Space, Time, and the Incurable Romantic, by J. Michael Straczynski: my review
jph...@aol.com
very) loose ends from the fourth season of the series.
PLACEMENT NOTE
Though this story actually occurs quite some time after "Sleeping in
Light," I have chosen to place it before the finale, simply because it
would seem wrong to end my review of this series with anything other
than "Sleeping in Light."
THE PLOT
Marcus Cole has died.
He has literally traded his life for Susan's, combining his love for
her with his drive for self-destruction. As the last of his life force
drains away, he gasps out, "I love you" - yet again managing to say it
in a situation where he has every reason to believe Susan cannot hear,
and yet again saying it in a situation where it cannot possibly lead
to anything. Then he closes his eyes, content, and...
...Wakes up???
In the far-distant future, Marcus learns that Susan had demanded his
body be cryogenically frozen until a way was found to reverse the
effects of the alien healing device. As Susan became an Anla'shok
legend in her own right, that order has survived, generation after
generation. Now, the situation is the exact opposite of what Marcus
would have wished: He is alive, while Susan is long-dead.
Then Marcus learns that the Minbari now preserve the collective
consciousness - "the soul" - of those who have gone before, including
Susan's. Finding himself very rich, he does what comes naturally. He
hires a thief to help him steal the data chips on which Susan's soul
is recorded. He commissions a clone of Susan. Then he arranges for
Susan's consciousness to be transferred into the clone, but only up to
the moment before she was injured.
If Susan's dead, well I guess that's no reason Marcus can't just build
himself a new one.
THE GOOD
I have observed, in previous reviews of JMS-penned short stories, that
JMS' prose often seems forced. He's very good with dialogue, but often
stumbles when writing the text describing his characters' emotions or
the things that surround them - the connective tissue, between
dialogue and action, that separates prose fiction from plays and
screenplays. JMS is a fine screenwriter. As a prose author, I have
often felt that he struggles.
"Space, Time, and the Incurable Romantic" has moments of this prose
awkwardness. Overall, however, it is almost certainly the best-written
of JMS' short stories. Marcus' thoughts and feelings are fairly well-
captured, particularly his jumble of thoughts and emotions upon
learning that everything he ever knew is gone. One scene flows fairly
well into the next. Overall, JMS the prose author has come a fair way
since the clunky execution of otherwise rather good stories in "The
Shadow of His Thoughts" and "Hidden Agendas."
THE BAD
Unfortunately, this story has the reverse problem: It is well-written,
but the story itself is not, in my opinion, really very good.
The execution of the story works well enough. One thing proceeds into
the next in a logical enough fashion. However, there is a lack of any
real conflict. Marcus is given a dilemma: He is alive, Susan is dead.
Marcus is pretty much handed the means to solve that dilemma: He is
told (largely without asking) that the Minbari have preserved Susan's
soul, and he is given an enormous amount of money. There are
relatively few barriers presented to Marcus achieving his goal,
leaving this a simple recounting of Marcus wanting something, and then
getting it. No suspense, really, because there is no point at which we
are led to doubt that Marcus will succeed.
Other issues with the story are more down to the reader's own personal
reaction to Marcus' deeds. I admit, I had trouble with them. First, it
doesn't entirely seem like Marcus. Throughout Seasons Three and Four,
Marcus did pretty much everything in his power to avoid snatching
happiness with Susan. As I observed during my reviews of those
seasons, on first viewing it had seemed that Susan was keeping Marcus
at arm's length. To a certain extent, she was...
[SPOILERS FOR BASICALLY THE ENTIRE STORY. DON'T KEEP READING IF YOU
HAVEN'T READ THE STORY]
But it was Marcus who made sure that he stayed at arm's length.
Anytime he started to seriously catch Susan's attention, he would
resort to his "goofball" persona, making a joke of everything to
deflect attention away from any of his true emotions. He only
seriously stated his feelings for her in situations where she could
not possibly hear and understand (i. e., speaking in Minbari, saying
"I love you" on his deathbed). The real tragedy of Susan and Marcus
isn't that he wanted her and could not have her; the real tragedy is
that he wanted her, could almost certainly have had her if he had
dropped his defenses, but simply would not let go of those defenses.
He stayed at arm's length because he was comfortable at arm's length.
>From Day One, Marcus wasn't looking for a reason to live (which love
for Susan would have been); he was looking for a reason to die.
So where is that overriding self-destructive streak here? Well, I
suppose elements of his final solution are self-destructive.
Marooning Susan and himself on a distant world, in order to provide
Susan with her "dream getaway," seems a particularly ill thought-out
plan. Everyone needs a vacation. However - and particularly if you're
a "Type A" personality - there is such a thing as too much vacation.
At some point, probably not too far distant from the moment of the
"crash," Susan is going to start to get restless, is going to start to
feel a desperate need to do something. What Marcus has done is made
her a prisoner.
He has also engineered a situation where Susan literally has no option
other than Marcus. For the most part, if you arrange to maroon the
person of the opposite sex that you most desire on an empty planet
with you, sooner or later human drives mean that the two of you will
be together, or at least will fulfill your mutual needs. Sure, Susan
wanted Marcus probably at least as much as he wanted her. But what
Marcus has engineered is a situation where she has no choice in the
matter. If she tires of him, there's not a lot of options.
And then what about children? It seems a fair bet that Marcus hasn't
done this so that he and Susan can play parchisee on the beach for the
rest of their lives. At some point, it is a near-certainty that
children will be a factor. Marcus has marooned them, too, and set up a
situation that pretty well condemns his children to a choice between
lifelong celibacy or incest. Tack onto that, Marcus has set up a
situation where he can never, ever tell the truth. The moment he
discloses what he's done, he will be despised for it, beyond
redemption. His only option is to lie, and keep lying, forever.
And all of that assumes that the planet is never found. Personally, I
rather want an epilogue in which the planet is found by Alliance ships
just immediately before Marcus is finally about to enjoy the, er,
fruits of his labor. I would enjoy seeing Susan's reaction to what he
has done.
In any case, all of that is probably putting far too much thought into
a fairly lightweight story. What's most disappointing about "Space,
TIme, and the Incurable Romantic," however, is that it turns Marcus -
a wonderful, delightful, vibrantly funny yet heartbreakingly tragic
figure - into the sci-fi equivalent of a pasty guy in a basement with
a stalker wall.
My Final Rating: 4/10 Being fair, it is well-written and no great
chore to read. So I can't give it a lower score, tempted as I am. My
gut, emotional reaction, however, is closer to a "2."
Next Up: The end. "Sleeping in Light."
Joseph DeMartino
> [SPOILERS FOR BASICALLY THE ENTIRE STORY. DON'T KEEP READING IF YOU
> HAVEN'T READ THE STORY]
I'm one of those who found Marcus's actions deeply creepy and
incredibly selfish, which I tend to think was JMS's *point*. <g>
I've long thought that this story was JMS's way of thumbing his nose
at all the fans who wanted a "happy ending" to the Marcus/Ivanova
story. "You want them back together?" he seemed to be saying, "OK,
here's the only scenario where they could end up together that doesn't
violate the inegrity of the characters and my story. Happy?"
That and starting cyber-barfights among the actual incurable romantics
among us, who would get all weepy at the fairy-tale ending, and the
realists who would be simply appalled at what Marcus had done.
> And then what about children? It seems a fair bet that Marcus hasn't
> done this so that he and Susan can play parchisee [sic]* on the beach for the
> rest of their lives.
Actually, I think that is more or less what he did. I don't think he
wanted children and I think he understood perfectly well the
implications of having them on his isolated dream world. So I've
always assumed that he ensured that he or his revived Susan (or both)
were sterile, thus eliminating that complication from his plan. Then
they would go on living together in splendid isolation until old age
and death finally overtook them. A mad plan? Well, yes. But Marcus
was half-mad when we met him, and the circumstances of his rebirth
clearly drove him all the way around the bend.
