897 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

Delta_V2 wrote...

copy-pasting my response in another thread in response to the whole "altering DNA but leaving your personality intact":


A lot of people claim that it would just change people's DNA, but leave their personality/individuality perfectly intact. Simply put, this isn't possible.

Let's use an analogy: Legion's loyalty mission. The virus the Heretics were going to use altered a single program, and this changed all higher processes. Changing a core process would fundamentally alter the geth's decision making and 'personality'.

The same thing would happen if you start messing with DNA. Changing a person's DNA, at least on the level required for this synthesis of organic and synthetic, will change everything else. Your personality may be more than just the coding in your DNA, but you can bet it is influenced by it. Changing your DNA will change your personality. You will no longer be "You". If that is the case, I don't care what the supposed benefits are, forcing this change on people is unacceptable.

THIS HURTS ME.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 29 avril 2012 - 03:58 .

[Cobra's_back]

zovoes wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

zovoes wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Omega Torsk wrote...

To me, the result of Synthesis isn't "living" as much as it is simply "existing," making it the more reprehensible of the choices...

Which makes it all the more painful that Brave New World was sited as an influence.

what? WHAT?!!?? and thats what they think is a "good" or "happy" ending? what the hell are they on?

You know the infmaous "LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE" page. Brave New World is written on the page.

OH YEAH.

OMG They thought that Brave New World is a good ending just the thought makes me want to .

[Shaigunjoe]

IanPolaris wrote...
No because he is talking about synthetics and synthetics don't have biology.

He is talking about incorporating aspects of synthetics into a new DNA (biology)

You are assuming your conclusion is true as a premise to prove you conclusion.  This is a classical logical error.

Wrong again, the conclusion the 'end of evolution'.   Not an assumption, that is verbatim what was said, and as far as facts go thats really all we have.

Technical defintions and obvious context aside, if you are free to assume the context of the word evolution, why pick something that doesn't fit?

To me, its like someone is saying, 5*x = 10.  And you seem to make it point that x has to be any number but 2.
 

We are told that life is not unique to organics (see Legion) and as such there is no way "evolution' can be interpreted in purely the biological sense without assuming the conclusion you are trying to prove.

I would need a transcript where this is discussed, but as far as I remember, they are still refered to as AI.  At what point do they stop being artificial? When they upload the reaper code?  Thats a whole other discussion

Regardless, the conclusion that I am trying to prove is that starchild meant biological evolution.  The biggest supporting statement is that, when he says "the final evolution of life" it really only makes sense that he is speaking in the biological sense otherwise 5x will never equal 10.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 29 avril 2012 - 04:11 .

[Cobra's_back]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Delta_V2 wrote...

copy-pasting my response in another thread in response to the whole "altering DNA but leaving your personality intact":


A lot of people claim that it would just change people's DNA, but leave their personality/individuality perfectly intact. Simply put, this isn't possible.

Let's use an analogy: Legion's loyalty mission. The virus the Heretics were going to use altered a single program, and this changed all higher processes. Changing a core process would fundamentally alter the geth's decision making and 'personality'.

The same thing would happen if you start messing with DNA. Changing a person's DNA, at least on the level required for this synthesis of organic and synthetic, will change everything else. Your personality may be more than just the coding in your DNA, but you can bet it is influenced by it. Changing your DNA will change your personality. You will no longer be "You". If that is the case, I don't care what the supposed benefits are, forcing this change on people is unacceptable.

THIS HURTS ME.

This is wrong on all levels.

[oneyedjohn]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

zovoes wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

zovoes wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Omega Torsk wrote...

To me, the result of Synthesis isn't "living" as much as it is simply "existing," making it the more reprehensible of the choices...

Which makes it all the more painful that Brave New World was sited as an influence.

what? WHAT?!!?? and thats what they think is a "good" or "happy" ending? what the hell are they on?

You know the infmaous "LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE" page. Brave New World is written on the page.

