(urth) Silk's origin

[David Stockhoff]

On 10/12/2011 5:32 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> *From:* David Stockhoff <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>
> > On 10/12/2011 4:23 PM, James Wynn wrote:
>
> > > Well, just sharing selected genes would not really make Silk a 
> "son of
> > > Typhon". That would be true of any cousin of Typhon or any chimpanzee
> > > (as Gerry pointed out).
>
> > I have to remind myself sometimes that I am addressing a bunch of
> > engineers. :D
>
> > (1) Is percentage of shared genes the only way to compare species?
> > Obviously not.
> > (2) If chimps and humans are 99% the same, then that pretty much kills
> > that usefulness of that viewpoint. Further, most of the 99% is junk,
> > rendering the figure meaningless. Is there a biologist in the house?
> But isn’t it you who is promulgating the view that the shared genes 
> are significant?
err ... they are significant for a reason other than mere quantity.
>
> > (3) If God walked the earth 10 generations ago, and I had some of His
> > genes spliced in so that I could throw thunderbolts, you can be damn
> > sure I'd call myself the Son of God and throw thunderbolts at you if 
> you
> > gave a peep. And so would you. "Cousin" would not do it.
> Leadership skills are not a special ability distinct from the 
> abilities of the human race in general, as the ability to shoot 
> thunderbolts would be.
There are many reasons a man can be called the son of a man who is not 
his father. There are many things a man can inherit from a man who is 
not his father.
> When we attach significance to someone being related to another 
> person, we are talking about large constellations of genes. If 
> somebody has Typhon’s nose, and we suspect he is related to Typhon, we 
> take account of it because we imagine he may have many characteristics 
> of Typhon, not just the nose. If we knew that Typhon was so proud of 
> his nose that he had his nose-shape genes injected into countless 
> embryos, the matter would be much less interesting – just a nose 
> shape, not Typhon’s nose-shape.
We are not talking about noses. I said that quite clearly here:
>
> > Point being, Silk has some of Typhon's superiority, if we accept this
> > theory. Naturally, if you don't think Typhon is in any way superior,
> > this doesn't work so well---you would indeed be talking about mundane
> > traits.
> Leadership is not quite as mundane as blond hair, but it is not that 
> rare. Indeed, I’d expect that if if indeed there are ponderable genes 
> for leadership – a questionable matter given that it must depend 
> strongly on nurture as well as nature – there are multiple gene 
> complexes, and Typhon’s technicians would probably have used different 
> combinations in different embryos.
Leadership shmeadership. Silk is so much more. For example, Crane 
observes that he heals remarkably quickly. Silk is a minor superman with 
a combination of superior traits. Perhaps leadership is his best 
characteristic, but you could also argue that it's his morality. Is 
there a gene for that? Who knows? Who cares? Maybe Wolfe pretends there 
is for this story. Maybe the Outsider took a Superman and made him a 
Good Superman. If that's the story, that's the story.

Wolfe is not a gene scientist---he's a writer.
> > > 2) Why, when asked about Silk's "ancestry" did Wolfe say "he was the
> > > son of the Calde and his mistress"? His ancestry would move a step
> > > back beyond Typhon.
> > Ah, well. Some things are inexplicable.
> Maybe Wolfe was just indicating that Silk’s genetic parents are 
> basically irrelevant to the story.
Possibly. Or he was stating Silk's legal or socially defined paternity, 
or how he saw himself. There so many answers.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 111012-1, 10/12/2011
Tested on: 10/12/2011 5:55:52 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.
http://www.avast.com