Given his mindset, and his desire to both provide Susan with the best
possible life *and* anticipate the problems and requirements of his
little artificial world, I think his contingency planning went further
than that. What if one of them was injured and died, or sickened and
died? That would leave the other stranded alone with no hope of
rescue. Did Marcus have an automated distress beacon hidden
somewhere, set to go off if he died first? I don't think so. I don't
think he could have stood the thought of Susan hating him, even after
his death.
So, how about murder/suicide? I think Marcus could easily have worked
out a plan for that, in the event the he predeceased Susan, or that
either or both of them grew to ill to care for themselves. Before the
point of total decreptitude, I think Marcus would have ended both
their lives. And I wouldn't put it past him to have given Susan
something like the binary poison from "Dune" or design a lysine
contingency ala "Jurassic Park" into Susan II - some element needed to
keep her alive that only he knew about and supplied to her. So that
in the event of his death its lack would cause her to slip into a coma
and die quietly. The guy who concocted this Robinson Crusoe fantasy
would have considered such a thing a kindness, and it is hardly out-of-
character with the rest of his actions in the story.
* OK, I can't help myself, have been hanging around Amy too long.
<g> The board game is spelled "Parcheesi". <g>
Regards,
Joe
Jeffrey Kaplan
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
> Then Marcus learns that the Minbari now preserve the collective
> consciousness - "the soul" - of those who have gone before, including
> Susan's. Finding himself very rich, he does what comes naturally. He
WTF happened to the Minbari that they would do what they condemn and
hate the Soul Hunters for doing? It is well established in the series
that part of the central core of Minbari beliefs is the resurrection of
the soul in a new body. You remove that soul and the whole is
diminished.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
"The reason we start a war is to fight a war, win a war, thereby
causing no more war!" George W. Bush, The first Presidential debate
julia.a...@kwl-dresden.de
sheer coincidence discussed it with a friend two nights ago.
You pretty much captured my opinion, even though I haven't given it as
much thought as you did. For me, what Marcus did is somewhat really,
really, really creepy and given his respect for live in general and
Susan in particular doesn't really seem to fit.
I am happy with the story until the point where he visits her shrine.
His frustration, despair and profound sadness upon being alone in this
new world and feeling abandoned - they were beautifully captured. But
everything that follows just seems so unlikely.
Starstuff
Jan
says...
>
>Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, jph...@aol.com said:
>
>S
>
>P
>
>O
>
>I
>
>L
>
>E
>
>R
>
>
>
>S
>
>P
>
>A
>
>C
>
>E
>
>
>> Then Marcus learns that the Minbari now preserve the collective
>> consciousness - "the soul" - of those who have gone before, including
>> Susan's. Finding himself very rich, he does what comes naturally. He
>
>WTF happened to the Minbari that they would do what they condemn and
>hate the Soul Hunters for doing? It is well established in the series
>that part of the central core of Minbari beliefs is the resurrection of
>the soul in a new body. You remove that soul and the whole is
>diminished.
>
I'll need to read the story again but as I recall, there's no indication in it
that the recording is anything more than a personality matrix or recording of
memories. Depending on your own beliefs, that's likely to be completely
different from recording or capturing the soul.
Jan
--
Here, gathered together in common cause, we agree to recognize
this singular truth: that we are one; and this singular rule: that
we must be kind to one another.
Joseph DeMartino
> WTF happened to the Minbari that they would do what they condemn and
> hate the Soul Hunters for doing?
It is clear from the story that it is NOT the actual soul that is
captured. Rather it is what Franklin suggested when they first
encountered the Soul Hunters - a recording of the thoughts and
feelings and memories of a person, a kind of personality archive, a
*copy* of the person. The people who left these records did so
voluntarily, *prior* to their deaths, IIRC.
Regards,
Joe
Jan
Joseph DeMartino says...
From the story:
"...it's a full study of all the neural pathwasy and memories and iformation she
held at the time, encoded and preserved for future historieans, physicials, and
scientists. I think the neares human equivalent would be a life mask, but this
is an impression, a picture, taken of a person's mind."
No slightest hint of it being a soul at all.
Joseph DeMartino
> "...it's a full study of all the neural pathwasy and memories and information she
> held at the time, encoded and preserved for future historians, physicists (?), and
> scientists. I think the nearest human equivalent would be a life mask, but this
> is an impression, a picture, taken of a person's mind."
>
> No slightest hint of it being a soul at all.
Which is just what Franklin suggested as a plausible explanation for
what the Soul Hunters were up to, and basically how the Soul Hunters
themselves explained what they were capturing. But then, neither
Franklin nor the Soul Hunters seemed to believe in the soul or in any
kind of personal survival after death.
If there are no souls, then there is probably not much practical
difference between what the Minbari are doing and what the Soul
Hunters did. (Except that the Minbari make their recording while the
subject is alive, while the Soul Hunters wait for the more dramatic
moment of death.)
But the Minbari are not hypocrites, because they *do* believe in the
soul, and they are not "taking" the personality at the moment of
death. OTOH, the actions of the Soul Hunters suggest that the Minbari
are right. If they could make such a recording of a living subject,
they wouldn't need to wait until the instant before death to get their
pictures. They could record that "worthy" at any time - several times
during their lifetimes, just in case. They might have to briefly
kidnap the unwilling ones to make their recordings, but they would not
be the pariahs that they are if they came in, took their "pictures"
and got out, leaving behind a living subject. There must be
*something* that prevents them from doing this. It could be a
limitation of their technology, or it could be that they are really
capturing souls, which do not leave the body until death. <g>
Regards,
Joe
Josh Hill
And then there's the triluminary, which seems to be registering
something real, assuming it's not just a parlor trick. And the visible
souls that Delenn releases, and the fact that in River of Souls it's
revealed that the Soul Hunters destroyed an entire race by capturing
their souls at their moment of transmogrification. At the very least,
the Soul Hunters' trick destroys the person on which it's used.
--
Josh
"What is it exactly that the V.P. does every day?" - Sarah Palin
Joseph DeMartino
> And then there's the triluminary, which seems to be registering
> something real, assuming it's not just a parlor trick.
I don't think the triluminary counts as evidence in this case. The
"something real" it seems to be registering is Human DNA - which is
why it doesn't react to most Minbari it comes in contact with. (See,
"In the Beginning", "Atonement". When it glows for Delenn it is
cleary an exceptional event.)
Regards,
Joe
Josh Hill
Oh, well, so much for that one. The Wikipedia article points out that
the Mimbari infer the presence of the Mimbari soul from the fact that
Sinclair shares his DNA with Valen, and is thus, they assume, Valen's
reincarnation.
Joseph DeMartino
> Oh, well, so much for that one. The Wikipedia article points out that
> the Mimbari infer the presence of the Mimbari soul from the fact that
> Sinclair shares his DNA with Valen, and is thus, they assume, Valen's
> reincarnation.
Then Wiki gets it wrong. (What a shock! <g>) The Minbari's working
theory was *always* that the triluminaries (there were three of them,
remember) reacted to "great" Minbari souls, especially to the
"children of Valen". (Given Minbari beliefs about the transmigration
of souls it makes sense that great souls would be passed down to
their own descendents.) When the triluminary reacted to Sinclair at
the Line, they were convinced that he had a Minbari soul. (Because it
reacted strongly, some thought he was Valen reincarnated. Others
weren't prepared to go that far, and only asserted that his soul was
Minbari - or even only partly Minbari.)
Nobody had the slightest idea, at that point, that DNA was involved at
all. They wouldn't figure that out until after Sinclair went back in
time and they realized he wasn't merely the reincarnation of Valen,
but Valen himself, and that he had retained some of his Human DNA.