OH YEAH.

OMG They thought that Brave New World is a good ending just the thought makes me want to .

Wouldn't his prove that destroy is the "best" ending? IIRQ John the savage kills himself rather live in "The Brave New World", God knows I would.

[IanPolaris]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

zovoes wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

zovoes wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Omega Torsk wrote...

To me, the result of Synthesis isn't "living" as much as it is simply "existing," making it the more reprehensible of the choices...

Which makes it all the more painful that Brave New World was sited as an influence.

what? WHAT?!!?? and thats what they think is a "good" or "happy" ending? what the hell are they on?

You know the infmaous "LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE" page. Brave New World is written on the page.

OH YEAH.

OMG They thought that Brave New World is a good ending just the thought makes me want to .

I think this picture deserves the Picard-Riker Facepalm...because in this case one facepalm isn't enough.

Who in heaven's name that has ANY literacy at all in the western world thinks that Brave New World is a GOOD ending?!?  WHO?!

-Polaris

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...

DOES THIS RUSTLE YOUR JIMMIES?


 http://img694.images...57/24532595.jpg

Thats hard to read, whats the word after brave new world?  Didn't see 1984.  More importanly no date, and shepard is alive is written at the top which is only in the renegade option I believe.  I honestly can't believe people have read as much into this as they have.

[Cobra's_back]

oneyedjohn wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

zovoes wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

zovoes wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Omega Torsk wrote...

To me, the result of Synthesis isn't "living" as much as it is simply "existing," making it the more reprehensible of the choices...

Which makes it all the more painful that Brave New World was sited as an influence.

what? WHAT?!!?? and thats what they think is a "good" or "happy" ending? what the hell are they on?

You know the infmaous "LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE" page. Brave New World is written on the page.

OH YEAH.

OMG They thought that Brave New World is a good ending just the thought makes me want to .

Wouldn't his prove that destroy is the "best" ending? IIRQ John the savage kills himself rather live in "The Brave New World", God knows I would.

Yes I would too.

[Gill Kaiser]

I'd rather live in Brave New World than in 1984... but not by much. And only if I were an Alpha.

Modifié par Gill Kaiser, 29 avril 2012 - 04:17 .

[IanPolaris]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
No because he is talking about synthetics and synthetics don't have biology.

He is talking about incorporating aspects of synthetics into a new DNA (biology)

He is talking about incorporting both organic and synthetic life.  Since synthetic life doesn't have an actual biology, you CAN NOT use the strict biological definition of evolution without assuming what you are trying to prove.

You are assuming your conclusion is true as a premise to prove you conclusion.  This is a classical logical error.

Wrong again, the conclusion the 'end of evolution'.   Not an assumption, that is verbatim what was said, and as far as facts go thats really all we have.

Technical defintions and obvious context aside, if you are free to assume the context of the word evolution, why pick something that doesn't fit?

To me, its like someone is saying, 5*x = 10.  And you seem to make it point that x has to be any number but 2.

Wrong.  I happen to be a scientist and not only is Cdr Shepard not assumed to be a biologist (which is reason right there the technical biological definition would not be used), but the game itself both on Rannoch and when EDI and Javik talk to each other both discuss SYNTHETIC LIFE which means that any discussion of life has to go beyond the strictly organic biological definition.  Indeed, you can point out that the Reaper Upgrades have made each Geth process ALIVE and say "That's Life" to Admiral Raan.

The only way you come to the conclusion that evolution stops is by exlcusing all possible definitions of evolution other than the biological one, and the game itself doesn't even do that.  So yes, I am calling a logical foul here. 

We are told that life is not unique to organics (see Legion) and as such there is no way "evolution' can be interpreted in purely the biological sense without assuming the conclusion you are trying to prove.

