people into Endothelial Cells.

Do we even know the cells are being preserved?  What is the goo?

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

That fact that the goo itself is being perserved is an indication of what the reapers are doing. We know that the form of the body is gone but the cells are still there. The ego of the person is not important in a case that they are turn to goo. They are all just being turn to one form,  one organisum. The reapers are just turning people into Endothelial Cells.

Do we even know the cells are being preserved?  What is the goo?

Yes, we do know thay are being preserved and yes we know what the goo is......It your late your secratary become part of the presentation. The goo is being put in to the reaper....thus being perserved. We then know reaper are both organic and michanical, thuse theorganic part is preseved.

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

NONE of which changes the span of the human genome.  You keep talking about things that change the FRQUENCY of genes, and ignoring the simple fact that none of them ADD genes. 

http://evolution.ber...variation.shtml

Genetic Variation
Without genetic variation, some of the basic mechanisms of evolutionary change cannot operate.
There are three primary sources of genetic variation, which we will learn more about:

• Mutations are changes in the DNA. A single mutation can have a large effect, but in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations.
  
• Gene flow is any movement of genes from one population to another and is an important source of genetic variation.
  
• Sex can introduce new gene combinations into a population. This genetic shuffling is another important source of genetic variation.

Holy crap.   NONE of that changes where you're wrong. 

NONE of that changes the actual gene variations that exist in a species, and to capture the entire genetic diversity, the entire genome of a species, you just need to have all the possible variations sampled ONCE.  That's it.  Drift, frequency, subpopulations, etc, NONE of that matters. 

The only source of new genes in a species that you have listed there is mutation, and that only occurs when the mutation takes place in very specific reproductive cells, and the vast, vast majority of mutations occur in meaningless junk segments, or are non-viable.  The odds of a new and viable mutation occuring in a single generation of ****** sapiens sapiens is very very small, and with the rate of human reproduction, it would take forever to spread -- assuming a birthrate of 2 offspring per parent and an average generational time of 25 years, in ~175 years, that's a hypothetical maximum of 128 people out of billions and billions who have that new variation of that gene -- and in truth, it's a lot less than that because not every child gets a copy in each generation.  If the Reapers care about genes that damn rare, they're going to need to just go ahead and render down every single human being in existance. 


Sheesh.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 09 septembre 2011 - 08:49 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

That fact that the goo itself is being perserved is an indication of what the reapers are doing. We know that the form of the body is gone but the cells are still there. The ego of the person is not important in a case that they are turn to goo. They are all just being turn to one form,  one organisum. The reapers are just turning people into Endothelial Cells.

Do we even know the cells are being preserved?  What is the goo?

Yes, we do know thay are being preserved and yes we know what the goo is......It your late your secratary become part of the presentation. The goo is being put in to the reaper....thus being perserved. We then know reaper are both organic and michanical, thuse theorganic part is preseved.

None of which tells us if the CELLS are being preserved. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Organic-cybernetic fusion... that might be lot like saying "ATM machine". 

Given what we do know about the Reapers, given what the Reapers have said about organic life, it's very unlikely that they have, at their core, a giant organic brain, like some kind of spacegoing Zerg hive...

Looks like you and Smudboy aren't too far off in this :happy:

"Now I could understand if you're destroying a certain organ, say, a muscle, and breaking them down into tissues and using that as building material for a giant muscle organ.  That kinda makes sense.  But melting everything down?  That's just dumb.  We were led to believe Reapers were these super-old AIs who look at organics as ants.  So what would grafting this blended mess of inferior organic goo into a logical efficient giant robot?  What's the possible benefit here?

"Originally I'd have thought some kind of neural net would have been constructed like maybe with nanotechnology.  Kind of like a cybernetic Great Link like Odo from DS9.  But these people are liquified.  Their minds and now their brains are gunk.  If there was some exposition explaining that the mind is preserved or their synapses and neurons and 'this is how it works' then I could buy it.  But we literally get nothing to explain this ridiculous idea.  What the hell is this?"

Smudboy's character analysis, part 5 7:30ish.

Funny thing that he states this but doesn't understand the nature of the reaper in the first place.

Thing is, it doesn't matter.  In this case, Smudboy nails the problem, and it's not about the nature of the Reapers.  The brains of the people being "processed" are turned into formless gunk with no sign or indication that anything is being preserved, and so their minds are gone.  Not preserved -- gone -- and we get nothing to indicate otherwise.  Instead, we get this technobabble about organic and inorganic "energy signatures", and "what are they doing with our genetic material" and so on. 

As much as I love ME2, as many times as I've played it... the "revelations" of the Collector Base just don't stand up to scrutiny as presented. 

I'm not going to call anyone a fanboy, or ignorant, for not agreeing with me.  Maybe they don't care, maybe it works for them, maybe they have a vast and powerful capacity for suspension of disbelief...

