It was never shown, but it was very clearly mentioned - and obviously, it WOULDN'T be shown because of the very thing T'Kuvma warned about in his opening speech...cultural degradation and the abandoning of old traditions - same as the whole 'removing hair in times of war', something else that disappeared by TNG times.
Of course, none of it was the Federation's fault, as I doubt they care nearly as much about Klingons shaving themselves during war or using their dead as armor as the whole slavery, POW brutality and planetary exploitation aspects of Klingon culture - it was just something the Klingons did on their own.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Picard was focusing on some more personal stuff as well as a look at things from outside of Starfleet. We actually got a look at the civilian side of things. Up until now it was pretty much all from the point of view of Starfleet.
If in your view DSC succeeds in meeting traditional Trek standards then that is good for you, but not everyone looks for the same things in a series. For instance it exceeds TOS by quite a wide margin in eye candy, action, and production values, but falls quite short on the drama and an number of other plot, dialog and other areas. Traditional Trek relied on drama whereas DSC relies on melodrama and the two are not as interchangeable as some think.
The only difference between DSC and older Trek is that DSC was able to breathe outside Gene's rules of characters being perfect. Something the writers hated even back in TOS, and were working against even back then, but were able almost entirely get rid of by DS9, and DS9 was, IMO, the best Trek for it. DSC just follows in the footsteps Trek has been going in since DS9.
In many ways DSC breaks continuity, like their complete inability to engage in combat in warp, something that they started doing in the latter part of ENT and was the standard in TOS but is strangely impossible in DSC at the time (or slightly after) Kirk was learning those same warp combat techniques at the academy. Also DSC is a jarring whiplash aesthetically, a totally different aesthetic bookended by the aesthetic shared by TOS and The Cage.
The warp combat thing is something Trek has been inconsistent about for a logn time. Especially since how warp works was completely changed between TOS and TNG. DSC follows the TNG and later depictions of warp, and keeps the inconsistent nature of combat in warp.
As for aesthetic. Aesthetic are not canon. Shows, especially those in the scifi, and fantasy, genres are abstractions of complex ideas, not literal depictions. No one working on TOS seriously thought that this is exactly how the future would look, it was just a design choice at the time to fit current audience expectations. The same is true of TMP, and the TNG -> VOY looks, neither of which logically follow as a continuation of the design paradigm shown in TOS. The only thing that matters is that you are able to look at some families elements, like the Enterprise, and can easily tell its supposed to be the Enterprise, regardless of the design changes made to it. The only aesthetics that are canon are the one that have an in universe explanation. such as political symbols that specifically mean something.
If by "obscure aspects of Klingon culture" you are equating the death vigil and howling with a reverence for the bodies of honored dead like in DSC, those cultures are definately different. In TNG, after the vigil (which according to dialog is a symbolic guarding of the deceased to give them time to get to Sto-vo-kor) the body is then considered trash, an empty husk without value.
On the other hand, it is refreshingly realistic that there would be various sects with different beliefs instead of the usual monolithic thing that is all too common in TV sci-fi, but it is still something newly created in DSC, not part of what was shown back in the 1990s.
Nope, this isn't all what I was talking about.
What I was referring to was
The religious cannibalism(mentioned by Worf and Kor in DS9)
The suicide battle tactics(Mentioned by Riker in TNG)
That they do in fact take prisoners(ENT, and TUC)
The Dead Fleet afterlife concept(Mentioned by name by Martok's crew in DS9)
And yes, that Klingons do find value in the bodies after death as shown by Klingon mummification mentioned in ST4, and TNG, as well as the Ak'voh ritual mentioned in DS9.
Nothing about how the Klingons act in DSC is in any way different then Klingons seen in later shows. Nor is there any sort of cultural retcon going on with how they act.
No, Roddenberry did not insist that characters be "perfect" (though Maizlish might have told some of the writers that as part of his trolling games). What he insisted on was that they act in a professional manner, and that with the elimination of elitism and with the post-scarcity economy eliminating "haves" and "have nots" there would in general be less prejudice, bullying, sexism, racism, etc. than we have now (but not entirely eliminated either, note Styles and his hatred of Romulans and distrust of Vulcans).