I would need a transcript where this is discussed, but as far as I remember, they are still refered to as AI.  At what point do they stop being artificial? When they upload the reaper code?  Thats a whole other discussion

The Geth remain artificial but with the Reaper code you find out that they are ALIVE and you can make that point.  Edi and Javik have the same argument during a side conversation in the AI core.  Even in the codex, it is clear that "life" is not defined to be organic exclusive and thus you can not use the organic exclusive definition of evolution (nor does the game use it that way anywhere else).

Regardless, the conclusion that I am trying to prove is that starchild meant biological evolution.  The biggest supporting statement is that, when he says "the final evolution of life" it really only makes sense that he is speaking in the biological sense otherwise 5x will never equal 10.

It doesn't make sense even in the biological sense.  Evolution never stops.  It's an ongoing process as any reputable biologist that studies these things can tell you.

-Polaris

[Hawk227]

Delta_V2 wrote...

copy-pasting my response in another thread in response to the whole "altering DNA but leaving your personality intact":

A lot of people claim that it would just change people's DNA, but leave their personality/individuality perfectly intact. Simply put, this isn't possible.

Let's use an analogy: Legion's loyalty mission. The virus the Heretics were going to use altered a single program, and this changed all higher processes. Changing a core process would fundamentally alter the geth's decision making and 'personality'.

The same thing would happen if you start messing with DNA. Changing a person's DNA, at least on the level required for this synthesis of organic and synthetic, will change everything else. Your personality may be more than just the coding in your DNA, but you can bet it is influenced by it. Changing your DNA will change your personality. You will no longer be "You". If that is the case, I don't care what the supposed benefits are, forcing this change on people is unacceptable.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. So much of who we are (our personality) is environmental. There isn't necessarily a charismatic gene, or a brave gene. Although a number of biochemical processes (themselves genetically governed) may impact these traits, it's our life experiences that shape who we are. Although, that being said, the base functionality of the human brain is very much genetically based, minor adjustments to the genes that support neural development would result in a very different brain.

More to the point. In real life, the genetic differences between species is often quite little. Humans and Chimpanzees share ~97% of their DNA. Humans and Mice share somewhere between 70% and 90% of their DNA. It would not take much tinkering of DNA to make us (literally) no longer recognizable as human (even human/synthetic hybrids).

Also, how do you make DNA that encodes for computer chips (or whatever)?. That is very much NOT how DNA works. DNA is the most basic blue print for proteins. It is a macromolecule of ribose, phosphate, and adenine, thymine, guanosine, and cytosine. This macromolecule is "read" by proteins that transcribe it into mRNA (a sort of molecular negative) which is then "read" by a ribosome that associates RNA codons (three successive nucleotides) with a particular amino acid. Whenever it sees (for example) the codon ACC, it "knows" to place a Threonine molecule next in the chain. Amino acids (like threonine) are all just more organic molecules made up of Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and in some cases something as exotic as sulfur. Once a protein is done being "written" by the ribosome, its own biochemical properties (and maybe help from additional proteins) cause it to bend into its three dimensional shape. This process is all done with an outrageously elaborate biochemical system, with dozens of different proteins, and has been more or less the same since the first single celled organisms came about billions of years ago.

Plus, you know.... Synthetics don't have DNA. Not even all organic life (Yes, I mean in real life) has DNA. Some species of microorganisms use RNA, a similar, but ultimately different molecule.

The entire concept of synthesis is preposterous, and the notion that peace can only be achieved through homogenization is morally abhorrent.

Modifié par Hawk227, 29 avril 2012 - 04:34 .

[IanPolaris]

I am virtually certain (listening to starbrat again on you-tube) that the Starbrat was being allegorical when talking about a "new DNA". He seems to be talking about organic-synethic fusion and with the sole (and glaring) exception of Shepard, merging machines with organics at the most basic level never ends well.....

-Polaris

[Jonata]

Delta_V2 wrote...

copy-pasting my response in another thread in response to the whole "altering DNA but leaving your personality intact":


A lot of people claim that it would just change people's DNA, but leave their personality/individuality perfectly intact. Simply put, this isn't possible.

