On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Jerry Friedman wrote: >--- Scott Schultz wrote: >> >> Why do you prefer the marker theory? > >Because the Dragaeran characteristics are *like* the animal >characteristics but not the same. [...] > >A more technical point is that you wouldn't expect one animal's >gene to function the same way when spliced into another animal. >For instance, I could believe that Dzur are aggressive for the >same reason the dzur are--say, for the sake of simplicity, >testosterone levels. But to use dzur genes to make aggressive >Dragaerans, you'd need their gene for their version of >testosterone, their genes and promoters that control the levels, >their gene for the receptor, and all this functions in dzur the >way it does because of their testosterone metabolism and >their brain structure. Maybe you could bring in the genes that >control all that and make humans more like dzur. But I imagine >it would be far easier to just increase the production of >testosterone in humans by making one change. And throw in a bit >of dzur DNA for a marker if it pleased you. > An excellent argument, and one that I entirely agree with. My own example was with dragons and House Dragon. While one one might say they both demonstrate aggression and territoriality, the similarity is rather superficial. Note that dragons are *solitary* animals. They may fight to defend their area, but they don't group together in armies to extend their territory and hold it, in direct contrast to the behavior of members of House Dragon. Or consider House Orca. Is there anything about orca that suggest that they have any trait that translates to mercantalism? For that matter, do chreotha trade, do teckla perform agriculture? In all the cases that I can think of, the similarity between animal and House is rather superficial. So while the Houses may have some stereotypical traits that are genetically inherited, it is reasonable to conclude that the traits are probably distinct from the animal genes. Unless, of course, there is magic going on. Hmm. What if it is the Cycle that uses the animal genes as markers to turn on the appropriate character traits, in conjunction with the individuals' own genetics? That's an interesting notion, which I will have to ponder a bit more.