Danse is your Grandson

[Athanasa]

Let that sink in for a bit.

 

 

Gen 3 synth DNA is taken from Shaun. Shaun is your son. Danse is a Gen 3 Synth. Danse has large quantities of DNA from Shaun. Danse is your grandson.

 

[Talwyn224]

Good point - that means Curie is your grand daughter... let that one sink in....

[Moraelin]

Right. In the same way as the computer my dad built is my brother ;)

[Athanasa]

Right. In the same way as the computer my dad built is my brother :wink:

 

Y'know Gen 3 synths are mostly biologically human components, right? Biological components constructed with the radiation free DNA of your son.

 

So yeah, the computer would be your relative if it was made with your dad's DNA.... although it wouldn't be a computer, unless science has got a lot further ahead in the last month.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Athanasa

[Moraelin]

They did however add a lot of DNA from other sources, if from the kid of two pasty white redheads in my game they can get black-haired dark-skinned coursers. Both parents, and thus Shaun too, have a broken MC1R gene, yet my courser companion, and for that matter Danse, have the unbroken one. Not only that, but the skin tone for both parents indicates the gene for brown eumelanin, which is a mutation that only happened in Europe, yet some synths have a skin tone and for that matter hair that indicates black eumelanin. Etc.

 

So, in the end, so what? You share about 99% of your coding sequences with chimps, and other apes are not that far off. Yet you don't think of any chimp as cousin Koko. You share about 50% of the coding sequences with bananas, which is just about as much as your offspring gets from you. Yet I'm not eating my children like old Kronos right now :tongue:

 

And Danse, as even he agreed, was an abomination of technology that should not be allowed to exist. I shot him in the head.

[Athanasa]

They did however add a lot of DNA from other sources, if from the kid of two pasty white redhead they can get black-haired dark-skinned coursers. Both parents, and thus Shaun too, have a broken MC1R gene, yet my courser companion, and for that matter Danse, have the unbroken one. Not only that, but the skin tone for both parents indicates the gene for brown eumelanin, which is a mutation that only happened in Europe, yet some synths have a skin tone and for that matter hair that indicates black eumelanin. Etc.

 

Except not everyone has two pasty redhead parents. Shaun provides the basis for undamaged DNA. Variations for hair colourations can be edited into this (the same way we've genetically modified glow in the dark kittens and fruitfly jizz).

 

I assume you're trying to play Devil's Advocate, which is cute.

 

 

But your basic lack of understanding of actual genetics and statistics undermines your entire argument. I'm not going to go into detail as to why it's irrelevant, as that would be an essay in itself.

 

However, I will say this...

If you are looking at a data set of numbers where EVERY number is between 10,000 and 10,100, dependant on your type of analysis you might as well ignore the first 10,000 and concentrate on the last 100 instead. Same with this. For the sake of analysing DNA variance between humans, we ignore the DNA that is always identical, as it has no relevance.

 

Edited December 27, 2015 by Athanasa

[Moraelin]

Yet if you edit different alleles into it, than your descendants could have inherited from you, in what way is it still your descendant? Just because it has the same loci as you and every human on the planet?

[Moraelin]

And speaking of logical fallacies, well, check out your reasoning first. 'Nuf said. Providing a counter example like the case I provided is actually enough to refute a blanket statement like you made.

 

At any rate, "fallacy" doesn't just mean "some blanket term to throw around when you don't have an argument." If you claim that I have committed any fallacies, then name them. It shouldn't be too hard.

 

So no, I'm not going to go on a tu quoque, as in your "spoiler" trolling. I'm just flat out calling you out on it. If you claim any fallacies were done, support that claim. It's that simple. Positive claim, your burden of proof.

[Athanasa]

So no, I'm not going to go on a tu quoque, as in your "spoiler" trolling. I'm just flat out calling you out on it. If you claim any fallacies were done, support that claim. It's that simple. Positive claim, your burden of proof.

 

*Sighs* Okay. So let's get on with this, then.

 

Explanation of your Banana / Chimp example, and why it is irrelevant: here

"In contrast, when you are talking about the genes you share with your daughter, you are not asking how many of the genes have the same function (which is 100%), you are asking how many of those genes are absolutely identical, letter for letter. The probability that any one of those genes came from the father is 50%, and the probability that a gene has come from the mother is also 50%. This is why you share 50% of your genes with your daughter."

Your quote, "You share about 50% of the coding sequences with bananas, which is just about as much as your offspring gets from you." shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the most basic mechanics of genetics.

 

Now, to analyse Synths and stop shredding what you've said...

 

First, let's do some research into what areas of the human genome are most vulnerable to radiation damage. Google's given me this... which turns out to have nothing of relevant interest. Let's move on.

 

Actually, that's far too much research down that route. Instead, let's think about what the Institute logically intends to do with their Synths. I am assuming that they do not want their mass produced synths to reproduce (although it would not surprise me if they have prototypes somewhere to test that theory). Therefore, I imagine they have disabled the reproductive abilities of their Gen 3 Synths.

 

Now, I'm not sure exactly WHAT you would need to do to turn this reproduction off. Given that their synths are created as adults, it may be something simple like not including the necessary plumbing (although ovaries and testicles are likely included, as human bodies need the hormones produced. Otherwise, menopause for everyone).

 

Because there is no intention to allow Synths to breed, there is no reason to include the addition of genetic variety. There is no need to prevent a horrific shrinking of the gene pool that would be caused by multiple reproduction capable adults with common DNA features.

