Comments on: Action Comics #871: A Medical Review

By: Lunar Archivist

Lunar Archivist — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:42:16 +0000

As a biochemist myself, this may sound embarrassing, but is evolution that horrendously inaccurate a term for what’s going on here if you consider things from a cellular level or from a vantage point of natural selection or adaptive evolution/adaptation?

While Doomsday is an entity and not a species, if Dr. Archeville’s summary is accurate, then Bertran was taking advantage of benevolent mutations in the creature’s genetic material following each death to create a new creature using cells containing that altered genetic material as a template, i.e. the cells that showed the greatest level of adaptation to the ancient Kryptonian environment and the best chance of survival.

By: Sean Duggan

Sean Duggan — Tue, 19 May 2009 11:31:24 +0000

Baoh. That’s the name of the manga series I was thinking of.

By: Mr. B

Mr. B — Fri, 08 May 2009 23:11:49 +0000

Forced-Evolution

Sounds like Father Time sexually assaulted Mother Nature. lol

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:25:52 +0000

@ Your Obedient Serpent : Hence he develops the ability to retroactively change his origin to defy evolution!

…or maybe that’s only if a time traveler tries to kill him.

By: Dr Archeville

Dr Archeville — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:13:22 +0000

That is indeed one of his powers. Killed by an Energy Being, he resurrected and was able to absorb/disrupt that being’s energy.

By: Your Obedient Serpent

Your Obedient Serpent — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:14:20 +0000

Wow, that was unclear.

Rephrase:

…Matthew’s explanation is the one Johns SHOULD have used. It’s got just enough of the Hunter/Prey origin to be consistent with Doomsday’s subsequent appearances, but makes it Not Hurt So Much.

Of course, I think one of Doomsday’s powers is explicitly “can’t be killed the same way twice”.

By: Your Obedient Serpent

Your Obedient Serpent — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:12:19 +0000

Matthew misremembers the “Official” Doomsday origin, but his explanation is what it SHOULD have been.

By: Ron

Ron — Fri, 08 May 2009 16:07:47 +0000

Yeah, it’s true that the Hunter/Prey material is just being repeated by Johns here. That’s why I gave him a break over it. But now you’ve got me thinking; he retconned Arisia’s age over in GL, attempting to negate that brouhaha. Perhaps a few revisionary words would have been appropriate here, to.

By: Sean Duggan

Sean Duggan — Fri, 08 May 2009 14:26:34 +0000

I would go for the “unstable DNA” approach. It’s been used since the 50’s, so why stop now? Earliest mention I’ve seen involved four human children raised in various hostile environments from extreme temperatures to the void of space with the concept that with a certain medication, they could adapt slowly to any condition and they would later be able to survive it as well as pass those traits down to their children. In true golden sci-fi fashion, this results in children who no longer consider themselves human.

I want to say that there was a Japanese manga that more explicitly referenced the “forced evolution through hazardous situations”. Resulted in a worm-like being that eventually gets implanted into a human male who goes on the run. Only part I remember clearly was where a sniper was drawing a bead on him while he was with an innocent, inner monologue indicating that while they knew he could sense and dodge the bullet, he couldn’t do so and protect the person behind him or get them out of the way in time. Solution, he grabs a motorcycle (which I assume can withstand greater acceleration from the super-speed move) and interposes it to take the bullet. I want to say the series started with a J…

By: BPK

BPK — Fri, 08 May 2009 01:34:44 +0000

I suppose if epigentics were involved it might work. The clones might have the same DNA sequence but perhaps they retain epigenetic markings like methylation. I think there is some speculation that some epigenetic changes can even influence a mutation rate.

In the real world, of course, inherited epigenetics doesn’t introduce significant lasting change in a species — sorry, Lamarck. And it’s small potatoes compared with the real evolutionary change that occurs in a population due to natural selection.