{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3052", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 3052, "subject": "Marble's prophecy", "messages": 3, "voices": 3, "first": "2002-03-19T05:19:09+00:00", "last": "2002-03-21T17:40:52+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "maa32", "address": "maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu" }, "date": "2002-03-19T05:19:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Marble's prophecy", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Has a prophecy ever failed to have two meanings in Wolfe? Someone pointed out \nthat the beast with three horns is instantly discredited by the narrator. I \nhave two words for you:\n\nUNRELIABLE NARRATOR\n\nThe dude doesn't even know who he is for sure, nor the name of his kids with \nany consistency. Just because he thinks the prophecy has already been \nfulfilled means nothing - you still have to account for the special treatment \nthat Hoof receives from Babbie at the astral scene in Chapter 17/19 or Return \nto the whorl. First Babbie is mad at everyone, then when he hears the name \nHoof he gets all happy and hugs him and picks him up and comforts him after he \ngets wounded. Hoof is another UNRELIABLE NARRATOR because he doesn't question \nwhy Babbie would treat him that way. And the narrator does seem to be Babbie \nfor a second at the end of On Blue's Waters. You should try to account for \nthis rather than stating that the narrator's discredit to the prophecy is \nenough.\n\nI have determined that Wolfe never writes with Occam in mind - let's face it, \nhe likes to complicate things. ... and isn't that picture of the frog from my \nprevious post pretty cool? Now that I look at it again, I see the one one the \nleft is 2N, the one on the right is 4N. Note that the front limbs of the frog \nalso have three little digits that should be one (like three psuedo-hands or \nsomething) If you click on the arrows at the bottom of that page of the \npresentation, you can see the whole 31 slides. There are other hybrid species \nproduced through polyploidy, including lizards and flies. The flies also have \na doubling of the hind legs that is pretty interesting if you advance a few \nslides.\n\nMarc Aramini" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2002-03-19T17:41:59+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Marble's prophecy", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- maa32 wrote:\nHas a prophecy ever failed to have two meanings in Wolfe?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That's a reasonable point (though I think the answer is probably \"yes\")." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Someone pointed out \nthat the beast with three horns is instantly discredited by the\nnarrator." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "...\n\nI think you misunderstood." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I have determined that Wolfe never writes with Occam in mind - let's\nface it, \nhe likes to complicate things. ..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, you should be in favor of the literal Occam's razor--that\nentities shouldn't be multiplied unnecessarily--because in your\ntheory there are fewer entities (two planets instead of four, one\nlarge female submarine creature instead of two, etc.). However, I\nthink that your theory involves more explanations than the other." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "and isn't that picture of the frog from my \nprevious post pretty cool? Now that I look at it again, I see the one\none the \nleft is 2N, the one on the right is 4N. Note that the front limbs of\nthe frog \nalso have three little digits that should be one (like three\npsuedo-hands or \nsomething) If you click on the arrows at the bottom of that page of the\n\npresentation, you can see the whole 31 slides. There are other hybrid\nspecies \nproduced through polyploidy, including lizards and flies. The flies\nalso have \na doubling of the hind legs that is pretty interesting if you advance a\nfew slides." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thanks for the information about polyploid animals! I learned something\nalready today.\n\nHowever, on the subject of multiple limbs, I think you're\nmisinterpreting. The tetraploid _Xenopus laevis_ has a big hind foot\nwith a translucent web connecting four toes--not four separate legs.\nYou can see the four toes at\n. Note\nthat the web can look transparent or opaque depending on the lighting.\nAs for the front legs, they have four digits in the picture of the\ndiploid _X. tropicalis_ at , which also\nshows that the anatomy of _X. laevis_ and _X. tropicalis_ is much\nthe same. Finally,\n has a lot\nof information about _X. laevis_ from a pet owner's point of view,\nbut nothing about doubled limbs.\n\nThe flies in that lecture weren't hybrids or polyploid; they were an\nexample of speciation in progress caused by recent ecological change\n(the introduction of apples in North America). They didn't have extra\nlimbs, either. I think you must have been interpreting marks on the\nwings as legs. The left hind leg of the fly in the picture (there's\nonly one picture, repeated in several slides) is visible between the\nwing and the abdomen. It's just as thin as the other legs, not thick\nlike the wing markings. The right hind leg is hidden or missing.\n\nSo all the polyploid animals I've seen so far have normal anatomies,\nwith the normal number of limbs.\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan Meliza", "address": "meliza at ocf.berkeley.edu" }, "date": "2002-03-21T17:40:52+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Marble's prophecy", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hi Marc,\n\nI haven't had a chance to look at the pics (qualifying exams, alas), but\nXenopus laevis is naturally polyploid (making it difficult to make\ntransgenic animals, for anyone who cares), and N varies greatly between\nspecies in the genus (something like 12N for one of those buggers). I think\nit might be a little spurious to claim that simply doubling the number of\nchromosomes would double limb count. Development is a lot more complex than\nthat.\n\nbest,\ndan\n\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: maa32 [mailto:maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu]\nSent: Monday, March 18, 2002 9:19 PM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) Marble's prophecy\n\n[snip]\n\nNow that I look at it again, I see the one one the\nleft is 2N, the one on the right is 4N. Note that the front limbs of the\nfrog\nalso have three little digits that should be one (like three psuedo-hands or\nsomething) If you click on the arrows at the bottom of that page of the\npresentation, you can see the whole 31 slides. There are other hybrid\nspecies\nproduced through polyploidy, including lizards and flies. The flies also\nhave\na doubling of the hind legs that is pretty interesting if you advance a few\nslides.\n\nMarc Aramini" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "-- " } ] } ] }