Well there are plenty of genetic based diseases in the world, Cancer being one of them, isn't it entirely possible that, for example if there was another speicies of humanoid on this planet, us, and another one, which has a genetic immunity to is , and we had no cure or treatment for it, wouldn't we be in a similar situation to the one on Enterprise?

Okay, tenuous theory, but then again, it is Science-fiction

Extremely tenuous, I'm afraid. Genetic disorders almost exclusively take effect in old age, well after procreation has taken place. Otherwise, they couldn't be passed on. They can not, therefore, threaten the survival of a species. All they can do is lead to the practition of geriatric medicine among more advanced species.

And science fiction it may be, but if I'm right, this flies in the face of the basic principle of natural selection. That has to be a big deal...

I don't seem to be the only one who criticised this episode by any means, although most complaints seem to be based on the characters' motivation/IQs...

www.firsttvdrama.com/enterprise/e13.php3

---

by Joe
Extremely tenuous, I'm afraid. Genetic disorders almost exclusively take effect in old age, well after procreation has taken place. Otherwise, they couldn't be passed on. They can not, therefore, threaten the survival of a species. All they can do is lead to the practition of geriatric medicine among more advanced species.

---

Many genetic disorders take effect during the initial development of the phoetus, others are take effect shortly after birth, others at the onset of puberty and some in old age. They're by no means limited to old age and certainly not exclusively so.

Cystic fibrosis is one that takes effect early on and severly limits the lifespan of the sufferer with the current average life expectancy at just 30 years. So until recently there life expectany didn't allow them much time to sire offspring.

It's not the sufferers who are the the ones who pass the genes on so much as the carriers, those who have only one copy of the defective gene rather than the two that are present in sufferers, using the cystic fibrosis example again, 1 in 28 caucasian american is a carrier for the defective gene. which means it's easy for the condition to be passed on through the generations with no ill effects.

---

by Joe
And science fiction it may be, but if I'm right, this flies in the face of the basic principle of natural selection. That has to be a big deal...

---

But as selection pressures are constantly changing (hence the non-predictive comment by Jones) and the exact nature of the condition was to the best of my knowledge not specified, it could be that the selection pressure had changed/was changing and that only recently had the "genetic disorder" become a disadvantage and thus adversely affected the evolutionary fitness of the species.

Besides that, I never pay much attention to Enterprise anyway



(Edited by MonSTeR 31/03/2002 12:52)

---

by MonSTeR


But as selection pressures are constantly changing (hence the non-predictive comment by Jones) and the exact nature of the condition was to the best of my knowledge not specified, it could be that the selection pressure had changed/was changing and that only recently had the "genetic disorder" become a disadvantage and thus adversely affected the evolutionary fitness of the species.

---

In fact if the disorder had previously ben selectively neutral AND linked to a selectively beneficial trait, then it could explain a possibly very high level of carriers in the population.

Selection pressures change according to the environment, but the Velakians, like humankind, had evolved to the stage where they adapted their environment, rather than having to adapt to it in order to survive. If they had done so in a way which had deleterious effects on their chances of survival (by tinkering around with nuclear power, for example), I'm sure Dr. Phlox would have felt perfectly entitled to warn them. Archer certainly would have, if that were the actual problem.

Mysterious genetic disorders just don't play a part in evolution. IMO.

---

by MonSTeR
In fact if the disorder had previously ben selectively neutral AND linked to a selectively beneficial trait, then it could explain a possibly very high level of carriers in the population.

---

And there would have been a causal link between the disorder and the change in the environment which gave rise to the disorder, allowing the Velakians to address the problem.

---

by Joe
Selection pressures change according to the environment, but the Velakians, like humankind, had evolved to the stage where they adapted their environment, rather than having to adapt to it in order to survive. If they had done so in a way which had deleterious effects on their chances of survival (by tinkering around with nuclear power, for example), I'm sure Dr. Phlox would have felt perfectly entitled to warn them. Archer certainly would have, if that were the actual problem.

Mysterious genetic disorders just don't play a part in evolution. IMO.

---

---

by Joe
And there would have been a causal link between the disorder and the change in the environment which gave rise to the disorder, allowing the Velakians to address the problem.

