[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Feathered topics.

>>And I do agree, a frog was a horrible choice, and so generalized, too.
I would have picked creatures much more similar to the evolutionary
line, even possible descendants, or visually similar creatures. (like
an ostrich or rhea for the _Gallimimus_, perhaps, or something else
similar for the T-rex, etc. I might even go as far as to say a rhino
or bovine for a ceratopsian.)<<
Here, I would like to stand in and defend Jurassic Park.  Although they
did a lot of silly things, the frogs _weren't_ and accident.  The author
(I misplaced my book, and I don't know how to spell Mr. C.'s name) put
those frogs in there, because, without them, he couldn't plausibly have
the dinosaurs change sex.  The whole idea was that the dinosaurs couldn't
breed because they were all female, but the frog DNA provided them with a
mechanism that turned some of the dinosaurs into males.  Frogs do make
those changes, and fish too, but I don't think any birds can, so birds are
out as genetic donors.  So, the frogs were necessary to the plot.