Regards,
Joe
P.S.
Sorry, pet peeve, have to pick this nit: It is MINbari. Not
MIMbari. <g>
Jan
>
>
>Oh, well, so much for that one. The Wikipedia article points out that
>the Mimbari infer the presence of the Mimbari soul from the fact that
>Sinclair shares his DNA with Valen, and is thus, they assume, Valen's
>reincarnation.
>
GGGAAAAHHHH!!!! Josh, please! It's MiNbari. Em Eye *EN* Bee Ay Are Eye
<shudde> That one's like fingernails on the blackboard to me.
Matt Ion
> In article <7m5is4d9j174d9f98...@4ax.com>, Josh Hill says...
>>
>> Oh, well, so much for that one. The Wikipedia article points out that
>> the Mimbari infer the presence of the Mimbari soul from the fact that
>> Sinclair shares his DNA with Valen, and is thus, they assume, Valen's
>> reincarnation.
>>
>
> GGGAAAAHHHH!!!! Josh, please! It's MiNbari. Em Eye *EN* Bee Ay Are Eye
> <shudde> That one's like fingernails on the blackboard to me.
What do you meam?
Joseph DeMartino
> What do you meam?
I don't think that misspelling quite qualifiez az a meme. Zo I sayz
to the guy, "Nize ztation..."
Joe
Josh Hill
OK, that's closer to what I remember. What I hadn't remembered was
that they made the connection to DNA at some point. Which brings up a
pet beef of mine: why is it always assumed that alien species use DNA
rather than another molecule for their genetic code? ('Course, since
the same shows routinely assume we can hybridize with folks who
evolved independently, that's a minor quibble . . . )
Josh Hill
>In article <7m5is4d9j174d9f98...@4ax.com>, Josh Hill says...
>>
>>
>>Oh, well, so much for that one. The Wikipedia article points out that
>>the Mimbari infer the presence of the Mimbari soul from the fact that
>>Sinclair shares his DNA with Valen, and is thus, they assume, Valen's
>>reincarnation.
>>
>
>GGGAAAAHHHH!!!! Josh, please! It's MiNbari. Em Eye *EN* Bee Ay Are Eye
><shudde> That one's like fingernails on the blackboard to me.
Mea culpa -- or is that "nea culpa"? I do try to look these things up
when I'm in doubt, but to look them up I have to be aware that I
*need* to look them up.
Amy Guskin
<tadks4l4onbhvlukk...@4ax.com>):
Routinely? I beg to differ. Delenn had to go under _radical_ modification
of her genetic structure in order to create a child with Sheridan. What's
even one other example during the course of the show or any of the books?
Amy
--
Ten Thousand Questions Blog:
A Question a Day for Journaling, Self-Discovery, and Transformation
"2009 is the Year of Questions"
tenthousandquestions.com
SLerman
> >> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:47:57 -0400, thus spake Josh Hill (in article
>
Pretty sure he meant shows other than B5 (coughstartrekcough). Of
course, those other shows then manage to come up with some ridiculous
reason that every race is genetically compatible, and cram it into a
one-hour episode.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>> OK, that's closer to what I remember. What I hadn't remembered was
>> that they made the connection to DNA at some point. Which brings up a
>> pet beef of mine: why is it always assumed that alien species use DNA
>> rather than another molecule for their genetic code? ('Course, since
>> the same shows routinely assume we can hybridize with folks who
>> evolved independently, that's a minor quibble . . . ) <<
>
>Routinely? I beg to differ. Delenn had to go under _radical_ modification
>of her genetic structure in order to create a child with Sheridan. What's
>even one other example during the course of the show or any of the books?
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear -- I wasn't referring to Babylon 5
but to SF shows in general. Hence "shows."
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Pretty sure he meant shows other than B5 (coughstartrekcough). Of
>course, those other shows then manage to come up with some ridiculous
>reason that every race is genetically compatible, and cram it into a
>one-hour episode.
And then there's the "alien baby grows into an adult in a matter of
days" . . .
Amy Guskin
<ae1qs4hdpu4serp9d...@4ax.com>):
Sorry, my bad. I must have read that as "the same show routinely assumes"
rather than what you actually wrote.
Kay Shapero
usere...@gmail.com says...
>
> OK, that's closer to what I remember. What I hadn't remembered was
> that they made the connection to DNA at some point. Which brings up a
> pet beef of mine: why is it always assumed that alien species use DNA
> rather than another molecule for their genetic code?
Well... if you're talking about a species from a world similar to Earth
then you're talking about the same basic set of chemical reactions that
we encounter on Earth. And there are only so many ways at liquid water
temperatures that you can get self-replication and data storage at the
level you get from DNA. Protein could be used for encoding, but making
other proteins from protein is problematic at best, leaving DNA and RNA
as pretty much IT. I'm not chemist enough to know if you can substitute
other base pairs for the ones used, but the fact that nothing appears to
have done so is suggestive. So it's at least defensible as an
assumption.
Now I would no more expect this to make two species cross fertile any
more than the fact that lilacs and grizzly bears both use DNA makes THEM
cross fertile. But that's another story.
--
Kay Shapero
http://www.kayshapero.net
Joseph DeMartino
> as pretty much IT. I'm not chemist enough to know if you can substitute
> other base pairs for the ones used, but the fact that nothing appears to
> have done so is suggestive. So it's at least defensible as an
> assumption.
True, but odds are there was a single, unique "origin of life" event,
which means that the first set of base pairs that worked might well
have pre-empted or swamped any competitors. Besides, even if you
substituted other base pair, odds are you would still end up with
something that was basically "DNA", just as you still end up with a
salt if you swap out the chlorine in sodium chrloride with flourine.
(Granted you wouldn't want to sprinkle it on your steak, but it would
be functionally and structurally very similar.)
> Now I would no more expect this to make two species cross fertile any
> more than the fact that lilacs and grizzly bears both use DNA makes THEM
> cross fertile. But that's another story.
And they not only both use DNA, they both use essentially the *same*
DNA, all descended from that first primordial strand. As Carl Sagan
was fond of saying, you'd have a better chance of successfully mating
with a petunia than with a Vulcan.
Regards,
Joe
SLerman
> other base pairs for the ones used, but the fact that nothing appears to
> have done so is suggestive. So it's at least defensible as an
> assumption.
You can, and there's been some research into creating new base pairs
and seeing what kinds of proteins they produce. If you search Google
for "artificial dna" you'll get a few articles about it.
Kathryn Huxtable
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:59:12 -0700 (PDT), SLerman <smle...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Pretty sure he meant shows other than B5 (coughstartrekcough). Of
>>course, those other shows then manage to come up with some ridiculous
>>reason that every race is genetically compatible, and cram it into a
>>one-hour episode.
>
> And then there's the "alien baby grows into an adult in a matter of
> days" . . .
It's the SORAS effect. (Soap Opera Random Aging Syndrom.) We saw it on
one of the imaginary seasons of SG-1.
-K
Tippi
> everything that follows just seems so unlikely.
You can blame it on Marcus' mind being damaged by the alien machine
and also from being frozen for hundreds of years, and Susan being an
imperfect (or altered) copy of the real person.
Amy Guskin
<87fxgy6...@server-a.kathrynhuxtable.name>):
Oh my god, you know one of our secret soap terms...I guess this means now
I'll have to kill you. ;-)
Amy Guskin
<23505d76-f89d-4157...@l22g2000vba.googlegroups.com>):
Good thoughts, but let's all remember to beware of posting story ideas. For
those who need a refresher:
http://fjordstone.com/rastb5mod/storyfaq.html
(Tippi, this isn't a scold -- I just like to pop in with a reminder whenever
someone gets dangerously close to "what if"s.)
