Is "de-evolve" an accurat discription? Some mebers of the crew turned in to others beings which had nothing to do with their own evolution? Was the term used on screen? -- Redge | Talk 19:46, 12 Aug 2004 (CEST)

They did de-evolve to forms that had to do with their own evolution. Everyone just de-evolved to different stages along their species evolution, going back to the aquatic stage!

Krevaner 19:53, 12 Aug 2004 (CEST)

So in which part of Human evolution were we spiders? Because Barclay turned in to a archnoid halfbreed. -- Redge | Talk 16:58, 13 Aug 2004 (CEST)

let me put it this way: was de-evolved used on-screen? if not, it's safe to replace it by, for instance, mutated. -- Redge | Talk 16:38, 15 Aug 2004 (CEST)

it's my understanding, that Evolution is really a process of birth. if my fur gene was to switch on, I would not grow extra hair, but rather, my next generation would grow fur. thus the science if Genesis is more wrong in that switching on dormant gene's would have no effect on the crew, only their children. The gene wouldn't evne effect spots children because of how developed they are. It might effect Ogaua's child though. --TOSrules 01:37, 16 Oct 2004 (CEST)
It is true that evolution exists only across generations (i.e. individuals don't evolve). However, that's different from "switching on" a gene, which is not evolution. If one of your genes were switched on, it would begin to be expressed and you may experience an effect depending on what that gene was. The problem with this episode is that even if they were "switched on", introns would never cause "de-evolution" (there's no such thing). -- EtaPiscium 01:41, 16 Oct 2004 (CEST)
we contain gene's to devolve into any former life in our ancestry, but they are switched off because evolution says we do not need those features. These genes that are switched off only matter when you are born because that is when you develop your form. I agree that turning on these Introns wouldn't devolve the crew, but the only reason is, because it would only effect the next generation. --TOSrules 01:54, 16 Oct 2004 (CEST)
It's a misconception that genes can allow "de-evolution" into former life, because this is not the case. Human genomes (or the genome of any other animal) does not contain the genes from ancestral organisms. Those genes are either lost, fragmented, or simply changed in the course of evolution. Most introns are non-functional genes, which don't code for anything useful at all. Activating them would almost certainly cause death. But they would do so in the organism in which they are activated. -- EtaPiscium 02:00, 16 Oct 2004 (CEST)
It is correct to say that our genetic code may contain remnants of other, earlier stages of evolution. This may be in introns, and it may be in so-called "junk DNA" (which current studies suggest may not really be junk). However, genes swap pieces, we pick up pieces via retrovirus, all kinds of things happen. It is impossible to activate some currently inactive portion of the code and turn someone into an ape, or a spider, or anything much besides a mass of dying flesh. DNA codes for proteins according to a specific pattern: three letter codons correspond to amino acids. A protein has a specific structure that is vital to its function (misfolded proteins lie at the root of a number of disorders, notably Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, spongiform encephelopathy, etc). So if you could somehow express junk DNA as proteins, you would get a cellular trainwreck. The comment after the article is correct: this episode is based on junk science. -- Balok 02:41, 23 Dec 2004 (CET)
Actually, there's no such word as de-evolve. The word is devolve. And it rarely actually happens, as evolution through natural selection is always a process that creates superior individuals, never inferior ones. Anyway, evolution has nothing to do with what happens in Genesis - of course, this episode is nothing but nonsense science. And using the word mutate wouldn't be any better, as that, too, is a multi-generational thingy.
Anyway, since de-evolve isn't a word and devolve is, I'll change it. People can change it back if they like the original word. --Malimar 21:47, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Superior and inferior are terms that are completely relative to an organism's environment. A creature that is weaker, slower, and more stupid may actually be a superior creature to it's stronger, faster, smarter cousin depending on the situation. Even "devolution" is a bit of a silly term.
There may not be such a word as de-evolve, but Data does use that term when descrbing what happened, so it should be included in the article. -- TNG lover 20:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Correct, Data does use that word. From the script:
DATA: "Captain... I believe the crew is de-evolving."
Oddly enough, later in the episode, Barlcay uses the correct term:
BARCLAY: "And that... that caused me to devolve..."
So this is actually an odd case where Data got something wrong, and Barclay got it right. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Cat turns into lizard?

Although Barkley turning into an arachnid was the worst offender, I'm surprised no-one has yet mentioned that Spot turned into a lizard. Mammals did not evolve from modern lizards, we evolved from non-mammalian 'synapsids', or 'mammal-like reptiles'. Lizards branched from another group, the 'sauropsids', which also includes birds, crocodilians and snakes.

Also, how on Earth would one survive one's brain shrinking and then increasing again? Where did the information stored in that part of the brain go and how was it retrieved? 04:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


I removed this background section, as it seems to be mostly nitpicking, rationalization and commentary not suitable or necessary for MA...

The science behind "Genesis" is mostly apocryphal. Activating the transcription of pseudogenes within or outside of introns would not make a Human "de-evolve." Instead, the large number of aberrant proteins created would most likely cause death by any number of pathways; however, Dr. Crusher does claim that the synthetic T-cell had mutated, which would no doubt have unknown and unexpected effects on a body.
Further, as the progenitors of insect-like organisms (including spiders) and of all vertebrates (including humans) diverged relatively early in Earth's history, the pseudogenes necessary for Lt. Barclay's transformation into a spider would not have been present in his DNA. The last common ancestor of the two lineages would instead likely appear more worm-like in shape.
Toward the end of the episode, Dr. Crusher comments to Barclay that it is traditional to name new diseases after the first sufferer. If true, this tradition apparently appeared after our own time period. Eponymous diseases (those which carry a name) have almost always been named for the first person to describe them in medical literature (Parkinson's disease; Down's syndrome; Marfan's syndrome; Kartagener's syndrome). Rare exceptions from our time include "Legionnaires' disease" (so named because the first known outbreak occurred at an American Legion convention) and "Lou Gehrig's disease" (informally named for its most famous sufferer, though today called Amyotrophic Laterosclerosis [ALS], a form of muscular dystrophy). Therefore, following modern-day nomenclature, Dr. Crusher would have likely named it "Crusher's Protomorphosis Syndrome", or simply, Crusher's Syndrome.

--Pseudohuman 15:59, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Data explaining to Picard

Data: "Each of these stages is another link in the evolutionary chain which stretches back to the origins of all life forms on Earth. Because introns can include genetic material from many different species over millions of years of evolution it is possible that a wide variety of transformations are occuring among the crew."

Picard: "What about those crew members who are not from Earth?"

Data: "All humanoid life has a similar genetic pattern, the virus should work on non-human crew members in the same way. They're each de-evolving into earlier forms of life on their home worlds" The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

Could you elaborate on what point you are trying to make with that bit of text? It is not clear to me. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:45, August 6, 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty self explanatory from the writers for the way this fictional virus works. You're actually trying to find logic in fiction, it's like dedicating a site to find out how Donald Duck is capable of speaking. It's okay being a star trek fan and all, I love the show, but some people just take TV too seriously. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
I'm still not clear on what posting that text here is for, but this site is out to be "the most definitive, accurate, and accessible encyclopedia and reference for everything related to Star Trek". If this is too serious for you, then don't participate, no one is forcing you to. 31dot (talk) 23:19, August 7, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.