[Dragaera] Boing!

[Jon_Lincicum at stream.com]

"Davdi Silverrock" <davdisil at gmail.com> 
Sent by: dragaera-bounces at dragaera.info
09/07/06 12:43 PM

To
"Dragaera List" <dragaera at dragaera.info>
cc

Subject
Re: [Dragaera] Boing!




>On 9/7/06, Jon_Lincicum wrote:
>> "Davdi Silverrock" wrote:
>>
>> >Dragaerans are transgenic organisms, and the House of the Dragon is no
>> >more descended from dragons than a genetically modified rabbit that
>> >glows in the dark is descended from fluorescent jellyfish.
>>
>> Ah, but that rabbit is "genetically descended" from that Jellyfish.
>>
>
>Unless you have an example of such usage from a geneticist, I still
>argue that that's not the best term.
>
>The rabbit has a gene that was originally found in jellyfish.  It
>might be said to be slightly related to the jellyfish; to be partially
>derived from the jellyfish.
>
>But I think that "descent" (even with the "genetically" modifier)
>ought to be reserved for the use of referring to those ancestral
>organisms that provided the vast majority of an organisms's genes.  If
>an organism is a true hybrid or chimera, then "descent" might be
>appropriate.

Hmmm... Define "Vast Majority". 

Is a human being with 3 out of 8 Great-Grandparents of African-American 
heritage not of African-American descent?

How about if his other great grandparents consist of 2 Asians, 2 Celts, 
and a Scandanavian?

Is it your contention that this is a different case, merely because these 
are different races and not different species?

Or is it different because the genetic mixture is coming from a "natural" 
process, rather than an "artificial" one?

I'm just trying to understand your reasoning here.

>Dragaerans are *descended* from humans.  Dragaerans were genetically
>modifed in various ways, including some genes *partially derived* from
>their respective House animals (except Jhereg).

Well, I would say that Dragaerans are descended from other Dragaerans. If 
some of those Dragaerans have a bit of genetic material in their makeup 
from some other critter, does it really matter how exactly it got there 
originally?

>That seems like more correct wording to me, anyway.

Really, if your objection is just to the word "descendant", I'll happy 
listen to suggestions for a different phrase, if you have any. The point 
wasn't really critical to my original observation in any event.

Majikjon