Dan Dassow
>
> Good thoughts, but let's all remember to beware of posting story ideas. For
> those who need a refresher:
>
> http://fjordstone.com/rastb5mod/storyfaq.html
>
> (Tippi, this isn't a scold -- I just like to pop in with a reminder whenever
> someone gets dangerously close to "what if"s.)
>
> Amy
<toungue-in-cheek>
Yes, we could speculate what this group would be like if Amy and the
other mods did not guide this group, but I suspect that would violate
the charter agains "what if's".
</toungue-in-cheek>
WHAM WHAM WHAM WHAM WHAM WHAM WHAM ... wimper
Dan Dassow
Wes Struebing
Zomebody ztop thiz man before he ztrikez again!
Elko T
>
> And then there's the "alien baby grows into an adult in a matter of
> days" . . .
This is one of the most fun concepts in the hilarious alien horror
branch. Watch "Xtro" or "Evil Aliens" sometimes if you don't believe me. :)
Josh Hill
wrote:
I'm not chemist enough to know for certain either how many
possibilities there are for long-chain self-replicating molecules,
but, as you say, there are probably other possibilities for base
pairs. Once a particular SRM had occupied the niche, it would be
difficult for another to evolve from scratch, as opposed to by
modification, as in the case of DNA.
Kay Shapero
usere...@gmail.com says...
> I'm not chemist enough to know for certain either how many
> possibilities there are for long-chain self-replicating molecules,
> but, as you say, there are probably other possibilities for base
> pairs. Once a particular SRM had occupied the niche, it would be
> difficult for another to evolve from scratch, as opposed to by
> modification, as in the case of DNA.
Technically these would still be DNA, just a different code, and thus
not interchangable with the other kinds.
Andrew Swallow
made by attaching hydrogen or nitrogen. Some method of replication
would need adding.
Andrew Swallow
gabi
>
>Some method of replication would need adding.
>
call me crazy, but that's the sexiest sentence i've read in a long
time. :^)
lg
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>In article <57dss4dsd16mtbga6...@4ax.com>,
Well, technically not, Kay. DNA stands for de(s)-oxy ribonucleic acid
(the "s" is usually not included any more) - a specific bio chemical.
Anything else would be an analogue, but NOT DNA.
(sorry, just a nit...<G>)
...and anything that would be efficient would most likely (doesn't
HAVE to be...) be ATP-based (Krebs Cycle). It's far more energetic
than most anything else in our chemistry, and would then tend toward a
DNA-like (at least) molecule for passing on a genetic code.
Elko T
And forgot to mention "Bad Biology", although this one is not about
aliens, strictly speaking. :)
Amy Guskin
<81jts4paatqbuqas8...@4ax.com>):
Garsh, some of you folks have such awfully big brains! (she said admiringly)
Jeffrey Kaplan
> Plastics are made from long chains of carbon. Base pairs could be
> made by attaching hydrogen or nitrogen. Some method of replication
> would need adding.
Isn't the presence or absence of hydrogen on carbon chains the
difference between the various (un)saturated fats in food?
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
"I think you just hit a nerve, the Vorlons must owe them money or
something." (Marcus Cole, B5 "Voices Of Authority")
Kathryn Huxtable
>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:21:50 -0400, thus spake Kathryn Huxtable (in article
> <87fxgy6...@server-a.kathrynhuxtable.name>):
>
>> Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:59:12 -0700 (PDT), SLerman <smle...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pretty sure he meant shows other than B5 (coughstartrekcough). Of
>>>> course, those other shows then manage to come up with some ridiculous
>>>> reason that every race is genetically compatible, and cram it into a
>>>> one-hour episode.
>>>
>>> And then there's the "alien baby grows into an adult in a matter of
>>> days" . . .
>>
>> It's the SORAS effect. (Soap Opera Random Aging Syndrom.) We saw it on
>> one of the imaginary seasons of SG-1. <<
>
> Oh my god, you know one of our secret soap terms...I guess this means now
> I'll have to kill you. ;-)
Wikipedia is my friend. I found that term while browsing a few years
ago after looking up "Jumping the shark".
-K
Amy Guskin
<87r60gi...@server-a.kathrynhuxtable.name>):
I just noticed you only have it mostly right. It's generally known to mean
"Soap Opera _Rapid_ Aging Syndrome." Could be Wikipedia's error (wouldn't be
too surprising). My hunch is that some people might have plugged in "random"
to replace "rapid" because of a more recent trend to recast long-gone
characters with actors who are YOUNGER than they ought to be. So, "random"
would cover wrong-aging in either direction.
Although where I hang out, we would generally call the younger-casting
version (or for soap babies who never seem to grow up) "Reverse SORAS."
Kathryn Huxtable
Nope. I just randomly typed "random". I *meant* to type "rapid".
-K
Josh Hill
<str...@carpedementem.org> wrote:
>...and anything that would be efficient would most likely (doesn't
>HAVE to be...) be ATP-based (Krebs Cycle). It's far more energetic
>than most anything else in our chemistry, and would then tend toward a
>DNA-like (at least) molecule for passing on a genetic code.
An interest point.
Kay Shapero
str...@carpedementem.org says...
> >
> >Technically these would still be DNA, just a different code, and thus
> >not interchangable with the other kinds.
> >>
> Well, technically not, Kay. DNA stands for de(s)-oxy ribonucleic acid
> (the "s" is usually not included any more) - a specific bio chemical.
> Anything else would be an analogue, but NOT DNA.
>
> (sorry, just a nit...<G>)
Well, no, DNA is a structure, and is still DNA regardless of how many
specific bases are included. As long as it's a nucleotide base and
links to the backbone and to another nucleotide base, it's still a
deoxyribonucleic acid.
Naturally there's no reason you can't use an RNA instead, given that
that's what does the actual protein construction.
This still gives you an awful lot of leeway.
Bruce Goatly
> Well, no, DNA is a structure, and is still DNA regardless of how many
> specific bases are included. As long as it's a nucleotide base and
> links to the backbone and to another nucleotide base, it's still a
> deoxyribonucleic acid.
Accepted - it's a generic term; in terrestrial biology the base structures
are assumed to be universal rather than defined as such.
> Naturally there's no reason you can't use an RNA instead, given that
> that's what does the actual protein construction.
I'm not sure that's chemically true, actually; as I understand it, RNA is
significantly less stable than DNA for long-term storage of information, and
so is less suitable for use as an archive. It's fine for the short-term
transfer of information, when any use made of it mostly affects only local
cells rather than the whole organism. The error-correction mechanisms would
need to be a lot more efficient - and energy-consuming - in an RNA world, I
think.
--
Bruce
Fel
> >> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:47:57 -0400, thus spake Josh Hill (in article
>
> <tadks4l4onbhvlukkd7rgkamt74pg3q...@4ax.com>):
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:36:36 -0700 (PDT), Joseph DeMartino
> > <jdema...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Mar 24, 1:24 pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Oh, well, so much for that one. The Wikipedia article points out that
> >>> the Mimbari infer the presence of the Mimbari soul from the fact that
> >>> Sinclair shares his DNA with Valen, and is thus, they assume, Valen's
> >>> reincarnation.
>
> >> Then Wiki gets it wrong. (What a shock! <g>) The Minbari's working
> >> theory was *always* that the triluminaries (there were three of them,
> >> remember) reacted to "great" Minbari souls, especially to the
> >> "children of Valen". (Given Minbari beliefs about the transmigration
> >> of souls it makes sense that great souls would be passed down to
> >> their own descendents.) When the triluminary reacted to Sinclair at
> >> the Line, they were convinced that he had a Minbari soul. (Because it
> >> reacted strongly, some thought he was Valen reincarnated. Others
> >> weren't prepared to go that far, and only asserted that his soul was
> >> Minbari - or even only partly Minbari.)
