94 réponses à ce sujet

[Krid]

Most of the time you don't have to bother, since mass effect fields and other magic wand tech isn't meant to be based on science anyway.

However, when you start making claims that apply in real life it's time to call in somebody for verification.

Good example: "Why's the ship turning around? We're only halfway there!"
I was happy to hear this line, since it's an oft-overlooked detail in SciFi.

Bad example: "Humans most genetically diverse."
I facepalmed at this line because it's horribly unlikely.
Why? Because humans are one of the least genetically diverse creatures on our own planet, trailing behind species which are now or have recently been near-extinct or severly endangered.
The reasons for this are pretty simple.
First, the lineage of every human alive goes back to a common ancestor (See: "Y-chromosomal Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve") no more than 90,000 years ago.
Second, our ancestors have suffered some near-extinction events which drastically reduced variation.

Thic can be confirmed by looking at the full range of genetic variation in humans and comparing it to that of other species.
The chances that such a species would be the most diverse intelligent lifeform out the of several dozen we've seen in Mass Effect so far is unlikely to the point of absurdity.

Oh, and on a related note, genetic diversity is a very undesirable trait for either a test group or a control group to have, as it increases the margin of error significantly. That's why white lab mice were bred to be homogenous.

[Kerberus88]

When did it say that humans were the most genetically diverse species? I remember hear most diverse, we couldn't even figure out our religion, but not genetically diverse.

[Taritu]

Yes. I laughed when Mordin said that. Incredibly unlikely. Should have come up with a better explanation.



I think it's a hangover from fantasy RPGs where humans are usually the most flexible race in terms of class choices, etc...

[Atmosfear3]

There was a special on NatGeo that discussed the genetic variation of humans. I think it was mentioned that a dandelion has more genetic diversity than we do. Essentially we are all (humans) more or less brothers and sisters at the genetic level.

[In Exile]

Re: the genetic diverse claim, keep in mind it's relative. We're not the most genetically diverse, as an absolute. We're more genetically diverse than the Turians, Asari, Salarians, or Krogan (and whatever other council races you want).



Mordin is blunt about this at one point - our normal distribution of traits is broader than the other species. Bioware takes this to then translate to a measure of genetic diversity (which isn't unreasonable) and leaves it at that.



The reapers don't care that moss is more diverse - they care about whether or not we're the most diverse species that meets a series of criteria.



Honestly - it's not a very complicated concept. It's just comparative advantage.

[TeaCokeProphet]

Glad to be less genetically diverse. Implications of speciation inside sapient and sentient species are disturbing. Do not want to see.

Plus, turians and others would by default be much more genetically diverse than us, as humans just entered galactic stage. Asari, having been around a while, wouldn't simply be asari. It's impossible to exchange genetic material at a sufficient rate between populations isolated by worlds. Allopatric speciation.

Modifié par TeaCokeProphet, 14 février 2010 - 10:16 .

[Lightice_av]

It's impossible to exchange genetic material at a sufficient rate between populations isolated by worlds. Allopatric speciation.

The worlds aren't isolated. There's constant exchange of genetic material, as population travels between them. Also, there has been only a couple of thousand years of space travels for even the most advanced species in the Citadel space - not even remotely long enough for genetic diversity to significantly increase, let alone develop into different species. That's like claiming that the Native Americans or Australians should be a different species from the Europeans.

And lets not forget the asari longevity, either...

[TeaCokeProphet]

Don't know how long Asari and Salarians really have been around. Only a couple thousand years, you're absolutely correct. Should look into this.

"580 BCE

After developing faster-than-light spacefaring capabilities based upon Prothean technology, the asari begin to explore the mass relay network, and eventually discover the huge Citadel space station at a hub of many mass relays."
Yes. Not too long. You are correct.

Still seems unlikely. Not everyone can afford transportation, or so I was led to believe. Human genetics now, however, shows that speciation takes longer as we are essentially one population. Interesting.

