A Station Eight Fan Web Site


The Phoenix Gate

Search Ask Greg

Search type:

Displaying 1 record.

Bookmark Link


okay something very weird just happened. I was answering a question that Matt posted about the 'chameleon gene'. Then suddenly, the question just changed. My answer (which I was in the process of writing) remained , but there was now a new question listed above it.....

Hmmmm.... Okay, I think Gore just re-activated the question answering function while I was typing and we had a little glitch here. Matt's question was lost. I'll try to recreate it a bit...

1. Matt wrote something like, "I know you're not a biologist, but how does this chameleon gene' work."
2. Matt thought gargoyles were the sources of various legends, but does the chameleon gene cause gargoyles to look like legendary characters.
3. He asked whether the gene would start changing the looks of familiar clans over time. Or something like that.
4. He stated that he had his own theories as to heredity, etc. And he challenged me to 'sell' him on my chameleon gene theory.
5. He had at least a fifth part to the question (maybe more) but I didn't even get the chance to read it.

My answers to his original question; not to the paraphrased versions above. (Man, this is a mess.)

1. I have no idea. It was just a random thought.

2. No. Definitely not. You're first thought was correct.

3. Natural Mutations (not the Sevarius kind) are likely to occur. They occur to some degree in all species. I was simply positing (and only positing) that Gargoyles might have a gene that causes mutations to occur more frequently. But mostly, garg appearance is defined by heredity.

4. I don't have to sell you on anything. For starters, I'm not sure I've sold myself on it. Second, I'm under no obligation to compete with your personal beliefs. Third, if it isn't in the 66 -- I'm not guaranteeing it. Even some of that is suspect. Sevarius theorized that gargs absorb solar energy while stone. But that was just a theory. He may have been right. He may have been wrong. He may have been partially right. Or he may have been lying intentionally. See?