The Reaver Breed
POSTED BY: christhecynic
UPDATED: Thursday, May 5, 2005 14:01
VIEWED: 9188
PAGE 4 of 4
Quote:
Originally posted by Plin:
I really don't think that the emergence of a new "breed" of human would be possible in the time frame given, even with a possible accelerated mutation rate.
I hope I don’t sound like I’m being an ass but I am really confused here.
Why is everyone talking about mutation rate? In a hypothetical land were DNA had stopped mutating for good you could still create new breeds. You don’t need change to do it, you need diversity.
A breed is a group of organisms having common ancestors and certain distinguishable characteristics. I looked it up to make sure I wasn’t using the wrong word.
Inuits (thank you HOWDYROCKERBABY1) are a breed because of their different internal configuration. Native Africans who have never interbred with whiter people are a breed because of their unique skin color, one seldom seen in places like the United States.
If you wanted to create a new breed you need merely combine the two and kill those that don’t exhibit traits of both any that seem to have one or both of the traits severely compromised. If you have a large enough population of children you can get the ones close enough to what you want (or most likely to produce what you want), kill the rest, and repeat.
It’s not pretty, but it can create a new breed.
The genetics resulting in physical strength are not fully understood. They probably never will be because someone with genetics allowing for great strength might never exercise and someone with genetics allowing for far less could reach her full potential. None the less in early youth the genetic predisposition would have a closer relation to the actual relative strengths of people.
Certain people’s muscles don’t work the same way, some work more efficiently, some are crap. Those who have a genetic advantage would outlive those who did not. As such it would seem that they would not survive to breeding age.
While different traits wouldn’t be added a breed can just as easily be a groups whose distinguishable characteristics that are spread unevenly in a larger group. If this were not the case German shepherds would not be considered a breed, but instead a type of mutt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"The fact is that these traits are not created by the breeding, they are pre-existing. Stop thinking about modern DNA research and start thinking about dogs and geraniums."
This is the where I have the most trouble with your comment. Most traits were not preexisting allele or multi allele genes for dogs or any other bred in captivity animal. No matter how you mix the original breed the genes are not all there for all breeds. DNA recombination provides a mechanism for mutation and that's were a lot of change comes from.. then through selection mutations can be discovered either shortly after they happened or within a few generations of their appearance.
With campbells dwarf hamsters for instance, a relatively short time ago there were no coat or color mutation in the genome.. They just hadn't happened or hadn't survived in the wild. Within 10 years we were able to cultivate the first color mutation, albino. We have the original genome from the wild... there is no variety of genetic markers indicating latent color traits were present. (albino doesn't show in the typical color alleles but that's doesn't matter; it wasn't there before it is now) Now there are 5 other colors that have mutated in the past 20 years.. They are there in the genome now and weren't before and I can prove it.
"I know of a breed of cat that can usually be effectively created in two generations* and yet it is completely different from the parent breeds in terms of abilities."
Great, but that doesn't change the fact that you have two breeds who carry the different genes needed to spawn the third... these genes are likely a mutation that occurred some time in the past and was overlooked. New recombination can cause mutations to become apparent in a phenotype even though they have been in the genotype but hidden through selection for some time.. but that doesn't change the fact that your not getting a cat that can take down a human and hunts in packs in space while disfiguring itself. That would take longer than 500 years and a lot of mutation. :O)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Doran:
but that doesn't change the fact that your not getting a cat that can take down a human and hunts in packs in space while disfiguring itself.
Don't need a new breed for that, need a space ship, a computer, an auto-pilot, a nice airlock, and a machine capable of cutting a hole in other ships.
If I've got that there are plenty of preexisting breeds that will do just fine. People are easy to kill.
--
I’m tired of this conversation because I agree with you, I don’t think they are a new breed, but I totally fail to comprehend your reasons for saying they are not.
There are superficial traits out there that can be used to distinguish breed and can be pulled off in two or three generations, in a society that doesn’t care about such things as mental maturity that could be under 30 years.
I figure they aren’t because of too much out-breeding. Inbreeding is usually bad (it isn’t always, as any breeder can tell you) but it’s the only thing that can keep a breed distinct, of course if the breed is large enough it’s not like inbreeding at all.
The Reavers go around raping people, and until I’m shown otherwise I think they’re equal opportunity abusers. I also don’t think they use birth control. That means a lot of outbreeding a lot of the time, too much to keep a distinct breed.
-
I still figure that they are stronger though, there are genetic things that make some people stronger from birth so that if they try equally hard as an average person they will always be stronger. I think those would stand a better chance surviving to be adult Reaver, and any child born would have to be at least half Reaver by genetics, so that might be passed on.
Still a single trait isn’t enough to distinguish a breed.
Also such people are only stronger if they work equally hard to become that way, and generally speaking people who don’t need to work as hard don’t work as hard. So perhaps those with a genetic predisposition for superior strength wouldn’t be selected over those that just had a strong will to survive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GreenFaerie:
I think the most likely method for Reaver reproduction is the same method used by all species, breeds, and even races. Unfettered and fully natural reproduction. The Reavers must have some sort of pecking order, and therefore a class or caste system. It may be that the "Alpha" Reaver is the only one permitted to reproduce within a tribe. Among wild animals, there are many predator species that form a "pack" where only the alpha male is allowed to breed with the females. I suspect the Reaver society is like this. The males go out to hunt, the alpha breeds with the females, and a society is perpetuated.
Anyway, back to what I think was the original topic... I agree with this view of the Reaver mating practices. The rape of crews (and yes, it's way creepy to be discussing it) is violence not procreation.
And for all that they are savage to other people that they meet, and they certainly wouldn't have child-rearing practices that we have today, I don't think it should be assumed that the Reavers have no ability to care for their children. I think, like in Chris's first post, that they would value strength above all else and would be highly pragmatic about their child care. So the weak wouldn't survive, because there'd be no benefit in looking after them. You have to be strong to be a Reaver.
Ignoring all the details of breeding, in-breeding, mutations and what-not... I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that the Reavers are already much stronger than humans, simply because if they weren't, they'd be dead.
---
"I think the right place to start is to say, fair is fair. This is who we are. These are our numbers." Mr Willis of Ohio - The West Wing
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME