I am going to move this article to "Genesis (episode)", redirect its links to that page, and turn this page into a disambiguation page (for this episode, Genesis Planet, Genesis Device, Project Genesis, Genesis Force, and the Biblical reference. Would anybody object to this? --From Andoria with Love 17:05, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Not really. Does the reference really need its own page, though? Also, while we're at it, what about the capitalization of some of the other articles - perhaps move them to a lower-case title? Last but not least, perhaps move some of them to other "Genesis (disambiguation)" titles, unless they were specifically named as such? -- Cid Highwind 17:19, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Biblical book was reference in Star Trek II, but that is already described at Bible, so creating its own page shouldn't be necessary. As for moving the articles, "Genesis Planet" and "Genesis Device" should probably be moved to lower-cap names, but Project Genesis is the name of an actual project, so it should remain capitalized, in my opinion. However, they were all referenced as they are titled ... with the possible exception of Genesis Planet (perhaps we could move that to Genesis (planet)?) Anyways, I'll get started. --From Andoria with Love 17:29, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistencies Edit

I guess I have to question whether or not some of the inconsistencies mentioned in the background section are even worth pointing out. Yes, they are inconsistencies, but nothing more than you'd typically find in real life. For example, my girlfriend constantly refers to my dog as "she" or "her", even though he's a male. Why? Who knows... perhaps because my previous dog was a female, perhaps it's just wishful thinking. I've also known people who refer to all cats as "she" and all dogs as "he", and refuse to be corrected. As far as Troi's sign goes... I've been waiting for the sign on my office at work to be changed for over six months now, even though I've inquired about it several times. They're aware of the change, they just haven't gotten around to doing anything about it. Why? Who knows... too much work on the maintenance folks plates, or I don't rate high enough, or they just want to annoy me... whatever. That's just real life. Why should we expect a fictional universe like Trek to be any different? -- Renegade54 16:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, with the (possible) exception of the thing about the baby kittens needing their mother in the first 24 hours, it's all pointless. Even the thing about Troi being only half Human is needlessly anal. Given the fact that the episode is based on bad bad bad psudo-science to begin with it seems odd that anyone would be worried about the fact that Troi's rank is incorrectly labeled on her door! -- 11:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have proceeded to remove the "inconsistencies" section. They are too much like nit picks and it has long since been agreed upon that we don't do that here:

*Upon discovering Troi in her quarters, transformed into an amphibious lifeform, Data says that she is "no longer Human"... which seems odd since Counselor Troi is in fact half Betazoid... but is not that odd since she is also half human.
*Before Data and Picard enter Troi's quarters one can see that the sign on the door says "Lt. Cmdr. Troi: Counselor"; even though she had been promoted to Commander by that time.
*Data's pet, the cat named 'Spot', changes gender from time to time. For example, in "In Theory" La Forge refers to Spot as 'him', but in 'Genesis', Spot gives birth to some kittens.
*Data and Picard observe that Spot's kittens are about 24 hours old when found. However, the kittens shown on screen are obviously much older than one day. It is also very unlikely that they would still be alive after 24 hours without Spot's attention; besides needing to be fed, newborn kittens are totally dependent on their mother for warmth and to help them eliminate waste.
*When Data and Picard first enter the bridge, the OPS console is dark, signifying that it is off-line, however, Data is still somehow able to recover readings from it and Picard is somehow able to restore the Enterprise's attitude control.
*Barclay is transformed into a spider. Neither arachnoids or any other kind of arthropod are in the direct lineage of Human descent. (presumably arachnoids and humans have a common ancestor, albeit from a very long time ago)
*Dr. Crusher informs Barclay that "the T-cells in your DNA" are the result of his susceptibility to the alien flu; however, there are no T-cells in DNA (although there is DNA in T-cells)

If anyone feels any of the above is not a nit and legitimately belongs in the background section for some reason, then please discuss below. --Alan del Beccio 04:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank God, the madness is gone. Let us keep it that way. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

for what it's worth, i'm fine with the removal of the Inconsistencies section. some of the information, particularly the evolutionary problems, remain in Background. i personally think that material should stay, as the ep was ostensibly about evolution (er, "de-evolution") anyway. besides, it offends me as a student of evolutionary biology. -|v|374/v01|) 06:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you will be less offended by the episode because a fan site with absolutely no connection to Paramount says something. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

doubt all you want, but it's true. otherwise, i wouldn't have wandered in here and started editing! -|v|374/v01|) 06:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Goof, just for fun: Data's flashlight is almost empty (hah, bulbs) when they enter Troi's quarters, in the bath Picard uses it, batteries must've been hard to replace -- 22:11, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
That's nice, but cannot be in the article.--31dot 22:25, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

"Memorable" quote? Edit

"Main power is off line. All systems are in either emergency, or stand-by mode."

Does anybody find this to be a quote worthy of including in the memorable quotes section? There's nothing special about it; similar statements are made in numberous episodes. --From Andoria with Love 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing memorable is coming upon the drifting Enterprise that for some reason is at a silly angle. Sily I say. SILLY!! --OuroborosCobra talk 17:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Not really that silly - I agree that there being a notion of up or down in space is silly, and that ordinarily ships would approach each other at all manner of attitudes, despite that not being portrayed as the norm in television dramas. However, Picard does say to Data "Adjust the axial stabilisers to match the attitude and rotation rate of the Enterprise". In the previous shot of the ship it is clear that it is actually rotating slowly. I think that an unusual attitude is an appropriate way to portray a ship that is rotating as a result of being adrift - Picard and Data do have the added task of matching its attitude and rotation. nmsmith 21:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Pre-historic Klingon? Edit

As far as I know, Klingons are of Human origin. How can there possibly be pre-historic Klingons?

By the way: I didn't know either, that humans are derived from spiders.

Klingons are never said in canon to be of Human origin. Don't know where you would get that impression. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure the pre-historic klingon was ever stated to be a klingon equivalent of a neandrethal etc., but only a lifeform that existed on the klingon homeworld at some point... but as I understand it, the idea of this episode was that the disease triggers random mutations into life forms that evolved on anyones home planet. Humans are not derived from spiders, rather spiders and humans have at some point derived from the same life form, and as humans still have some junk genes left of that life form it is possible to evolve into it's outcome, a spider. Similarly a spider on the Enterprise might have started to evolve into a human. I think. :) --Pseudohuman 23:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Klingons ARE of Human origin as was expressly stated in at least one episode. The Vulcans, Romulans, Klingons are only some of the human(oid) races that were once brought from earth to other worlds by some very advanced civilisation. They (some of them being arch enemies to each other) didn't like that idea either, but they had to accept the fact!

The probability of a common ancestor was already first mentioned in the old series when Kirk, Spock and McCoy encountered some sort of Indian tribe on a planet far away from earth. And there was also some kind of highly advanced technique of apparently non-human origin.

The common origin of many (not all, such as the travellers' race itself!) of the humanoid races is also the official explanation why there are so many similar races in space. Chacotay's tribe is even a hybrid race (with that of the ancestors) as could be clearly seen when they encountered some of their fellow tribesmen in the jungle.

But maybe the genes of the humans were intermingled with that of some indigenious life form to make existence possible on the alien planets, the result being for instance green blood (Vulcans, Romulans) and other bizarre traits that do never occur on earth. But this is only my personal theory. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

WHAT? Klingons are NOT NOT NOT of Human origin...The episode you're referring to ENT: "Affliction", "Cold Station 12", "Borderland" explain that genetically modified Human genomes were used in the creation of super klingons... – Morder 10:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think he's referring to the events of "The Chase". In any case, Klingons are not of Human origin; rather, humans, Klingons, Romulans, etc. were seeded by the same civilization. Each race still evolved differently, however. --From Andoria with Love 10:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you've misinterpreted some of the episodes. In "The Chase" TNG, it was said that all humaniods had their genetic material left on their homeworlds 4 billion years before. What that meant was the genetic material was designed to eventually led evolution to the humaniod form. So Klingons, Humans, Cardassians etc are not directly related, nor do they have a common ancestor and anything like that. Instead, they all had their evolution predetermined to head towards humaniod form throughout the history of life on their homeworlds. Now how much real-life sense that makes, it don't know. Sounds pretty far fetched to me, but that's the way canon explains it.
As for the TOS reference, that was the Preservers who rescued that Native American community well after humans had evolved. I can't remember exactly how long it was a go, but it was only a matter of thousands of years before.Tanky 10:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional Credits Edit

Executive Story Editor: René Echevarria

Story Editor: Naren Shankar    -- Craig Goodrich 05:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed Edit

Removed the following comment, as we go by what is in the episode.

Early in the episode Dr. Crusher tells Lt. Barclay that he has one dormant gene out of 100,000, which was the estimated number of genes at the time when the episode was aired. In subsequent years, the estimate of the number of Human genes has been repeatedly revised down. Currently, is estimated that there are 20,000–25,000 Human protein-coding genes. --31dot 20:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was good information but I suppose it doesn't confrom to policy, maybe if it were cited? — Vince47 20:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that a citation from a production source would help, but I highly doubt there is one. --31dot 00:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the following:

"*Despite Barclay's transformation, spiders and other insect-like animals arose nowhere in the evolutionary lineage leading to vertebrate creatures. Rather, spiders' and vertebrates' last common ancestor was instead a primitive worm-like creature."

--> This is inaccurate. As Data explains, each of these stages observed in the crew is another link in the evolutionary chain which stretches back to the origins of _all_ lifeforms on Earth (including, therefore, spiders and insects - we ultimately come from a common ancestor if you track-back long enough). Moreover, as he says, Introns can include genetic materials from "many different species" over millions of years of evolution, so it is possible that a wide variety of transformations has been occurring among the crew. Given this, there is no inconsistency in or anything odd about Barclay turning into a spider and evolutionary it could make sense given that we stem from a common ancestor. The issue of the switching of Introns leading to the death of the organism, however, _does_ make biological sense, so I left that.– Distantlycharmed 03:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding either the note, or how genetics and evolution work. Just because at some very distant point I share an ancestor with a spider does not mean that I have the latent genetic code of a spider. The genetic features that make a spider different from that common ancestor do not exist anywhere in my genome. For example, the genetics of a spider's eye are nowhere in mine, because our two eyes evolved separately. I'll wait for a few other comments, but I don't think you've made a case for removing the note. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No I think I understand evolution and genetics pretty well thank you very much. I just find the comment to be un-encyclopedic and entirely too simplified. Ultimately, common ancestry is exactly that. The wings of a fly and the wings of a bird have developed completely differently and are not homologous, but both still have a _common_ ancestor and that's the point. Again, that comment is oversimplifying and inaccurate. If you want to keep this comment, then we have to keep the one above about the number of Human genes as well and mention that there is a controversy as to whether there are 25,000 or over 120,000 based on some estimates. – Distantlycharmed 05:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is still something you've got to not be getting. Common ancestry is not everything. I don't have bird of fly wings in my genes, despite sharing common ancestry to both. You can't flip any number of genetic switches in my code and get bird of fly wings, let alone arachnid eyes. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Molecular Genetics and evolutionary genetics is far more complicated than what you are saying. First of all we are not talking about turning fly wings to bird wings, we are talking about eyes. Also, there is homology and deep homology. "Deep homology can be found in contexts in which structures are not homologous in the classical sense. As we explored in 1997, appendages in vertebrates, arthropods and other bilaterians evolved independently, but their derivation was dependent on regulatory networks present in a common 'urbilaterian' ancestor.Most strikingly, the genetic regulatory cascade comprising a key transcription factor and downstream effector genes eliciting outgrowth (such as the Drosophila melanogaster gene Distal-less or its mouse homologue Dlx) seems to have been present in such a common ancestor and has been repeatedly used to control outgrowth formation in the protostome and deuterostome lineages. The eyes in widely divergent organisms are of such different structures, and develop in such distinct embryological contexts, that biologists have historically inferred that eyes had evolved independently dozens of times. But deciding where homology ends and novelty begins is not always straightforward, particularly for structures that lack a fossil record, such as eyes. Over the past 15 years, many insights into the evolution of eyes have come from descending beneath the visible diversity of animal eyes into the genetic machinery that controls their development." --> From Neil Shubin, Cliff Tabin & Sean Carrol, Deep homology and the origins of evolutionary novelty from Nature 457, 818-823 (12 February 2009) (doi:10.1038/nature07891; pubmed)