>
> >> Nobody had the slightest idea, at that point, that DNA was involved at
> >> all. They wouldn't figure that out until after Sinclair went back in
> >> time and they realized he wasn't merely the reincarnation of Valen,
> >> but Valen himself, and that he had retained some of his Human DNA.
>
> > OK, that's closer to what I remember. What I hadn't remembered was
> > that they made the connection to DNA at some point. Which brings up a
> > pet beef of mine: why is it always assumed that alien species use DNA
> > the same shows routinely assume we can hybridize with folks who
> > evolved independently, that's a minor quibble . . . ) <<
>
> Routinely? I beg to differ. Delenn had to go under _radical_ modification
> of her genetic structure in order to create a child with Sheridan. What's
> even one other example during the course of the show or any of the books?
How about G'Kar's discussion with Lyta in 'The Gathering'? It strongly
implied that Narns could impregnate Human women. And it seems that
there is not much special treatment to either Narn or Human necessary
as the direct mating is quite cost effective ;)
So long,
Mark
Amy Guskin
<d6c65715-2920-4d19...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
Actually, not correct. JMSNews.com is your friend. In June of '98, JMS
said:
"Well, as G'Kar said in the pilot, there would have to be rather
substantial genetic manipulation and adjustment to allow for the
different DNA structures to mix."
But even farther back, in December of '93, he said:
"Hybrids are impossible in the B5 universe without direct genetic
alteration. You can't just have casual mating. Interspecies sex may
present opportunities for exploration, but the chances of a Narn
impregnating a human are about the same as a human impregnating a fish
and producing a motorcycle."
Kurt Ullman
> I'm not sure that's chemically true, actually; as I understand it, RNA is
> significantly less stable than DNA for long-term storage of information, and
> so is less suitable for use as an archive. It's fine for the short-term
> transfer of information, when any use made of it mostly affects only local
> cells rather than the whole organism. The error-correction mechanisms would
> need to be a lot more efficient - and energy-consuming - in an RNA world, I
> think.
Much less. That is one of the main reasons viruses are so hard to tame
and they also don't have a reproductive method which why they must get
into "regular cells" to actually duplicate.
--
When I split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so it will stay split.
騎aymond Chandler
Kurt Ullman
<d6c65715-2920-4d19...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Fel <F...@gmx.li> wrote:
> How about G'Kar's discussion with Lyta in 'The Gathering'? It strongly
> implied that Narns could impregnate Human women. And it seems that
> there is not much special treatment to either Narn or Human necessary
> as the direct mating is quite cost effective ;)
>
It strongly implied that G'Kar at the time was a major horn dog (g)
.. Also, he was looking for the telepath gene. I don't think there is
anything in the speech that suggests he know it will work was there?
Giovanni Wassen
> but the chances of a Narn
> impregnating a human are about the same as a human impregnating a fish
> and producing a motorcycle."
So that was what Garibaldi was doing.
--
Gio, whose mind wanders from time to time.
http://www.watkijkikoptv.info
http://myanimelist.net/profile/extatix
http://watkijkikoptv.info/animeblog
Amy Guskin
<Xns9BDE9F09DA...@85.214.105.209>):
> Amy Guskin <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>
>> but the chances of a Narn
>> impregnating a human are about the same as a human impregnating a fish
>> and producing a motorcycle."
>
> So that was what Garibaldi was doing. <<
Just to make the attributions clear, the quote is actually JMS's.
Giovanni Wassen
>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:38:56 -0400, thus spake Giovanni Wassen (in
>>> article
> <Xns9BDE9F09DA...@85.214.105.209>):
>
>> Amy Guskin <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>
>>> but the chances of a Narn
>>> impregnating a human are about the same as a human impregnating a
>>> fish and producing a motorcycle."
>>
>> So that was what Garibaldi was doing. <<
>
> Just to make the attributions clear, the quote is actually JMS's.
Yes, I got that :)
--
Gio
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Actually, not correct. JMSNews.com is your friend. In June of '98, JMS
>said:
>
>"Well, as G'Kar said in the pilot, there would have to be rather
>substantial genetic manipulation and adjustment to allow for the
>different DNA structures to mix."
>
>But even farther back, in December of '93, he said:
>
>"Hybrids are impossible in the B5 universe without direct genetic
>alteration. You can't just have casual mating. Interspecies sex may
>present opportunities for exploration, but the chances of a Narn
>impregnating a human are about the same as a human impregnating a fish
>and producing a motorcycle."
And Star Trek had a similar premise, though I don't remember it making
it into the show, just a comment that Roddenberry made at some point.
Amy Guskin
<Xns9BDEA8FC8...@85.214.105.209>):
> Amy Guskin <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>
>>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:38:56 -0400, thus spake Giovanni Wassen (in
>>>> article
>> <Xns9BDE9F09DA...@85.214.105.209>):
>>
>>> Amy Guskin <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> but the chances of a Narn
>>>> impregnating a human are about the same as a human impregnating a
>>>> fish and producing a motorcycle."
>>>
>>> So that was what Garibaldi was doing. <<
>>
>> Just to make the attributions clear, the quote is actually JMS's.
>
> Yes, I got that :) <<
I know _you_ did, but someone popping into the conversation some months from
now, or someone Googling and getting that message and not the preceding ones,
might not.
Joseph DeMartino
> How about G'Kar's discussion with Lyta in 'The Gathering'? It strongly
> implied that Narns could impregnate Human women. And it seems that
> there is not much special treatment to either Narn or Human necessary
> as the direct mating is quite cost effective ;)
G'Kar offered Lyta several methods of obtaining her DNA, one of which
was "direct mating". G'Kar would have known perfectly well that this
could never work, he was just hoping that Lyta *didn't* know this, so
he could get her into bed. (And really, who could blame him? <g>)
G'Kar had a well-known fetish for Human females, so I'm sure he would
have bravely made dozens of attempts to get the job done before
reluctantly admitting defeat and switching to some alternate method
that actually had some chance of working. (Which would have involved
DNA extraction and considreable modification, as I believe is
discussed in more detail when they resume this discussion late in
season 5.)
Regards,
Joe
Jeffrey Kaplan
> >But even farther back, in December of '93, he said:
> >
> >"Hybrids are impossible in the B5 universe without direct genetic
> >alteration. You can't just have casual mating. Interspecies sex may
> >present opportunities for exploration, but the chances of a Narn
> >impregnating a human are about the same as a human impregnating a fish
> >and producing a motorcycle."
>
> And Star Trek had a similar premise, though I don't remember it making
> it into the show, just a comment that Roddenberry made at some point.
If such hybrids were impossible in Trek, then there is no way the first
co-star in the original series could even exist, as that hybridation of
Human and something else is at the very core of Spock's essence.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
"Oh... oh no. Drall give Zathras list of things not to say, this was
one of them. No, umm... not good. Not supposed to mention one, or
The One, or... you never heard that." (Zathras, B5 "War Without End,
Pt. 1")
Giovanni Wassen
>>>>> but the chances of a Narn
>>>>> impregnating a human are about the same as a human impregnating a
>>>>> fish and producing a motorcycle."
>>>>
>>>> So that was what Garibaldi was doing. <<
>>>
>>> Just to make the attributions clear, the quote is actually JMS's.
>>
>> Yes, I got that :) <<
>
> I know _you_ did, but someone popping into the conversation some
> months from now, or someone Googling and getting that message and not
> the preceding ones, might not.
I might have snipped too much yes, sorry for that.
Kay Shapero
@goatly.co.uk says...
>
> > Naturally there's no reason you can't use an RNA instead, given that
> > that's what does the actual protein construction.