TOS was subject to the same kind of nonsense from the network executives wanting fist fights on the bridge, soap opera style bickering and backstabbing, and other garbage that J. Michael Straczynski had to deal with thirty years later (in Straczynski's case he finally got fed up with Turner execs demands and walked away from the Babylon5 spinoffs). In TNG Paramount pushed for the same kind of nonsense, but when Roddenberry pushed back he was accused of wanting everyone to be perfect.
In fact, Roddenberry put a genetically enhanced transhuman who had to suppress her emotions and use an ethical calculus based on Kantian rules to overcome her faulty moral sense (Number One) and a captain described by an NBC executive as "too whiney and brooding" (Pike) in the first pilot until NBC insisted he "dump the broad, fix the captain, and get rid of the ears" (Spock) as they put it.
And in TOS he had a grifter of a captain who only got into the academy because of his father's reputation and friends and was part of a conspiracy to hunt down an atrocity committing ex-governor, a first officer with family and personal issues, an engineer who was brilliant but just short of a boozehound, and other unperfect people.
That said, it still has nothing to do with my original point about traditional Trek being soft sci-fi drama and DSC being space opera action and melodrama. Maybe you cannot tell the difference between the sci-fi subgenres or between drama and melodrama, but the difference is still there.
As for combat in warp, it has always been consistent. TOS and TAS showed that the combat doctrine was for engaging the enemy in warp when possible, which TMP shows changed in the 2270s due to improvements in shield technology that required the phasers (and presumably disruptors) to be connected to the warp core to get enough power to overcome them.
Later (in real world time) the Enterprise TV series established that UESPA started using FTL combat as soon as they worked out how to accomplish it a few years after the NX-01 was launched but technical limitations often required them to drop out of warp to continue a battle at sublight speeds.
You are the only one talking about "canon", I was talking about consistency and plausibility. While it is technically possible that they could use one kind of uniform and rank insignia scheme in 2254 then two years later be using a totally different aesthetic and insignia system, then nine years later in 2265 switch back to an evolved version of the one they had before DSC, it is not really plausible. Think about it, how often in the real world does a service go through a complete uniform change AND insignia change?
And that is ignoring the "no round engines" rule DSC designers were limited by along with the fact that the Sech was identified as the DSC version of the D7 in first season before Moonves was ousted and the production went into damage control, along with all sorts of other inconsistencies between DSC and the two shows closely bracketing it (and even ENT in certain matters like the already talked about FTL combat).
As for the Klingons, the cannibalism was one line of dialog which could just as easily have been a turn of phrase rather than a literal action:
KORRIS: Brother, I knew you would come. (Worf climbs the ladder) Now I, we have a chance. I could not do it alone, but I would rather die here, than let the traitors of Kling pick the meat from my bones. With you it will work.
and even if it was meant as actual cannibalism at the time the DSC version is still the first time it was unambiguously presented as a real thing instead of a possible colloquialism.
The suicide tactics are irrelevant, throwing those BoP raiders into battle in droves showed it plainly enough, and Valkris's actions even more so. Same with the prisoners thing, traditional Trek shows Klingons taking prisoners as far back as TOS.
The only reference in DS9 to the Black Fleet is in one song, and there is nothing about bodies, only the spirits of the fallen warriors in an eternal war in the afterlife. For convenience, the translation of the lyrics from Memory Alpha:
Hear! sons of Kahless.
Hear! daughters.
The battle blood perfectly cleans
the warrior who is brave and loyal.
We fight, we're passionate, and we kill perfectly.
Our lives are not long, but they're very bright.
We certainly die honorably, and we join our fathers in the Black Fleet.
There we always really continue fighting.
We won't stop. We continue fighting. We compete.
The Ak'voh is the vigil that I mentioned in my previous comment, again it is to symbolically guard the body long enough to keep scavengers away until the spirit gets to Sto-vo-kor, and according to dialog in that same episode the body is considered a worthless empty shell afterwards.
And again, as I said before having differing practices between sects is actually a good thing that too many shows ignore.
