Re: Feathered topics.

[alex@voyager.net]

dbensen wrote:
> 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.
>
> Dan

True, they were neccesary to the plot, but other than that single
thread, there is very little else to connect them, that I can see.
Perhaps they could have stated things slightly different, such as
"They used the DNA of frogs *and other creatures, like birds,* to fill
in the holes and complete the code." That might make more sense,
mixing and balancing the advanced birds, mammals, and
reptiles(crocodilians, in this referance), with much more primitive
frogs.

It may make good writing, but to me, it doesn't make much sense.