NIETZSCHE; DEAD PHILOSOPHERS' INBOX

[explosivecombat]

[TEXT; LOCKED TO doitrockapella]

The offer for conversation is always open, should you desire to take me up on it; I can't guarantee that I'll respond immediately, nor will it necessarily be the response you want, but I'll always respond in some way.

In the name of enlightened discourse.

Comments

[doitrockapella]

I'll settle for "it's likely", if you're dodging the question on a basis of certainty.

[explosivecombat]

If that's what you would like.

I told you when we started this that I wouldn't be able to provide specifics sometimes, because I don't know. I'll amend the statement to it's possible, but I don't understand how it would be possible.

[doitrockapella]

How what would be possible?

[explosivecombat]

I don't understand how the effects of that virus would have been created in the first place. Say that it had something to do with the legend of the tower, as you're saying; that would imply that the virus was specifically created to that end, wouldn't it?

[doitrockapella]

And who would have the technological resources to do the engineering necessary, you mean?

I imagine it's a fairly short list.

[explosivecombat]

I don't know what you're talking about.

That isn't an attempt to dodge the question or its implications; the year is still 1915 where I came from, mind you. I don't know what would be necessary.

[doitrockapella]

...Indulge me a moment of blasphemy, then. People have attempted to use alchemy to create living creatures, haven't they? Animals and people?

[explosivecombat]

They have, yes, and in some cases it wasn't an "attempt."

[doitrockapella]

Someone succeeded in engineering a human being from scratch? With alchemy?

[explosivecombat]

Well, I didn't say that - however, there have been living beings that were...ah, not so much created as they were "enhanced."

We call them chimeras; for some time after I arrived here, I thought the Pokémon might be an example of that, actually.

[doitrockapella]

And I'm assuming that involved, if you'll pardon the hyperbolic simplicity, effectively taking an existing human and the "enhancement" and smashing them together somehow with alchemy. Correct?

[explosivecombat]

That's probably the least elegant way you could have worded that, but yes, something along those lines.

[doitrockapella]

Has anyone ever been born a chimera?

[explosivecombat]

Of course not.

[doitrockapella]

But that's what making a chimera effectively does, isn't it? Taking one living being and overwriting some given set of their traits to be like a separate being's, instead.

Say your chimera is a human being with a lion's claws. If you can use alchemy to modify his body into developing claws, is it that much of a stretch to think of making that kind of alteration before birth, such that he'd be born with the propensity to develop claws in the first place?

[explosivecombat]

[woman is this some sort of trick question]

Yes, it is - in the case of alchemical alterations, you already have a fully-developed human being to work with.

[doitrockapella]

[BUCKLE UP IT'S SCIENCE]

True. But in theory, humans and lions are made up of roughly the same materials — carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen. So what is it that makes humans develop fingers, but lions develop claws?

[explosivecombat]

[Do we have to discuss lions, Locke.]

They're species-specific traits, clearly.

[doitrockapella]

[Why, is there something wrong with lions? >:3]

So we could say, then, that assuming there were such thing as a "blueprint" for forming a human, the human blueprint would call for the trait of fingers but not claws, and the one for lions would call for claws but not fingers. Is that fair?

[explosivecombat]

[ >B( ]

I suppose. I don't see why not.

[doitrockapella]

There is such a thing as a blueprint for forming a human — and for all living creatures, as a matter of fact. It looks like this.

[doitrockapella]

[explosivecombat]

[...wait, wait. Good lord, it's been well over a year since he had this discussion and most of it went over his head, but the longer he thinks about it...]

You're describing DNA, aren't you? Differentiations in the way it's put together, either natural or through mutation, are what contribute to individuality, correct?

[Okay, he has a really basic and somewhat bad grasp on it, but he's at least heard of this thing. Sorta.]

[doitrockapella]

Well, that saves me some trouble, if you've heard of it already.

The basic elements that make up a living being form four distinct molecules, annotated there as A, T, C, and G. A always pairs with T, and C always pairs with G, but the sequence they form by pairing up is what determines a given organism's traits. A complete strand of DNA is like a textbook that describes how to build a living creature, and the varying parts of it — called genes — are like the chapters of the book. Finger cells reference the "chapters" that involve how to construct fingers, eye cells references the ones that determine aspects of a person's eyes, and so on.

In other words, if you were to rewrite the "chapter" on fingers to detail how to form claws instead, then in theory a person's cells would grow claws instead of fingers naturally — no alchemic smashing necessary.

[explosivecombat]

In theory, that's fair - however, were it really that simple, you can't tell me that we wouldn't have people with such alterations running around already. That sounds like the sort of thing human nature wouldn't allow to be left alone - someone would be creating abominations left, right and center.