Forum:2013-12-06 (Friday) ← ♦ → Forum:2013-12-11 (Wednesday)
No baby talk, Auntie!
Blurk! Also, I note that Gil also corrected Lilith's eyes so they're the same size. Jagerdraught Braumeister (talk) 06:45, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
Maxinia Agatha Gilliana Heterodyne Clay? You do realize that she'll be called Max, right? -- Billy Catringer (talk) 07:10, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- Maxine and Gillian are already perfectly fine feminine names. I wonder why the Clays felt they needed to further feminize them by adding the -a suffix to them? Jagerdraught Braumeister (talk) 10:48, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- I wanna know who she's named after (besides Agatha, of course). I don't think those names were pulled out of a hat. She won't be called 'Max' unless she wants to be. Also, that is one Proud Father. -- SpareParts (talk) 22:27, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- You do have a point. As for who she is named after the "Gilliana" almost certainly comes from Gilgamesh Wulfenbach, the doctor who repaired Punch and Judy. Maxine remains a mystery to me though.-- Billy Catringer (talk) 06:43, December 10, 2013 (UTC)
Soooo are Fraknenstein/Type-3 constructs reproducing as alarming as Agatha's dingbots reproducing? Not the "EWWW!" factor, but creations creating. --MadCat221 (talk) 07:30, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently it's the very least unusual, possibly first of the kind given Agatha's surprise and Lilith's comment. --Kuopiofi (talk) 08:08, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, she's known Adam and Lilith all her life, so she would know that they were not originally capable of having children and would, so, be surprised. I imagine that a construct would be fertile or not based on its creators' design (and skill). After all, they're made from human parts, right? I doubt many creators would want to deal with the consequences of their creations bearing children, so I'd bet most constructs would be infertile. johnwillo (talk) 21:57, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- How would genetics with patchwork constructs work to begin with? Not just frankensteins like the Clays, but patchwork revives like the Baron. Were those... parts on the Baron originally his, or were they salvaged from someone else when (I presume) the Boys revived him? The Clays were patchworks even before they got ripped to shreds by Von Pinn.--MadCat221 (talk) 22:38, December 10, 2013 (UTC)
- Just as with people with transplanted organs, it should only be the genetics of the gonads (ovaries & testicles) that determines what genes are passed to the next generation, so whoever originally "owned" these organs would be the bio-parents of the offspring. If these organs are patchwork themselves, the bio-parents would be the original owners of the individual primordial germ cells from which the gametes (egg & sperm) were produced. If the genes of these cells were somehow modified at the time the construct was created, then these modifications would of course be passed on. Hope that helps. Tarvek (talk) 04:22, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
So what conclusion are Heterodyne enemies going to jump to when they see a couple of Heterodyne constructs with a baby that couldn't possibly be their own? 87.60.158.208 02:44, December 10, 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I hadn't noticed that I'd been logged out. Rancke (talk) 06:03, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe that it's been established that no constructs can have children, although it may turn out that this was the case hitherto. johnwillo (talk) 17:34, December 10, 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, all that's been established (and that only just now, on this page) is that Agatha was quite surprised to see that Lilith and Adam had a baby. Nothing about constructs in general, only them in particular, and Agatha may not ever have known the whole story even on them. Mskala (talk) 01:02, December 11, 2013 (UTC)