Modifié par TeaCokeProphet, 14 février 2010 - 10:33 .

[Krid]

Mordin is blunt about this at one point - our normal
distribution of traits is broader than the other species. Bioware takes
this to then translate to a measure of genetic diversity (which isn't
unreasonable) and leaves it at that.

Generally speaking,
you would expect to find a broad normal distribution of traits in a
population with little diversity, since that means that any giventrait is likely to be possessed by a large portion of the population.

Glad to be less genetically
diverse. Implications of speciation inside sapient and sentient species
are disturbing. Do not want to see.

Not really. Asari and Krogan wouldn't even notice.
Asari because they don't actually use their partner's genetic material, Thus making their 'species' distiction very nebulous as it's effectively asexual reproduction.
Krogan because the genophage would mask any reproductive issues.

I would love to see Quarians speciation in ME3; have them discover that the geth had isolated a colony instead of eradicating it, and looking into the resulting genetic and social questions.

[Paradox 01]

Then again, think about this.
We don't know what asari looked like thousands of years ago, but given their long lifespans, they couldn't have looked very different at all. Otherwise, they'd evolve within their own lifespans, or at least noticeably within a generation or two.

Now look at humans. We've evolved drastically within the last two thousand years, and that's discounting the whole creationist/evolutionist debate. We've evolved in order to adapt to the various regions of earth we live on.

Sure, we can't really keep up with all the evolutionary changes (look up "goose-bumps" and the reason for them for an example), but hell, the asari are and always have been (at least in human history) blue. Non-blue asarii are an oddity.

How many colors do we have on Earth?

Modifié par Paradox 01, 14 février 2010 - 10:45 .

[Talogrungi]

Of course we're more genetically diverse than other races.

We've got TWO genders. TWO.

We're basically the freaks of the universe.

[Kerberus88]

The turians also have two genders. Even though I have no first hand knowledge of this.

[Llandaryn]

Kerberus88 wrote...

The turians also have two genders. Even though I have no first hand knowledge of this.

I have it on good authority that turian females are very flexible. :|

[Mikazukinoyaiba2]

First, the lineage of every human alive goes back to a common ancestor (See: "Y-chromosomal Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve") no more than 90,000 years ago

Um, are you a scientist? Where are you bringing up this Y-chromosome meets Mitochondria BS from?



If you're talking about Eukaryotas in general, that would make sense but Y-chromosomes have nothing to do with that.

[Krid]

Otherwise, they'd evolve within their own lifespans, or at least noticeably within a generation or two.

Evolution doesn't work that way...

Now look at humans. We've evolved drastically within the last two thousand years, and that's discounting the whole creationist/evolutionist debate. We've evolved in order to adapt to the various regions of earth we live on.

Yes, there's been a lot of evolution, but the changes have generally been minor or superficial. There hasn't really been much selective pressure outside of diseases, sun exposure, and an iceage or two.

Also, I disagree the usage of the word "debate". "Debate" requires logical arguments backed by evidence, and one side seems incapable of using reason.

How many colors do we have on Earth?

Different shades of coffee, ranging from black to pure milk. Believe it or not the pink is actually constant between groups, as it's the result of near-surface blood.

[Gill Kaiser]

He merely says that we're more diverse than the other sapient species. That could technically be true, even if it's unlikely.

[cronshaw8]

The likeliness of it is irrelevant. This is fiction. In the Mass Effect universe humans are more genetically diverse than other sapient species. This is like arguing that a character in a book getting struck by lightening is "highly unlikely." It is unlikely but in the book it happens.

Modifié par cronshaw8, 15 février 2010 - 12:00 .

[Urazz]

In Exile wrote...

Re: the genetic diverse claim, keep in mind it's relative. We're not the most genetically diverse, as an absolute. We're more genetically diverse than the Turians, Asari, Salarians, or Krogan (and whatever other council races you want).