Point being: the comment is oversimplified, un-encyclopedic and inaccurate.– Distantlycharmed 05:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

On and btw, your arms and bird wings and the flippers of a dolphin _are_ homologous. So not only is there common ancestry but actually homology which is genetic based. – Distantlycharmed 05:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Homogoly" doesn't mean you can make my arms into flippers or wings. In addition, there is absolutely no homogony between bird wings and fly wings, or my eyes and spider eyes. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Classify it as nitpicking and leave it at that. — Morder 05:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, but it means that your arms and the bird's wings came from a common ancestor. Gee, did you even READ what was cited above???? Anyway, I dont understand why you are still arguing this - especially after I cited you the study from a peer-reviewed scientific journal above. You are clearly uninformed about the issue and I made my point and i dont see the point of arguing this with you indefinitely. – Distantlycharmed 06:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your study talks about homology, yes, but it doesn't argue that the genetics of the cuttlefish eye are the same as the bat eye. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Er...well, you are wrong. – Distantlycharmed 06:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you need to link to another paper, because yours doesn't prove me wrong. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Although I know little about biology, I think we can just dismiss this as a nitpick anyway, as Morder suggested.
And DC, let's please follow talk page indent conventions. :-)– Cleanse 08:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Deanna Edit

Could someone upload a pic of Troi as an amphibian? I thought she looked really cool.- JustPhil 22:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought there was one here somewhere. Are you saying one should be in the aricle?(probably should be)--31dot 22:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Troi de-evolved.jpgMorder 22:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ja. I think it should be in this article. Maybe Riker as well.- JustPhil 23:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection Edit

I have protected this page from editing by anon/new users as this page seems to be the target of a spammer posting the same link with different addresses. If you are an anon user and wish to post a legitimate edit, please describe it here.--31dot 09:58, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

According to wikia staff, a spam block has been put in for that address in question. -- sulfur 10:53, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. :) I'll drop the block.--31dot 12:10, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed Edit

I removed the following parenthetical statement, since it has lacked a citation for two years now:

  • (However, production work was hindered by the California earthquake of 1994, and McFadden did not have sufficient time to produce her own "cut" of the episode as a result).

Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 06:22, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Ground for asking for Crusher's Medical License BackEdit

I feel it should be noted that in the scene where Dr. Crusher is examining Lieutenant Wolf she herself observes what she believes to be venom sacks under his jaw. Her next action is to ask the Lieutenant to open his month, which in itself is not a bad call, but asking him to open his month with the venom sacks under his jaw while looking him in the face. Two words: BAD CALL. Tripodssj6 (talk) 00:04, February 25, 2017 (UTC)

Worf is a trusted member of the crew. The fact that he suddenly developed venom sacs doesn't mean that his personality has changed and he's going to use them to attack her. --NetSpiker (talk) 01:17, February 25, 2017 (UTC)
Articles are not for posting our personal opinions on what happened in the episode.31dot (talk) 02:05, February 25, 2017 (UTC)

Mention of two new characters Edit

When Barclay is first getting examined by Crusher, she makes him do a test and walks away. While he waits, you can overhear (confirm via Netflix subtitles) "Nurse Baldwin, I need that hemotoxin series on Ensign Brooks right away." I can't tell if it is actually Crusher, but it's certainly an improvised line.

I've just created a page for Baldwin.

As for Brooks, this could refer to Janet Brooks, in which case she was obviously not in the scene. It could also refer to a different Brooks. I'm not sure which avenue to go down. Does anyone have a thought? Thebilldude (talk) 03:52, March 30, 2017 (UTC)