---

Well as I said initially, I didn't really pay attention to the show, so couldn't tell what Archer or Phlox or any of the other characters "would" have done. All I did was provide a scientifically viable explaination to the events portayed in the show and clarify some of the information on genetic orders and how they're passed on. Yes there would have been a link between an environmental change and the reason why the disorder bacame a disadvantage (though not neccesarily between the disorder itself and the environment). However, this link may well not have been discovered or detected at the time, after all this enterprise doesn't have Billy Shatner at the helm

All theories gratefully recieved, but I personally think they dropped a clanger with this one

Actually,dubious science asidei quite liked this ep, finally somthing for the doctor to do.
The one think i REALLY hated about it was the ever so sutbtle (NOT) line by Archer.

"well, until someone comes up with osome kinf of DIRECTIVE (hint hint trek fans)..."

It was So heavy handed, and he really emphasised the word, just in case we didnt pick up on it. I hope they dont do this gratuitous continuity too much. I mean he practically turned to the camera and winked...

I have this theory, it applies to lots of Tv shows and films, where thier either miss out something really obvious (like ringing 911 in a suspense thriller) or explain the whole plot by something that is just not realistic. I find that this can really spoil my enjoyment of the program.

However, help is at hand!

If I find myself wondering..."Why don't they just..." or "There's no way in the world that would have worked like that..." I just stop and think "Because otherwise the film would be rubbish!"

I think this episode was one of those instances. Although I doubt even an accurate & believable story line would have made much difference!

---

by Desire
I have this theory, it applies to lots of Tv shows and films..

---

That's a useful theory to keep in mind when watching Roadrunner cartoons, I suppose, but less so while viewing a science fiction drama with supposedly high production values. On the contrary, as soon as the producers ask you to suspend your disbelief above a yawning chasm of ignorance, that's when most people say "hey, this storyline doesn't make any sense at all, what's the point in even turning on next week, if they can take such liberties?". This is what actually separates good shows/films from bad ones.

---

by Joe

That's a useful theory to keep in mind when watching Roadrunner cartoons, I suppose, but less so while viewing a science fiction drama with supposedly high production values. On the contrary, as soon as the producers ask you to suspend your disbelief above a yawning chasm of ignorance, that's when most people say "hey, this storyline doesn't make any sense at all, what's the point in even turning on next week, if they can take such liberties?".

---

I think all the Star Trek shows require instant suspension of disbelief in order to cram even the tiniest bit of reality into the storyline. I think most folks realise that the whole of the Star Trek universe relies purely on "pseudoscience" rather than science at it's current levels. So turn off the show, or leave your disbelief at the door when you sit down to watch Afterall it's Star Trek not "Question Time"... although...

---

by Joe
This is what actually separates good shows/films from bad ones.

---

And lands "Enterprise" firmly in the latter category ?!?!?

---

by MonSTeR
And lands "Enterprise" firmly in the latter category ?!?!?

---

Erm, I can't really argue with that point. When all's said and done, I'm just flapping my gums out of chagrin that they (the writers) could monkey about with such a basic aspect of evolution theory. But hey, maybe they do know something we don't...

and on a purely shallow note - not enough Trip!!!!

I think I actually quite liked it. Mainly because of the Phlox stuff - it was interesting to see his point of view.

Yeah, the science was a little dodgy, but that's not unusual for any sf, and Trek has done much worse (mostly in Voyager). I had a little difficulty with the idea that the entire race would die out in a couple of generations - seemed very fast for that kind of extinction. It might have worked well with the technology-induced sterility - but then that's been done to death in Trek!

The show wasn't about the science, it was yet another look at the whole Prime Directive concept, which has never been applied consistently anyway. It was first introduced late in the original Trek (A Private Little War), after Kirk had already violated it a number of times, then in Picard's time it seemed to be ok to talk to and take advantage of primitive societies, but not to interfere in their governments (Justice). Then about three years later, it's all "hush, we don't want them to know we exist" (First Contact - the TNG episode not the movie - and Insurrection).

At least they attempted to explain why it was so important to the Trek philosophy this time. Although it came across as a little less than altruistic ("it's too much trouble to get involved" ).


(Edited by Astronut 03/04/2002 17:21)