[Dragaera] Boing!

[Jon_Lincicum at stream.com]

"Davdi Silverrock" <davdisil at gmail.com> 
Sent by: dragaera-bounces at dragaera.info
09/07/06 05:27 PM

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

Subject
Re: [Dragaera] Boing!




>On 9/7/06, Jon_Lincicum wrote:
>> "Davdi Silverrock" wrote:
>
>> >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".
>
>How about "greater than 99.9%" identical?  I'm pretty sure that the
>glowing bunny had at least that, if not more, in common with its bunny
>parents.  The snippet of GFP gene is far less than that.

Even if we stipulate it's only .1%, how do you justify that the remainder 
can be completely ignored?

Granted, it's a fairly insignificant difference--but it's still a 
difference. And that difference is inherited from generation to generation 
of Dragaerans. If "descendant" is not an acceptable term for this 
situation, then what is? (This seems to be a limitation of English--since 
gene splicing is something fairly new, and our verbiage doesn't take it 
into account.)

In this case, we have two possible ways to deal with it: Adapt existing 
verbiage to cover the new cases, or invent new terms to describe the new 
cases.

You seem to be in favor of the latter method, whereas I'm perfectly happy 
with the former.

I don't know if genetic (or linguistic) circles have really tackled this 
subject yet. 

>> Is a human being with 3 out of 8 Great-Grandparents of African-American
>> heritage not of African-American descent?
>
>Now you're changing the standard.

Well, this was supposed to be an analogy, but I think I kept it a little 
too close to the original subject to be effective as such.

>> Is it your contention that this is a different case, merely because 
these
>> are different races and not different species?
>
>Race is an artifical concept to refer to subgroups within the same
>species.  So yes, it's a very different case.
>
>All humans are genetically identical to within 99.9% or so of our genes.

"race is an artifical concept"... Hmmm... I don't agree with this. Race is 
based on visible characteristics, therefore it is not "artificial". That 
it is based on "superficial" differences, I will grant you. 

>> 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.
>
>I think I would stick to just saying "genetically modified with a
>small number of genes derived from various critters".  It's longer,
>but more accurate.  We don't have simple concepts to cover various
>cases of "has an X% transgenic relationship with animal Y".

Okay. But, for the sake of brevity (about which I cannot say too little), 
I will probably just keep using the word descendant. I apologize if this 
creates confusion.

Majikjon