Well, virtually everything is the result of genetics one way or another. But do you need a genetic test to determine how many arms and legs a species has, or whether it has horns, or something along those lines? Or can you just...you know...look?
I think we must have a crossed signal here. I'm making a very basic point: the stuff in one's spinal column either can glow or it can't. You can tell this by examining the stuff. You don't need to trace back the genetic causality to tell you the end-state result of whether the stuff can glow. (People knew fireflies glowed, and probably a lot about the glowing stuff, without testing their genes, or even knowing about genes at all.)
What genetics might tell you is why/how the critter has glowing stuff. But I wasn't talking about that as a basis for the 'Cylon test' in the first place. My proposed basis was simply: 'does he have glowing stuff in his spine?' Again: one simply doesn't need genetics to test for that sort of property.
We know that humans can’t but we’re also learning that the tweak to make it so humans can isn’t that big,
Ok fine, the tweak wouldn't be that big in the DNA/informatics sense. Nevertheless, any humans so 'tweaked' would be relatively easy to tell from humans not tweaked: examine the gunk in/near their spine and see whether it contains material that could be biolumniscent.
we know from our experiments in making these mods in lower animals that it is not a macroscopic change,
'making the change' may not be macroscopic, but the evidence of the change (in your example) would be. In the case of 'glowing stuff in your spine', it definitely is. I still think you must just have missed the point I'm trying to make.
proven by the fact that most of them can breed with their normal counterpart.
This doesn't prove two critters have no macroscopic differences. It, rather, proves that they are the same species (by the conventional definition of species).
And by the way, I already made the point that I think humans and 'skinjobs' are the same species (by the most rational interpretation of what we've seen on the show), since as we have now seen, they can interbreed just fine. And so I think the 'glowing spine' stuff was just a cheesy thing they threw into the miniseries.
The download and resurrection ship stuff I’m not sure about. It would have to be a pretty strong receiver, probably coupled with some changes to the bio-electric field of the Cylons to make it more of a carrier wave type signal.
How are the Cylons creating this 'changed' bio-electric field that you think they must have? What is in their bodies that creates such a bio-electric field? Why can it be picked up by a resurrection ship but not by someone standing next to the Cylon who wants to test for Cylons?
But there’s nothing wrong with not knowing yet. There’s still a dozen episodes to go, you don’t want to have all the answers with half a season yet to show, then there’s nothing to do.
My complaint is not merely that we don't know. My complaint is that not only don't we know, but that there's really no logical explanation that would tie together such things, and thus even if we do get some 'answer' it will be something made up and insufficient.
You really don't think BSG in the final half-season is going to explain scientifically stuff like how Cylons download, or their glowing spines, do you?
Implausibility is a major part of story telling, the bigger the story the more implausible it tends to be.
I don't know if "bigger" is the word you mean there. Lots of "big" stories are not in the least implausible. Also if "implausibility is a major part of story telling" is meant to be a principle, rather than an empirical observation (i.e. the beloved 'everybody does it' defense), I disagree with it.
What I think you're trying to say is that sprawling and fantastical stories (like BSG, and most sci-fi) are inherently implausible. This is 100% true, which is precisely why things such as getting the rules of their universe straight and abiding consistently by them is so important.
How plausible is it that two barefoot midgets walked up the side of a volcano in the heart of the bad guy’s territory and threw his most precious item in the drink?
Not plausible at all. Which is precisely why it's a good thing that Sam didn't turn to Frodo at the last minute and go "oh by the way, I'm really an Orc in disguise, and always have been. And that ring you have? It's really a meaningless paper clip, and always has been. Also, I don't even like you." The story was fantastical but consistent, and painted a picture of a world that was imaginary but believable on its own terms.
How plausible is it that the best person at every single command position wound up on the same Starfleet ship?
Not plausible at all, which is a knock against Star Trek in my book. Because it makes that world less believable on its own terms.
I’m not conceding anything, just pointing out that expecting things to mesh before the story has been told to its completion is asking to be disappointed.
Silly me, I think things should mesh pretty well all the way through.
It seems like what you're talking about is the fact that stories don't reveal all their mysteries. This is true but it's not what I'm complaining about. If I merely thought that BSG had a bunch of unexplained but conceivably explainable mysteries, I'd have no complaint whatsoever. Part of the reason for my criticism is that I know full well by this point - and I think you do too - that no satisfactory 'explanation' for these sorts of things is going to be forthcoming.