Let's use an analogy: Legion's loyalty mission. The virus the Heretics were going to use altered a single program, and this changed all higher processes. Changing a core process would fundamentally alter the geth's decision making and 'personality'.

The same thing would happen if you start messing with DNA. Changing a person's DNA, at least on the level required for this synthesis of organic and synthetic, will change everything else. Your personality may be more than just the coding in your DNA, but you can bet it is influenced by it. Changing your DNA will change your personality. You will no longer be "You". If that is the case, I don't care what the supposed benefits are, forcing this change on people is unacceptable.

I'm pretty sure changing the way your cells are coded won't change how you behave. One's personality evolves with experience, not because of physical change. If I was born without a leg I would be different because I would have grew up facing the problems of not having both legs, not because that missing leg changed how my brain works.

Modifié par Jonata, 29 avril 2012 - 04:46 .

[Delta_V2]

Hawk227 wrote...

Delta_V2 wrote...

copy-pasting my response in another thread in response to the whole "altering DNA but leaving your personality intact":

A lot of people claim that it would just change people's DNA, but leave their personality/individuality perfectly intact. Simply put, this isn't possible.

Let's use an analogy: Legion's loyalty mission. The virus the Heretics were going to use altered a single program, and this changed all higher processes. Changing a core process would fundamentally alter the geth's decision making and 'personality'.

The same thing would happen if you start messing with DNA. Changing a person's DNA, at least on the level required for this synthesis of organic and synthetic, will change everything else. Your personality may be more than just the coding in your DNA, but you can bet it is influenced by it. Changing your DNA will change your personality. You will no longer be "You". If that is the case, I don't care what the supposed benefits are, forcing this change on people is unacceptable.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. So much of who we are (our personality) is environmental. There isn't necessarily a charismatic gene, or a brave gene. Although a number of biochemical processes (themselves genetically governed) may impact these traits, it's our life experiences that shape who we are. Although, that being said, the base functionality of the human brain is very much genetically based, minor adjustments to the genes that support neural development would result in a very different brain.

More to the point. In real life, the genetic differences between species is often quite little. Humans and Chimpanzees share ~97% of their DNA. Humans and Mice share somewhere between 70% and 90% of their DNA. It would not take much tinkering of DNA to make us (literally) no longer recognizable as human (even human/synthetic hybrids).

Also, how do you make DNA that encodes for computer chips (or whatever)?. That is very much NOT how DNA works. DNA is the most basic blue print for proteins. It is a macromolecule of ribose, phosphate, and adenine, thymine, guanosine, and cytosine. This macromolecule is "read" by proteins that transcribe it into mRNA (a sort of molecular negative) which is then "read" by a ribosome that associates RNA codons (three successive nucleotides) with a particular amino acid. Whenever it sees (for example) the codon ACC, it "knows" to place a Threonine molecule next in the chain. Amino acids (like threonine) are all just more organic molecules made up of Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and in some cases something as exotic as sulfur. Once a protein is done being "written" by the ribosome, its own biochemical properties (and maybe help from additional proteins) cause it to bend into its three dimensional shape. This process is all done with an outrageously elaborate biochemical system, with dozens of different proteins, and has been more or less the same since the first single celled organisms came about billions of years ago.

Plus, you know.... Synthetics don't have DNA. Not even all organic life (Yes, I mean in real life) has DNA. Some species of microorganisms use RNA, a similar, but ultimately different molecule.

The entire concept of synthesis is preposterous, and the notion that peace can only be achieved through homogenization is morally abhorrent.

I realize that this whole subject is really frakking complicated and I'm not going to pretend to understand the details.  I believe you are correct when you say that there isn't a "brave" gene or a "charismatic" gene.  You can't just look at a person and predict their personality, because so much of it is based on your development and experiences.  But genes would still have to play a part, if for no other reason than they will have some effect on your body's production of chemicals that affect emotions.  Again, this is all a drastic simplification. 