That fact that the goo itself is being perserved is an indication of what the reapers are doing. We know that the form of the body is gone but the cells are still there. The ego of the person is not important in a case that they are turn to goo. They are all just being turn to one form,  one organisum. The reapers are just turning people into Endothelial Cells.

Unless you've found a reference to point to, we don't even know that. 

We see goo.   That's it.  There's nothing to tell us if it's made up of cells, or just rendered organic material. 

And what would the Reapers be doing with those cells, if they are preserved?  Those cells wouldn't contain the minds the Reapers are evidently after, and they can't be made into anything other than a lump of cells at that point... 

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

NONE of which changes the span of the human genome.  You keep talking about things that change the FRQUENCY of genes, and ignoring the simple fact that none of them ADD genes. 

http://evolution.ber...variation.shtml

Genetic Variation
Without genetic variation, some of the basic mechanisms of evolutionary change cannot operate.
There are three primary sources of genetic variation, which we will learn more about:

• Mutations are changes in the DNA. A single mutation can have a large effect, but in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations.
  
  
• Gene flow is any movement of genes from one population to another and is an important source of genetic variation.
  
  
• Sex can introduce new gene combinations into a population. This genetic shuffling is another important source of genetic variation.

Holy crap.   NONE of that changes where you're wrong. 

NONE of that changes the actual gene variations that exist in a species, and to capture the entire genetic diversity, the entire genome of a species, you just need to have all the possible variations sampled ONCE.  That's it.  Drift, frequency, subpopulations, etc, NONE of that matters. 

The only source of new genes in a species that you have listed there is mutation, and that only occurs when the mutation takes place in very specific reproductive cells, and the vast, vast majority of mutations occur in meaningless junk segments, or are non-viable.  The odds of a new and viable mutation occuring in a single generation of ****** sapiens sapiens is very very small, and with the rate of human reproduction, it would take forever to spread -- assuming a birthrate of 2 offspring per parent and an average generational time of 25 years, in ~175 years, that's a hypothetical maximum of 128 people out of billions and billions who have that new variation of that gene -- and in truth, it's a lot less than that because not every child gets a copy in each generation.  If the Reapers care about genes that damn rare, they're going to need to just go ahead and render down every single human being in existance. 


Sheesh.

[Arkitekt]

[quote]100k wrote...

[quote]Arkitekt wrote...You implied that all these works of art share this trait of not vulgarizing death. This is not true. Period. End of conversation.[/quote]

Give me an example.

[quote]Every conceivable angle must surely include banalization of death. And I see no problems with that too.[/quote]

Maybe I missspoke then. Every conceivable angle except unconcern for death. That doesn't help your argument at all, unless you can give me an example.[/quote]

Westerns. For instance, Once Upon a Time in the West. Many many movies do this. I am amazed at your stubburness in this point.

[quote]Wrong again. Shepard doesn't need Liara and Ash to be a conduit for his emotions. He's the protagonist of the story and the playermodel. If Shepard doesn't care about death -- even in all play throughs -- then not only is the game railroading player choice (RPG =/= railroading) but it is taking that control away from the player.[/quote]

They are not the conduit for his emotions, they are the conduit of the problems of being dead for two years for their friends. Shepard should be slightly surprised at their feelings since he's just awaken, but he should also understand it. This is somewhat conveyed.

[quote]Because Shepard is the protagonist of the story, and the 'war' that you speak of hasn't occured yet. It's still the calm before the storm. AND it happens in the beginning of the game. [/quote]

We are at war, the council just denies it. These are TIM's words. It isn't surprising that soldiers die in a war. It isn't such a damning experience to have the player die in the prologue.

[quote]Squee argues that, because it was at the beginning of the story, it made his death all the more surprising.  He and I agree that there could've been more done with the death. We both disagree that some metaphyiscal force needs to reveal itself to Shepard -- merely Shepard needs to display some thoughts and feelings on dying besides an occasional comment about "getting better".

You argue that because the protagonist kills bad guys, it is unsurprising that he dies at the beginning of the second chapter of the trilogy.

But I'm having a hard time thinking taking your argument over his, considering that you've yet to give me an example of this same event happening in other forms of media.[/quote]

Well I have also a hard time taking your argument seriously when it is merely based upon saying that ME2 plot is a novelty. I consider that a good thing, not a bad thing. I loathe movies that merely repeat the receipts of the "genre", etc.

[quote]You seem to lack the comprehension skills to understand that contemplating death =/= being a little b!tch. Oh, and before you futher the idea that he can't get "mushy" with his crew mates...he can have LIs.[/quote]

You already assessed that Jacob can have this kind of conversation. Perhaps if he had it with more LIs you'd be pleased.

[quote]But none of that actually matters, because now you're just arguing for the sake of argument. You already agreed with me that Shepard should be able to respond to his death as the player sees fit, in a previous post.[/quote]

Let's get this straight before someone makes a bad call on what I said or didn't say. I don't think that Shepard *should* have been able to do just that, I agreed that he *could* have had. There's a world of difference in there.