 

There is far more to DNA than pigmentation and build. There are predispositions to certain types of brain development. Although, as we have seen, many Synths seem to be somewhat lacking in the emotional intelligence department. Then there's mitochondrial DNA, inherited solely from the mother. It is very unlikely that the Institute substituted Shaun's mDNA has been altered or replaced. So, Gen 3 Synths all have the same mDNA as Nora. [A paper on non-ionizing radiation damage to mDNA, probably not even relevant. But I don't have the time to read it right now].

 

With Regards to Pigmentation

Pigmentation is one of the easiest parts of DNA to manipulate, and probably one of the most studied. Scientists have manipulated it in cats, rats, fruit flies... My point is, to make a human LOOK different, you need to make minimal edits to the DNA.

 

With Regards to Bone Structure

As you see in The Institute, the bones of a Synth are laid out and the body is built around it. Therefore, the GENETICS of the base donor are irrelevant in the bone structure of the end result Synth. If you want to produce a Synth with an African type facial structure and high melanin content skin, you adjust the DNA to cause the dark skin and you make the body with the correct shape of bones.

 

The Probable Problems with Existing DNA

It is mentioned by Shaun when you first enter the Institute that the DNA, even of existing members of The Institute, is damaged by radiation. I feel it is reasonable to assume that this damage takes the form of increased tendency towards mutations in dividing cells... which typically manifests as cancer in humans. Or apparently ghouls in Fallout.

 

How This Relates to Bananas

By not introducing a MOTHER figure into the genetic development of Synths (as a male, Shaun can provide both X and Y chromosones), Gen 3 synths are actually CLOSER to your character in genetics than a Grandchild. A grand-child would have 25% of your DNA. I'll explain this in a diagram, as this does not mean Synths are half Banana.

        Nora        Nate
          |___________|
                |
              Shaun
   50% DNA of Player Character
     50% DNA of PC's spouse

Now, how this would normally go if Shaun had bumped uglies and spawned the normal way...

           Nora       Nate
            |__________|
                 |
 50% PC's DNA) Shaun + Woman (0% PC's DNA)
                     |
              NORMAL OFFSPRING
               25% PC's DNA
                 (50% / 2)

And this is what we've ACTUALLY got in the Institute

          Nora       Nate
            |__________|
                 |
(50% PC's DNA) Shaun + More Shaun + Other Snippets of DNA
                     |
                GEN 3 SYNTH
             Mostly Shaun's DNA
        Some other bits for flavour
           More than 25% PC's DNA

Theories on Emotional Intelligence of Synths

I haven't got the information needed to make claims on this, and I don't really want to go poking family members that do at this time of night. However, Attachment Theory may play an important role in why many Synths are a bit emotionally flat.

Also, I have a pet theory that Shaun himself may have some slight HFA (higher functioning autism) traits (and I say TRAITS, not a full blown diagnosis) - high intellectual capacity, but a bit socially awkward and emotionally distant. This is mostly from observing similar traits in 3rd Gen Synths in the game, not that there are many you can get to know. Danse has some pretty obvious socially awkward traits. Also, half the time he talks like he's swallowed a thesaurus - even when it would be more tactically valid to be succinct. "This area appears to be in disarray." However, Shaun's been brought up around scientists, the perfect place for an Aspie to grow up - around people goal orientated, focusing on logic and science rather than confusing social *censored*. And by 60 years old when you meet him, he'll be able to emulate normal social interraction anyway. To be honest, he'd have learnt it by 30 years old at the latest. That or he rehearsed his meeting with you over the years.

Also, Synths never get a genuine childhood. They don't get a chance to refine their neutral pathways and understand social nuances in whatever culture they find themselves in. If they are pre-created at an adult state, it may well be the case that their brains are actually past the stage of human mental development where they are most suited to learning new languages. That'd probably also explain why Synth-Shaun is believed to be the 'closest to human' emotionally.

 

 

 

 

TL:DR; There is no need for the Institute to vary the DNA from Shaun to Synths in such a way that makes them any more distantly related than a grand child.

And unless they decide to make Synths able to reproduce, there will never be any need, either.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Athanasa

[Athanasa]

And speaking of logical fallacies, well, check out your reasoning first. 'Nuf said. Providing a counter example like the case I provided is actually enough to refute a blanket statement like you made.

 

Counter case? You mean the Bananas one? You completely misunderstood the science behind that example, basing an argument upon a misunderstanding of otherwise valid data. Although, that's mostly because the data has been massively dumbed down (past even COD levels) for public consumption, then misinterpreted by whoever published it. So I can't really blame people for quoting it as gospel truth... although if people stopped and actually thought about the absurdity of a banana being 10% closer to you than your daughter, they might have noticed something.

 

Let's face it, it doesn't have the same ring to it if you say...

60% of our DNA, broken down into its basic chemicals, is found in Bananas.

98% of the DNA in chimps matches our DNA and performs the same functions. (Unsurprising.)

 

On an unrelated note, a man's sperm provides 50% of the genetic material and a woman's egg provides 50% of the genetic material. So your offspring has DIRECTLY inherited 50% of the genetic material from you. However, 100% (barring horrible mutations) of the DNA in your child serves exactly the same purpose and works in exactly the same way as your own DNA.

 

Yet if you edit different alleles into it, than your descendants could have inherited from you, in what way is it still your descendant? Just because it has the same loci as you and every human on the planet?

It's as much your descendant as if Shaun actually had a child with someone with that hypothetical allele in their genetic makeup. It doesn't matter if it was injected by syringe of metal or a syringe of flesh. What you're BASICALLY saying with that statement is, "If your grandchild doesn't have the same hair colour as you, it isn't your grand-child any more."

Edited December 27, 2015 by Athanasa