That’s what the dénouement is for, explaining the unexplained parts and making the story mesh.
There is no conceivable way for them to do this at this point. That's the problem with making things up as you go along and contradicting yourself in the process.
Well JMS had B5 running around in his head for a decade before eh even got the pilot green lit, Ron Moore kind of stumbled into this project.
Ok so "it's okay" if BSG is inconsistent then.
Wait a minute. Are you arguing with me or not? Seems like not.
But there’s tons of B5 that didn’t appear to mesh until end.
But there's more of BSG that doesn't mesh and is never going to. I'd bet on it. Do you honestly disagree? You really think a great, all-explanatory 'explanation' is coming up? Sounds like you're the one setting yourself up for disappointment.
By the way, I don't want to make it seem like I only like these serial stories if they're all 100% plotted out in advance. Plotting them out is a way of minimizing the inconsistency, but another way would be just good writing. Deadwood would be an example, I don't believe he plotted out the entire story. Indeed, I think he was making a lot of it up as he went along, and in many cases just following the characters and story whereever it took him.
But he did this in a way that respected the integrity of the world he created. He never did the equivalent of 'let's make Tigh a Cylon'. I honestly don't know how anyone can watch BSG all the way through and think it makes any sort of sense for Tigh to be a Cylon.
I think you’re making too many assumptions about the glowing. Bioluminescence of multiple enzymes secreted from organs combining and reacting, fireflies don’t directly have stuff that glows in them, they don’t even have stuff in them that combines to glow, they have organs that secrete stuff that combines to glow. So your test wouldn’t even work on a firefly, add to that the fact that we don’t know if the humans even know about the glowing spine thing. People knew about fireflies because the saw them glow, then they dissected them and eventually figured out why, if I gave dead fireflies to somebody that didn’t know what they were or what made them interesting it’s highly unlikely they’d figure out about the glow unless they got really lucky and squeezed the right two organs in the right way and the stuff inside them combined. If you don’t know HOW a critter is glowing you can’t test for IF they can glow. How do you look for glowing stuff in the spine if you don’t know how they glow?
Who the hell knows how they do it. Eventually you just have to accept that it’s fiction. Remember air tanks don’t really explode like in Jaws either, but it works in the movie so you move on. If you’re going to start getting obsessed at that level on things it’s best you just stop experiencing fiction. Nobody gets from point A to point B in LA as quickly as they do in 24, nobody moves around the planet as quickly as they did in Alias, mobsters don’t off each other at half the rate they do in Godfather, every story has SOMETHING that separates it from reality. That’s just how it goes, eventually you’ve just got to say “it’s part of the story”. How do Cylons download? Who give a $#!+ it’s in the story, deal.
And actually I don’t WANT them to explain those little craps. Story points, like how long has Tigh been a Cylon, should be explained, tech points shouldn’t. When you explain tech points you wind up with lame crap like midichlorians, do you want a midichlorians explanation?
If things mesh all the way through the story then there’s no reason to continue telling the story. Part of the point of having mysteries in a story is to give the viewer a reason to watch the next episode. It’s part of the difference between an arc story and episodic TV. You’re demanding episodic TV, all mysteries solved by the end of each episode, no dangling questions, no reason from this week to watch next week. Arc stories don’t work like that, arc stories leave those dangling ends, so that even if the teaser commercial for next week doesn’t interest you the possibility of solved mysteries will get you to tune in anyway.
I’m not saying it’s OK to be inconsistent, because BSG isn’t anyway, I’m saying if you don’t sense 10 years worth of pre-thought behind BSG it’s because it’s not there. Heck even JMS has never come close to telling another story as tight as B5, and we know he can, but he’s never told another story that was kicking around his brain for 10 years either.
Yes I disagree, for one thing I have yet to find ANYTHING that truly doesn’t mesh. I see some dangling questions, which is the point of this kind of TV writing. So far every one of your complaints has either been wrong or just been a part of dealing with fiction. You might not want to make it seem like that’s the only kind of story you like, but your complaints demonstrate that really is the only kind of story you like. Which is fine, like whatever kind of story you want, but it’s clear that your complaints really boil down to BSG isn’t your type of story. None of claimed inconsistencies exist, you just don’t like having mysteries open when there’s story left to tell.