>
> I'm not sure that's chemically true, actually; as I understand it, RNA is
> significantly less stable than DNA for long-term storage of information, and
> so is less suitable for use as an archive.
>
Well, bacteria use it, but then considering bacterial life spans, this
might explain why multicellular things don't.
--
Kay Shapero
address munged, email kay at following domain
http://www.kayshapero.net
Bruce Goatly
> In article <8J%zl.5964$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, ss4
> @goatly.co.uk says...
>> I'm not sure that's chemically true, actually; as I understand it,
>> RNA is significantly less stable than DNA for long-term storage of
>> information, and so is less suitable for use as an archive.
>
>>
> Well, bacteria use it, but then considering bacterial life spans, this
> might explain why multicellular things don't.
As pointed out upthread a bit (though not by me - I was overlooking viruses
before), some viruses use RNA, but bacteria don't.
--
Bruce
Josh Hill
wrote:
>If such hybrids were impossible in Trek, then there is no way the first
>co-star in the original series could even exist, as that hybridation of
>Human and something else is at the very core of Spock's essence.
It's not that hybrids are impossible in Trek, but that the assumption
is that they require advanced technological assistance. Roddenberry as
I recall said he assumed it would be technologically possible by then
to do it. Though in reality, I suspect you'd probably end up with
something that was essentially human or alien with traits from the
other grafted on or emulated owing to fundamental differences in
biochemistry. I can think of several cases in which earth species have
merged to form joint ones, e.g., eukaryotes and animals, and arguably
many in which the internal presence of other species such as gut
bacteria is necessary to the life of the host, but those were all
branches off the same tree and they had first co-evolved to the point
of developing host/parasite or symbiotic relationships.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>In article <8J%zl.5964$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, ss4
>@goatly.co.uk says...
>
>>
>> > Naturally there's no reason you can't use an RNA instead, given that
>> > that's what does the actual protein construction.
>>
>> I'm not sure that's chemically true, actually; as I understand it, RNA is
>> significantly less stable than DNA for long-term storage of information, and
>> so is less suitable for use as an archive.
>
>>
>Well, bacteria use it, but then considering bacterial life spans, this
>might explain why multicellular things don't.
As Bruce pointed out, bacteria do use DNA, but your intuition is I
think spot on in that the RNA world hypothesis posits that RNA
predated DNA and that the evolution of the more stable DNA facilitated
the development of more complex species. It's also been postulated
that even simpler forms of life predated the evolution of RNA.
Joseph DeMartino
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:37:42 -0400, Jeffrey Kaplan <gor...@gordol.org>
> wrote:
>
> >If such hybrids were impossible in Trek, then there is no way the first
> >co-star in the original series could even exist, as that hybridation of
> >Human and something else is at the very core of Spock's essence.
>
> It's not that hybrids are impossible in Trek, but that the assumption
> is that they require advanced technological assistance.
But I don't recall a single on-screen hint in any of the series (well,
up through early "ST:V", at which point I gave up on "Trek" and
stopped watching the shows altogether) that any of the numerous
hybrids going back to Spock were the product of anything other than
simply sexual reproduction. I don't know where when Gene "said" this,
but no *hint* of it ever creeped into any of the "Trek" shows. (On
the contrary - the "TNG" episode where most of the major races are
traced back to a single primordial ancestor which seeded the universe
with genetic material obviated the need for any technological
intervention and seemed to have been written expressly to explain away
the problem of interspecies mating.)
Regards,
Joe
GaryTheGreat
I guess the whole command staff got this at one time or another. I'm
thinking that these personality matrixes are what allowed the
scientist to create the facsimilies for Deconstruction...
Kathryn Huxtable
Not that that helps much. It'd be like a human mating with a
chimp. There's far too much evidence that we're related to all the
other life on this planet. And our own descent is pretty well
understood so as to make interfertility with extraterrestrial aliens
pretty much impossible. Unless they were descended from us, of course,
and not very far from us genetically.
-K, who accepts faster than light travel and the chrysalis machine for
the story, but doesn't believe in either one.
Bruce Goatly
> the "TNG" episode where most of the major races are
> traced back to a single primordial ancestor which seeded the universe
> with genetic material obviated the need for any technological
> intervention and seemed to have been written expressly to explain away
> the problem of interspecies mating.
*And* in my view the writers missed a better title for the episode by
calling it "The Chase" instead of "The Race". But that's a separate matter.
--
Bruce
Joseph DeMartino
wrote:
> Joseph DeMartino <jdema...@bellsouth.net> writes:
> > On the contrary - the "TNG" episode where most of the major races are
> > traced back to a single primordial ancestor which seeded the universe
> > with genetic material obviated the need for any technological
> > intervention and seemed to have been written expressly to explain away
> > the problem of interspecies mating.)
> Not that that helps much. It'd be like a human mating with a
> chimp. There's far too much evidence that we're related to all the
> other life on this planet.
I said it was *written* to explain the problem away. I didn't say it
*did*. <g>
Joe
Kay Shapero
@goatly.co.uk says...
>
> As pointed out upthread a bit (though not by me - I was overlooking viruses
> before), some viruses use RNA, but bacteria don't.
>
OK, they thought differently when I was in school but that was a long
time ago (back when there were two Kingdoms, with consideration of a
third for protists). May as well go read up on the prokaryotes...
Kurt Ullman
Kay Shapero <k...@kayshapero.net> wrote:
> In article <HZkAl.6437$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, ss4
> @goatly.co.uk says...
>
> >
> > As pointed out upthread a bit (though not by me - I was overlooking viruses
> > before), some viruses use RNA, but bacteria don't.
> >
> OK, they thought differently when I was in school but that was a long
> time ago (back when there were two Kingdoms, with consideration of a
> third for protists). May as well go read up on the prokaryotes...
Depending on how anal retentive we want to get, most organisms use RNA
for transcription, messaging, etc. Just not as the basis for coding for
the individual.
--
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
-Unknown
Kay Shapero
216.pools.spcsdns.net>, kurtu...@yahoo.com says...
> In article <MPG.243c38829...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
> Kay Shapero <k...@kayshapero.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <HZkAl.6437$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, ss4
> > @goatly.co.uk says...
> >
> > >
> > > As pointed out upthread a bit (though not by me - I was overlooking viruses
> > > before), some viruses use RNA, but bacteria don't.
> > >
> > OK, they thought differently when I was in school but that was a long
> > time ago (back when there were two Kingdoms, with consideration of a
> > third for protists). May as well go read up on the prokaryotes...
>
> Depending on how anal retentive we want to get, most organisms use RNA
> for transcription, messaging, etc. Just not as the basis for coding for
> the individual.
>
However the actual topic is why do TV sf writers assume everything uses
DNA to code for their genetics, and my part of it started by pointing
out that given the same world chemistry and temperature, chemicals will
do the same things, thus it should be no big surprise if you get a
ribonucleaic acid based biochemistry. Though I suspect which bases you
use are going to vary.
Kathryn Huxtable
Yeah, I took your meaning but couldn't resist putting in my oar.
-K
Kathryn Huxtable
> In article <HZkAl.6437$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, ss4
> @goatly.co.uk says...
>
>>
>> As pointed out upthread a bit (though not by me - I was overlooking
>> viruses before), some viruses use RNA, but bacteria don't.
>>
> OK, they thought differently when I was in school but that was a long
> time ago (back when there were two Kingdoms, with consideration of a
> third for protists). May as well go read up on the prokaryotes...
Yeah, that's the way it was when I was in school, too, but there's
been a lot of work in classification since then.
Did you know that animals are more closely related with fungi than
either is with plants? That is, plants split from the common
multicellular eukariotic ancestor of fungi, plants, and animals before
fungi split from animals?