My point is the entire system is so complicated and all the parts so interdependent, that there is no way you could make such significant changes (nevermind for the moment that the changes for synthesis make zero sense) without affecting the entire system.

[Hawk227]

Personally, I adhere to the indoctination theory. While there is a lot of in game evidence for it, my biggest motivation is to believe that the writers weren't this.... stupid. The ending is an abomination every which way you look at it. This thread has some tremendous commentary (not just the OP) about all the ways it fails.

Anyway... Sovereign in ME1 says that the Reapers are the "pinnacle of evolution" and then space-hitl...err the catalyst says that synthesis is "the final evolution of life". Since he made the Reapers, it sounds to me like synthesis makes everything into Reapers. When you consider how through the entire series, the game basically advocated against control and synthesis (The Geth make their own future; everyone who advocated control in Prothean cycle was indoctrinated) it would make sense that all of the choices are abhorrent, because they are Harbinger's choices. If you were gullible enough to to think that synthesis made sense and didn't pick up on the eugenic's undertones of it... you (the player) got indoctrinated. Same goes for control. I think that's pretty cool.

[Shaigunjoe]

IanPolaris wrote...

He is talking about incorporting both organic and synthetic life.  Since synthetic life doesn't have an actual biology, you CAN NOT use the strict biological definition of evolution without assuming what you are trying to prove.

Allow me to expand on your definition on what the catalyst said:

He is talking about incorporting both organic and synthetic life into a new DNA DNA, biology, QED.

Wrong.  I happen to be a scientist and not only is Cdr Shepard not assumed to be a biologist (which is reason right there the technical biological definition would not be used), but the game itself both on Rannoch and when EDI and Javik talk to each other both discuss SYNTHETIC LIFE which means that any discussion of life has to go beyond the strictly organic biological definition.

I am not a scientist, neither is Shep, but it jumped out to me it was speaking about biological evolution. Why not to Shep, who has probably has had more science training.   That point is invalid.

The only way you come to the conclusion that evolution stops is by exlcusing all possible definitions of evolution other than the biological one, and the game itself doesn't even do that.  So yes, I am calling a logical foul here. 

The game does not make it clear, you have to remember, it is the starkid talking, you are imposing what other characters say on what the starkids viewpoints are. He doesn't say much, but as I said before, why interpret it in a way that doesn't make sense? 

It doesn't make sense even in the biological sense.  Evolution never stops.  It's an ongoing process as any reputable biologist that studies these things can tell you.

And it seems we are back to you not understanding the biological definition of evolution and how it relates to DNA.
If you for some reason think that a completely new DNA framework that has never been seen before absolutly has to rely on genetic mutation to change, please explain that to me.  If you cannot, then an interpretation of what starkid said makes sense and exists, Occam's razor can take it from there.

This guy probably explains it better, as I am no scientist:
http://social.biowar...7566/6#11722535
Don't think he is a biologist, but he said somewhere he is a nuclear engineer.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 29 avril 2012 - 05:04 .

[Cobra's_back]

I read some articles in the past that talked about this. I found this article and I know there were some others. Originally I read it in the New York Times. I couldn’t find it and found this one if anyone is interested in reading it.


Geneticist claims to have found ‘God gene’
http://www.washingto...4-111404-8087r/

[Cobra's_back]

This also states behavior has a biological and environmental relationship. Just an FYI if interested. Love the topic and all the great inputs.

http://www.personali...rch.org/bg.html

[Hawk227]

Delta_V2 wrote...

I realize that this whole subject is really frakking complicated and I'm not going to pretend to understand the details.  I believe you are correct when you say that there isn't a "brave" gene or a "charismatic" gene.  You can't just look at a person and predict their personality, because so much of it is based on your development and experiences.  But genes would still have to play a part, if for no other reason than they will have some effect on your body's production of chemicals that affect emotions.  Again, this is all a drastic simplification. 