[quote][quote]Show me one person who wasn't in those circumstances. Ridiculous arguments work both ways you know?[/quote]


Childish response is childish.[/quote]

Unless it isn't childish. I'm dead serious about this. You handwave and say "no such thing has ever happened" as if it is an argument against it. It is not, as I can make the exact opposite argument (as I have). As far as I am aware no one has ever found an ET, built mass drives, travelled faster than light. But that's all okay, what really annoys some people is that some body wasn't completely burned while falling down an atmosphere of a planet. It's a petty argument, and likely wrong.

[quote]
[quote]And you can't make games that apply to everyone's metaphysical sentiments in due time. I knew this was a religious argument, thanks for confirming it.[/quote]

Religion was an option in ME1. Hence, since player choice should carry over through the games, it should've had a relation with Shepard's revival. You're inability to comprehend that is almost staggering.

End of discussion. You can't argue this.[/quote]

I won't discuss insults, which is a common thing when things get heated, but I won't fail to point to them. About the religion aspect of Shepard, you are right to point out ME1 reference. I forgot about that choice.


[quote]...so, you're disagreeing with me by agreeing with me...[/quote]

Games aren't "realistic", nor are movies. Games and movies and every media are there to entertain, not to breastfeed "reality".

[quote]Oh, and keep in mind that the death subplot could just as easily have been spread out throughout the game. Boringness avoided.[/quote]

Sometimes, too much is just too much. Many of these interesting subplots could have been spread out throughout the game, like for instance Shepard's relationship with Cerberus being more confrontational, etc.,etc. There is a limit to things, and sometimes you have to stop including stuff. Shepards' death subplot had to go, Bioware is clearly more interested in the future than in the past.

But wait a minute. What am I talking about! This is all nonsense! Shepard does get to see SR1's remains, and to have flashbacks of it. There's a whole mission about him getting peace with his past for chrissakes!

SATISFIED NOW? 

/END DISCUSSION!! (?)

[quote]
[quote]Captain America.[/quote]

O RLY? 

Captain America wakes up in a modern world and has no idea where he's been. He then makes a sad comment about missing his "date" -- and then the film ends. In the Avengers, the Director noted that Captain America will be having trouble adjusting to his new life. Wow -- all that from "dying".

Oh. And he wasn't dead. He was asleep.

Looks like you still don't have that example for me.[/quote]

His line is the best in the appalling movie (for me the movie only started when he "died", you say "asleep" well lets discuss semantics all evening shall we!??), but it's still a one liner sad joke. He will have some trouble adjusting because 70 years have passed. Not 2.

[quote]Probably the smartest thing you've said all day. Which is why I don't blame BW. I blame EA. They pressure their top teams to get their products out as soon as possible. [/quote]

I don't blame EA at all. This is true in all business. Like Steve Jobs once said, "real artists ship". For instance, I am an architect, and "feature creep" is something that is abundantly true in my profession as well. The real solution is to be minimal. If some feature is a bonus, leave it to the end. If there's no time to insert it, don't.

[quote]Ah ah ah. Remember, ME1 had Shepard as a character. There was nothing wrong with that system. Shepard could decide (via conversation options) whether he was religious, what the morals of "justic" were, whether professionalism was better than personal relationships, etc. 

ME2 took all of those elements out. Can't you see how jarring that is, especially in a game that favors previous choices carrying through?[/quote]

Not jarring, just a sense of reaching the limits of the possible. The game is just too big, and many things must be left out. Choices, aren't they easy to do when you don't have any responsibility? 

[Kharkov]

Bioware - "Glad you could find time to see us Shepard."
Shepard - "Problem ?"
Bioware - "They are nervous Shepard, they see the things we seek to hide"
Shepard - "They ?"
Bioware - "Our fanbase Shepard, our targets, they have concerns."
Shepard - "Have you not made enough credits already ?, just give them what they want, give them a game worth playing"
Bioware - "It's out of our hands Shepard, we no longer have control, what should we do ?"
Shepard - "Your asking me !?"
Bioware - "You saved the Galaxy Shepard, can you save us ?"
Shepard - "Have your marketing guys scanned all the planets ?"
Bioware - "Yes, every last one, we have huge resources."
Shepard - "Every Planet ?"
Bioware - "Well, not every one, we skipped those glitchy ones that just go "bleep" but aint really there"
Shepard - "Then it's simple"
Bioware - "Simple ?, what you mean like Paragon n Renagade ?"
Shepard - "No, not that simple."
Bioware - "Oh.......sorry"
Shepard - "You have huge marketing resources."
Bioware - "So the plan is..........?"

Shepard - "We Hype or We Die"

[Arkitekt]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Also, there's nothing that says that the human Reaper is the real reason why the Reapers are harvesting organics, since it was a pure speculation on EDI's part.

Sure, but given it's a game it's probably the real thing.