The structural element in most plants is cellulose. That in fungi is
chitin, same as in insects, though it's structured differently. Most
non-arthropodic animals use collagen in various forms.
-K
Kathryn Huxtable
Hah. I assume that TV sf writers, JMS possibly excepted, assume that
everything is just bags of goo and if their outsides look similar
there must be some sort of interfertility involved.
-K, not generally kindly disposed towards TV sf or its writers. JMS
excepted.
Doug Freyburger
>
> However the actual topic is why do TV sf writers assume everything uses
> DNA to code for their genetics, and my part of it started by pointing
> out that given the same world chemistry and temperature, chemicals will
> do the same things, thus it should be no big surprise if you get a
> ribonucleaic acid based biochemistry. Though I suspect which bases you
> use are going to vary.
This is why there needs to be a TV movie of Dragonsdawn
by Ann McCaffery. She described separate genetic coding
mechanisms for Earth and Pern evolved life forms.
Kathryn Huxtable
Yes, she did. But humans could still eat the Pernese life forms.
-K
Wes Struebing
wrote:
That's what ISTR, too, Josh. And RNA is still the messenger for
transfer of data out of the nucleus, is it not?
(I won't address mitochondrial DNA. That we weren't really even
taught in my high-school biochemistry class!<G>)
Jeffrey Kaplan
> > This is why there needs to be a TV movie of Dragonsdawn
> > by Ann McCaffery. She described separate genetic coding
> > mechanisms for Earth and Pern evolved life forms.
>
> Yes, she did. But humans could still eat the Pernese life forms.
Wouldn't that be a matter of chemistry, rather than genetics? After
all, they weren't trying to breed with the Pernese life.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
"Oh, not that my bruised feelings would have any meaning for you, but,
why are you having these people poke me all over the place! I'm a
perfectly reasonable artificial personality, nobody's ever complained
before but I guess some people just aren't happy unless they're
messing it up for everyone else!" (Sparky The Computer, B5
"Ceremonies Of Light And Dark")
Donald Arseneau
> Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
> > but the chances of a Narn
> > impregnating a human are about the same as a human impregnating a fish
> > and producing a motorcycle."
>
> So that was what Garibaldi was doing.
Hahahahahahaha!
And somebody tell Lennier that three's a crowd. Again!
Donald Arseneau
Kathryn Huxtable
> Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Kathryn Huxtable said:
>
>> > This is why there needs to be a TV movie of Dragonsdawn
>> > by Ann McCaffery. She described separate genetic coding
>> > mechanisms for Earth and Pern evolved life forms.
>>
>> Yes, she did. But humans could still eat the Pernese life forms.
>
> Wouldn't that be a matter of chemistry, rather than genetics? After
> all, they weren't trying to breed with the Pernese life.
Not necessarily. It's a matter of assimilating the proteins and
starches and all. Depending on how different the life was, we might
not be able to digest it. But if it's DNA based with a different
coding, the chances are higher. If the DNA codes for similar amino
acids, then we could probably eat it with few problems other than
allergic reactions.
-K
Doug Freyburger
> Jeffrey Kaplan <gor...@gordol.org> writes:
> > Kathryn Huxtable said:
>
> >> > This is why there needs to be a TV movie of Dragonsdawn
> >> > by Ann McCaffery. She described separate genetic coding
> >> > mechanisms for Earth and Pern evolved life forms.
>
> >> Yes, she did. But humans could still eat the Pernese life forms.
>
> > Wouldn't that be a matter of chemistry, rather than genetics? After
> > all, they weren't trying to breed with the Pernese life.
>
> Not necessarily. It's a matter of assimilating the proteins and
> starches and all. Depending on how different the life was, we might
> not be able to digest it. But if it's DNA based with a different
> coding, the chances are higher. If the DNA codes for similar amino
> acids, then we could probably eat it with few problems other than
> allergic reactions.
That's a problem that any SF tale faces when attempting some
level of biochemical realism. There are other encoding
possibilities than DNA, but proteins are going to be included in
any life on a planet we can set foot on without a space suit.
Foreign proteins trigger allergic reactions and digestive problems
that take many generations to handle. I'm mildly wheat
intolerant with ancestors who've been eating wheat for 5-20
millenia. Humans and any other terraform life on any colony
world would need genetic tinkering to handle this problem. It
would lead to rapid speciation.
There's no guarantee that alien life would even have the same
array of amino acids. On Earth there exist amino acids other
than the one encoded by DNA. Some even have nutritional
uses.
Poul Anderson has at least one novel (a Flandry novel I think)
that has a planet where one set of life evolved locally with our
mirror of amino acids and there was also a parallel set of life
that had been imported several billion years before with the
other mirror - Unicellular life was a mix of types without any
one cell being a mix. Digestion had not evolved to convert.
Many species of both types coexisted without competing
other than for space because of the digestion issue. After
over a billion years of mixed cells in the environment digestion
would have evolved to convert but otherwise it made for an
interesting side story to the main plot.
Kay Shapero
kat...@kathrynhuxtable.org says...
>
> Did you know that animals are more closely related with fungi than
> either is with plants? That is, plants split from the common
> multicellular eukariotic ancestor of fungi, plants, and animals before
> fungi split from animals?
>
I didn't, but it makes sense.
voxwoman
Well I just thought of something, but it's getting really close to a
story-idea type thing so I'm keeping mum. Maybe I'll write a story,
finally.
-Wendy
Josh Hill
No, it was an assumption that didn't make it onto the show (AFAIK),
but that Roddenberry spoke of elsewhere, like the universal
translator.
Josh Hill
<kat...@kathrynhuxtable.org> wrote:
>Not that that helps much. It'd be like a human mating with a
>chimp.
Though there's reason to believe that that particular mating would
produce offspring [temptation to insert politically charged joke
overcome]. Same number of chromosomes, very close genetically.
Josh Hill
<str...@carpedementem.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:47:57 -0400, Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>As Bruce pointed out, bacteria do use DNA, but your intuition is I
>>think spot on in that the RNA world hypothesis posits that RNA
>>predated DNA and that the evolution of the more stable DNA facilitated
>>the development of more complex species. It's also been postulated
>>that even simpler forms of life predated the evolution of RNA.
>
>That's what ISTR, too, Josh. And RNA is still the messenger for
>transfer of data out of the nucleus, is it not?
Yes, more evidence for the RNA thesis or something like it.
>(I won't address mitochondrial DNA. That we weren't really even
>taught in my high-school biochemistry class!<G>)
Pretty much bacteria that came along for the ride . . .
Joseph DeMartino
>
> No, it was an assumption that didn't make it onto the show (AFAIK),
> but that Roddenberry spoke of elsewhere, like the universal
> translator.
1) ??? The universal translator *did* make it on to the show, so I'm
not sure how that is in anyway similar.
2) The notion that species cannot interbreed, or can't without
extraordinary technological intervention, isn't something that "didn't
make it onto the show", it is something that was FLATLY CONTRADICTED
by the show as it actually aired. So whatever Roddenberry might have
said to the contrary in conversation somewhere is really moot WRT to
this discussion.
Regards,
Joe
Elko T
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:10:13 -0500, Kathryn Huxtable
> <kat...@kathrynhuxtable.org> wrote:
>
>> Not that that helps much. It'd be like a human mating with a
>> chimp.
>
> Though there's reason to believe that that particular mating would
> produce offspring [temptation to insert politically charged joke
> overcome]. Same number of chromosomes, very close genetically.
Close genetically, yes, but different number of chromosomes.
Doesn't mean hybridization is impossible, but certainly harder than if
they were the same number.
Kathryn Huxtable
Josh Hill
I stoop corrected. It appears #2 has fused.
Josh Hill
<jdem...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Apr 4, 5:53 pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, it was an assumption that didn't make it onto the show (AFAIK),
>> but that Roddenberry spoke of elsewhere, like the universal
>> translator.