My point is the entire system is so complicated and all the parts so interdependent, that there is no way you could make such significant changes (nevermind for the moment that the changes for synthesis make zero sense) without affecting the entire system.

This much is absolutely true. And I tried to leave that as a caveat in my post. Messing with DNA wouldn't simply change who we are as an Individual, it would change the entire system. We might become mice. Well, no, that's ridiculous but you know what I mean.

Also, how does this change ensure viability? Exceeding minor changes in a gene can have tremendous affects. For example, Mad Cow Disease is actually a genetic disorder that occurs sporadically in humans. Its real name is Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Mad Cow is just the contagious infection of a nearly identical disease in sheep (via cows). The gene affected is a completely normal gene present in everyone, and is broadly similar in all mammals. In the disease state of the gene, a single codon (three nucleotides) out of a couple hundred is changed. This means that ONE amino acid out of ~200 is different. And the result is a debilitating and universally fatal neurodegenerative disorder.

Ignoring the part about synthetics not having DNA (and the possibility of it being allegorical), and about combining that non-existent synthetic DNA with organic DNA (why does all ME have DNA?), My point is that even miniscule changes can have dramatic and terrible effects. The ability to use a wave of green light to not only make this combination but to do so in a way that is so precise as to not be detrimental is completely and utterly ridiculous.

Plus the whole moral aspect.

[Shaigunjoe]

Hawk227 wrote...

This much is absolutely true. And I tried to leave that as a caveat in my post. Messing with DNA wouldn't simply change who we are as an Individual, it would change the entire system. We might become mice. Well, no, that's ridiculous but you know what I mean.

I don't know, they were the smartest creatures in hitch hikers guide!  Maybe because they had that framework upgrade.

[Shaigunjoe]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

This also states behavior has a biological and environmental relationship. Just an FYI if interested. Love the topic and all the great inputs.

http://www.personali...rch.org/bg.html

I think I read something about this in Time magazine once.  I think purely environmental factors effecting genes is refered to as epi-genetics?

Carl Sagan in Cosmos had a fun talk about something.  It was something about how fisherman in a village would throw back crabs that had a shell that resembled a samuri warrior.  As a result, over time, only crabs that looked like they had samuri warrior shells were around.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 29 avril 2012 - 05:53 .

[Hawk227]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

This also states behavior has a biological and environmental relationship. Just an FYI if interested. Love the topic and all the great inputs.

http://www.personali...rch.org/bg.html

I think I read something about this in Time magazine once.  I think purely environmental factors effecting genes is refered to as epi-genetics?

Carl Sagan in Cosmos talked about this I think.  It was something about how fisherman in a village would throw back crabs that had a shell that resembled a samuri warrior.  As a result, over time, only crabs that looked like they had samuri warrior shells were around.

There is a thing called epigenetics. But its not that.

The crab example is actually just a form of natural selection, arguably falling under the category of artificial selection. In the case of the crabs, the ones that look like samurais survive the pressure of fishing, and so pass on their genes. It's fundamentally the same as all examples of natural selection, but in this case their advantage is cosmetic. They are unappealing to their predators. There's any number of animal mimics. Butterflies that look like the poisonous Monarch butterfly, and are subsequently unappealing to predators.

[Shaigunjoe]

Hawk227 wrote...
There is a thing called epigenetics. But its not that.

The crab example is actually just a form of natural selection, arguably falling under the category of artificial selection. In the case of the crabs, the ones that look like samurais survive the pressure of fishing, and so pass on their genes. It's fundamentally the same as all examples of natural selection, but in this case their advantage is cosmetic. They are unappealing to their predators. There's any number of animal mimics. Butterflies that look like the poisonous Monarch butterfly, and are subsequently unappealing to predators.