Mordin is blunt about this at one point - our normal distribution of traits is broader than the other species. Bioware takes this to then translate to a measure of genetic diversity (which isn't unreasonable) and leaves it at that.

The reapers don't care that moss is more diverse - they care about whether or not we're the most diverse species that meets a series of criteria.

Honestly - it's not a very complicated concept. It's just comparative advantage.

Yeah, I'm assuming Mordin just assumed we were the most genetically diverse amongst all the intelligent space traveling species at the moment.

[scrappydoo555]

ok I know I'm probably going to sound stupid but I didn't get the "Why's the ship turning around? We're only halfway there!" reference.



could someone explain it please,

[Fuhjem24]

When they said most diverse, they were in reference to other sapients. Humans would definately be more genetically diverse. Other species have been living in a world where they can reach the other end of the galaxy in less that a week. Genetic diversity would have diminished because of the lack of geographical restrictions as well as a lack of internal racism. If humanity learned that aliens really existed tomorrow, racism would end between ethnicities because we would then see ourselves as an entire species.

So, from what this explains: Any species, when geography isn't an issue, when mating with any member of your species is just fine, and when this happens over hundreds to thousands of years, genetic diversity falls out.

Humans are new to the scene, not even a hundred years into inter-galactic travel. We still have a strong genetic diversity.

[newcomplex]

Fuhjem24 wrote...

When they said most diverse, they were in reference to other sapients. Humans would definately be more genetically diverse. Other species have been living in a world where they can reach the other end of the galaxy in less that a week. Genetic diversity would have diminished because of the lack of geographical restrictions as well as a lack of internal racism. If humanity learned that aliens really existed tomorrow, racism would end between ethnicities because we would then see ourselves as an entire species.

So, from what this explains: Any species, when geography isn't an issue, when mating with any member of your species is just fine, and when this happens over hundreds to thousands of years, genetic diversity falls out.

Humans are new to the scene, not even a hundred years into inter-galactic travel. We still have a strong genetic diversity.

Colonization of worlds would lead to increased genetic diversity, considering most nebulas are still several days cruise away from the nearest relays, and most colonists tend to live on the colony their entire life.    

[Gill Kaiser]

scrappydoo555 wrote...

ok I know I'm probably going to sound stupid but I didn't get the "Why's the ship turning around? We're only halfway there!" reference.

could someone explain it please,

I'm assuming it's something to do with the fact that in order to slow down in space you need to turn your ship around so your thrusters can counteract your ship's momentum. Seems a bit arcane, though.

[Fuhjem24]

scrappydoo555 wrote...

ok I know I'm probably going to sound stupid but I didn't get the "Why's the ship turning around? We're only halfway there!" reference.

could someone explain it please,

In space travel, moving in a zero-gravity vacuum, you can only stop moving until acted upon by a force. Getting halfway to a destination in space would require a foreward force. Being able to stop, however, would require backwards thrust. So, when the ship reaches the halfway-point, they turn the ship around 180 degrees and give a gentle thrust in order to slow it down to an eventual stop upon arrival.

[Mikazukinoyaiba2]

scrappydoo555 wrote...

ok I know I'm probably going to sound stupid but I didn't get the "Why's the ship turning around? We're only halfway there!" reference.

could someone explain it please,

In space it isn't like when you travel to one place to another, going in a straight line is feasible or even the quickest way to your destination. 


There are planets, systems, gravity wells, and other stuff to avoid. Also the concept of "turning" is relative in the vast emptiness that is space.

[Computron2000]

Paradox 01 wrote...Now look at humans. We've evolved drastically within the last two thousand years, and that's discounting the whole creationist/evolutionist debate. We've evolved in order to adapt to the various regions of earth we live on.

What evolution occured in the last 2000 years. I have heard nothing referencing this. We are basically the same as we were the last 1.8 million years ago (which were our last known ancestors the ****** erectus). We do have better nuitrition which allows us to fufill our actual height and mass potential. We also live longer because of better medicine but none of these are due to evolution