>
>1) ??? The universal translator *did* make it on to the show, so I'm
>not sure how that is in anyway similar.
Eventually. I don't remember exactly when. Until then, its presence
was taken for granted.
>2) The notion that species cannot interbreed, or can't without
>extraordinary technological intervention, isn't something that "didn't
>make it onto the show", it is something that was FLATLY CONTRADICTED
>by the show as it actually aired. So whatever Roddenberry might have
>said to the contrary in conversation somewhere is really moot WRT to
>this discussion.
I have no recollection of such a contradiction.
Amy Guskin
<m47it45n51crsm7aa...@4ax.com>):
Spock. Savik.
Amy
--
Ten Thousand Questions Blog:
A Question a Day for Journaling, Self-Discovery, and Transformation
"2009 is the Year of Questions"
tenthousandquestions.com
Joseph DeMartino
> I have no recollection of such a contradiction.
Ah, that contradiction would be called SPOCK. You may have heard of
him? <g>
(And later Saavik, Troi, Worf's girlfriend and whole mengagerie of
half-this/half-that hybrids on the various series plus the animated
show and the movies.)
There were hybrids all over the place and it was never once suggested
that they were the result of anything other than normal and natural
sexual processes. Spock, if you recall, was originally posited as
being half-MARTIAN and - again - there was never a word in the
original "Trek" premise or any of the writer's guides about any
genetic manipulation or technological intervention. The hybrids were
always just treated as ordinary natural offspring.)
That is the natural conclusion that anyone simply watching what was
shown on-screen would reach. It is really no answer to say that they
were really all created artificially or through genetic engineering
but somehow the writers forgot to mention the fact for 40 years or
that we can't be sure because it was never explicitly stated that all
the hybrids are 100% natural. That's just sophistry. Also the fact
that they did the "common ancestor" episode precisely in order to
explain why natural hybrids would be possible strongly suggests that
all those hybrids we had seen up to that point were, well, natural.
Regards,
Joe
Charlie E.
wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 17:05:20 -0400, thus spake Josh Hill (in article
><m47it45n51crsm7aa...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 17:00:26 -0700 (PDT), Joseph DeMartino
>> <jdem...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 2) The notion that species cannot interbreed, or can't without
>>> extraordinary technological intervention, isn't something that "didn't
>>> make it onto the show", it is something that was FLATLY CONTRADICTED
>>> by the show as it actually aired. So whatever Roddenberry might have
>>> said to the contrary in conversation somewhere is really moot WRT to
>>> this discussion.
>>
>> I have no recollection of such a contradiction. <<
>
>Spock. Savik.
>
>Amy
Well, Savik IIRC, was half Romulan, half Vulcan, and they were
actually the same species...
But, that is just a nit. there were plenty of others in that
universe...
Charlie
William Rendfeld
If memory serves properly with DS9, there was discussion about the
need for scientific assistance if Worf and Jadzia Dax (a Klingon and a
Trill, respectively) were to have children of their own. And while it
wasn't implied with any other hybrid, that could've been the case with
more than a few of 'em.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 17:05:20 -0400, thus spake Josh Hill (in article
><m47it45n51crsm7aa...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 17:00:26 -0700 (PDT), Joseph DeMartino
>> <jdem...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 2) The notion that species cannot interbreed, or can't without
>>> extraordinary technological intervention, isn't something that "didn't
>>> make it onto the show", it is something that was FLATLY CONTRADICTED
>>> by the show as it actually aired. So whatever Roddenberry might have
>>> said to the contrary in conversation somewhere is really moot WRT to
>>> this discussion.
>>
>> I have no recollection of such a contradiction. <<
>
>Spock. Savik.
It was in reference to Spock that Rodenberry made his original remark.
Josh Hill
Again, it was Rodenberry who made the point about technology, in
reference to Spock, the only hybrid on the show at the time. I confess
I'm at a loss to see how you can equate my mention of a statement by
the show's creator with sophistry! That Rodenberry's assumption wasn't
mentioned explicitly on the show or in the series bible means little,
IMO. Not every working assumption is.
Rodenberry did not mention genetic engineering or any specific
technique, merely that he assumed that the technology of the time
would be able to bring such a child to term. But it would not be a
natural process. Natural hybridization with extraterrestrials at our
stage of development is, from a scientific perspective, ridiculous. (I
omit spherical energy beings and the like from that generalization,
inasmuch as their capabilities are presumably far beyond our own.)
By way of contrast, the common ancestor business was AFAIK not part of
the show's original concept, in fact, it would seem to violate in part
Rodeneberrry's founding "parallel worlds" concept. I'm not even sure
if Rodenberry was still alive when the show aired. I saw it as an
attempt to explain why there were so many humanoids on the show, not
why they could interbreed. If life had been seeded from a common
source, that might be convenient from the perspective of basic
biochemistry, but it wouldn't be sufficient for natural hybridization
or anything like, given that we're closer to dinosaurs, lobe-finned
fishes, trilobites, and amoebas than we would be to Vulcans or
Romulans.
Joseph DeMartino
\>
> Again, it was Rodenberry who made the point about technology, in
> reference to Spock, the only hybrid on the show at the time.
When and where did he make this statement? As I said, it isn't in the
original "Trek" proposal or any of the series bibles. (Which I
have.) I never heard him make any such statement during any of his
public convention appearances or in private conversation. I don't
recall seeing him quoted as saying this in any interview. In fact,
the only place I've ever seen so much as a suggestion of such a
statement is in your thread.
Are you sure this isn't something he say decades later, when the
problems of interspecies mating were pointed out to him?
I'd sure like to see a source other than your recollection cited.
Regards,
Joe
Josh Hill
<WARen...@aol.com> wrote:
>If memory serves properly with DS9, there was discussion about the
>need for scientific assistance if Worf and Jadzia Dax (a Klingon and a
>Trill, respectively) were to have children of their own. And while it
>wasn't implied with any other hybrid, that could've been the case with
>more than a few of 'em.
>
Good call!
Doug Freyburger
> Josh Hill wrote:
> > Kathryn Huxtable <kath...@kathrynhuxtable.org> wrote:
>
> >> Not that that helps much. It'd be like a human mating with a
> >> chimp.
>
> > Though there's reason to believe that that particular mating would
> > produce offspring [temptation to insert politically charged joke
> > overcome]. Same number of chromosomes, very close genetically.
>
> Close genetically, yes, but different number of chromosomes.
> Doesn't mean hybridization is impossible, but certainly harder than if
> they were the same number.
Beefalo are now commercially bred for meat. While
domesticated cattle and american bison aren't even in
the same genus, some farmer just kept trying to
hydridize them until he got a fertile example. Those
two types of grazing cow-like critters are more genetically
distant than human and chimp.
Unlike the famous example of horses and donkeys
consistantly producing mules, beefalo eventually
produced a fertile offspring.
Abigail Brady
> When and where did he make this statement? As I said, it isn't in the
> original "Trek" proposal or any of the series bibles. (Which I
> have.) I never heard him make any such statement during any of his
> public convention appearances or in private conversation. I don't
> recall seeing him quoted as saying this in any interview. In fact,
> the only place I've ever seen so much as a suggestion of such a
> statement is in your thread.
>From The Making of Star Trek (1968), p202 in my 1991 reprint:
"Dr. McCoy regards Spock as somewhat of a medical phenomenon", in
the authorial voice.
and
"However, conception and pregnancy when properly planned and
controlled by technicians of the highly advanced and controlled by
technicians of the highly advanced Vulcan School of Medicine can be
brought to full term", which is attributed to Roddenberry.
It doesn't appear to have been given much thought, beyond that, but
there it is.
--
Abi