Ah, my bad on the Carl Sagan thing.  But it looks like I was partly right on the environmental aspectis of epigenetics, from your link:

Epigenetic changes have also been observed to occur in response to environmental exposure.

It just isn't purely from it.

Ah yea, artificial selection I think is the term he used to describe it, I should watch it again, that is good stuff.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 29 avril 2012 - 05:55 .

[IanPolaris]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

He is talking about incorporting both organic and synthetic life.  Since synthetic life doesn't have an actual biology, you CAN NOT use the strict biological definition of evolution without assuming what you are trying to prove.

Allow me to expand on your definition on what the catalyst said:

He is talking about incorporting both organic and synthetic life into a new DNA DNA, biology, QED.

1.  The catalyst was clearly talking alegorically.  He says he wants to merge synethic and organic life into a new framework...a new DNA.  This is not meant to be taken as literal synthetic DNA.  Shepard is not a scientist and the catalyst clearly knows that (nor should the devs assume the player is a scientist).    Thus like in all OTHER parts of the game, we need to use the general term for evolution whish is NOT organic specific.

2.  He clearly identifies synethic life as life (as does the game before), but synethics don't have a biology.  Ergo the larger and more general definition is the one being used.

Wrong.  I happen to be a scientist and not only is Cdr Shepard not assumed to be a biologist (which is reason right there the technical biological definition would not be used), but the game itself both on Rannoch and when EDI and Javik talk to each other both discuss SYNTHETIC LIFE which means that any discussion of life has to go beyond the strictly organic biological definition.

I am not a scientist, neither is Shep, but it jumped out to me it was speaking about biological evolution. Why not to Shep, who has probably has had more science training.   That point is invalid.

No it's very valid.  You are assuming a very narrow definition of organic biological evolution because it's the only way you can support your point.  You are assuming what you are trying to prove.  As I said, life in Mass Effect has a much larger definition than simply organic life and evolution is used in a much broader context too and I've cited examples of this in the game before the final act.

The only way you come to the conclusion that evolution stops is by exlcusing all possible definitions of evolution other than the biological one, and the game itself doesn't even do that.  So yes, I am calling a logical foul here. 

The game does not make it clear, you have to remember, it is the starkid talking, you are imposing what other characters say on what the starkids viewpoints are. He doesn't say much, but as I said before, why interpret it in a way that doesn't make sense? 

You are actively imposing the most stringint and restrictive (and likely incorrect given the rest of the game) because it's the only way you can make your point.  There is no evidence that the catalyist/starbrat is being this technical and plenty of indicators that he's not.  It makes perfect sense to read it in the most general way on a purely language basis.  It just so happens that the starbrat is horribly wrong and his ideas have no logical coherence but that's true pretty much for anything he says.

It doesn't make sense even in the biological sense.  Evolution never stops.  It's an ongoing process as any reputable biologist that studies these things can tell you.

And it seems we are back to you not understanding the biological definition of evolution and how it relates to DNA.
If you for some reason think that a completely new DNA framework that has never been seen before absolutly has to rely on genetic mutation to change, please explain that to me.  If you cannot, then an interpretation of what starkid said makes sense and exists, Occam's razor can take it from there.

This guy probably explains it better, as I am no scientist:
http://social.biowar...7566/6#11722535
Don't think he is a biologist, but he said somewhere he is a nuclear engineer.

I've read it.  However, look it up.  Evolution by it's very definition never stops until and unless life/time itself does ande in Mass Effect life is not restricted to carbon based life.  EDI explains it very well when arguing with Javik in the AI core.

-Polaris

[Dark Penitant]

Because bodily sovereignty is for idiots, right?
I don't care if Synthesis creates a goddamn utopia. Every sentient individual has the right to determine what is done with their body, and synthesis just sticks a giant middle finger to the right upon which all other rights are based.
I picked control and destroy before, but on purely ideological grounds, I can and will never pick synthesis.
I'll youtube it before I pick it in game.