No, Roddenberry did not insist that characters be "perfect" (though Maizlish might have told some of the writers that as part of his trolling games). What he insisted on was that they act in a professional manner, and that with the elimination of elitism and with the post-scarcity economy eliminating "haves" and "have nots" there would in general be less prejudice, bullying, sexism, racism, etc. than we have now (but not entirely eliminated either, note Styles and his hatred of Romulans and distrust of Vulcans).
The writers themselves have said otherwise. Stop trying to push all of Gene's fault onto his lawyer. Gene was an absolutely abysmal person, with many horrible ideas, and a rampant sex fiend, whose actions nearly doomed the series he became famous for creating. Trying to deify him wont change objective history.
In fact, Roddenberry put a genetically enhanced transhuman who had to suppress her emotions and use an ethical calculus based on Kantian rules to overcome her faulty moral sense (Number One) and a captain described by an NBC executive as "too whiney and brooding" (Pike) in the first pilot until NBC insisted he "dump the broad, fix the captain, and get rid of the ears" (Spock) as they put it.
Una being a genetically enhanced transhuman is not, nor was it ever canon. This is just fanon. Its not even present in the character's original description.
That said, it still has nothing to do with my original point about traditional Trek being soft sci-fi drama and DSC being space opera action and melodrama. Maybe you cannot tell the difference between the sci-fi subgenres or between drama and melodrama, but the difference is still there.
Or maybe just like your systematic misuse of terms like canon, fanon, headcanon, twink, and others, which several people beyond myself have pointed out in the past, you don't know what the terms you are using mean.
As for combat in warp, it has always been consistent. TOS and TAS showed that the combat doctrine was for engaging the enemy in warp when possible, which TMP shows changed in the 2270s due to improvements in shield technology that required the phasers (and presumably disruptors) to be connected to the warp core to get enough power to overcome them.
This was never stated as the reason for the overall change on screen, and amounts to fanon. In canon, they simply retconed it.
You are the only one talking about "canon", I was talking about consistency and plausibility. While it is technically possible that they could use one kind of uniform and rank insignia scheme in 2254 then two years later be using a totally different aesthetic and insignia system, then nine years later in 2265 switch back to an evolved version of the one they had before DSC, it is not really plausible. Think about it, how often in the real world does a service go through a complete uniform change AND insignia change?
Canon is what defines consistency, and plausibility, in a fictional universe. Since canon is what sets what the standard rules for a fictional universe are.
As for the Klingons, the cannibalism was one line of dialog which could just as easily have been a turn of phrase rather than a literal action:
KORRIS: Brother, I knew you would come. (Worf climbs the ladder) Now I, we have a chance. I could not do it alone, but I would rather die here, than let the traitors of Kling pick the meat from my bones. With you it will work.
and even if it was meant as actual cannibalism at the time the DSC version is still the first time it was unambiguously presented as a real thing instead of a possible colloquialism.
Much like the rest of you post, this has little to nothing to do with what I was talking about.
A. I specifically mention DS9 in regards to the cannibalism. Korris is from TNG, and TNG only. so you are just flat out in the entirely wrong show there.
B. I was referring to to Worf's comment to Jadzia that he is concerned about her because she hasn't killed a powerful foe, and eaten their heart, which means she wont get into Sto-vo-kor. This sentiment is repeated by Kor at the beginning of the Sword of Kahless episode, which begins with him telling a story about how he, Kang, and Koloth, hunted down a guy(species not given but seemingly Klinong based on the name/the names of where they were hunting him), and then ate his heart afterwards.
It is canon that its part of Klingon religion that a warrior must kill a foe, and eat thier heart, to get into Sto-vo-kor, and Worf, Kor, Kang, Koloth, and presumably any other Klingon that believes they are going to Sto-vo-kor, has done it. Worf is canonically a cannibal.
The suicide tactics are irrelevant, throwing those BoP raiders into battle in droves showed it plainly enough, and Valkris's actions even more so. Same with the prisoners thing, traditional Trek shows Klingons taking prisoners as far back as TOS.
And yet people LOVE to bring up "KLINGONS DON'T TAKE PRISONERS!" because Kirk said so in one of the movies as an attack against Discovery for showing them taking prisoners.
The only reference in DS9 to the Black Fleet is in one song, and there is nothing about bodies,
Never said there was anything about bodies in it. Hence why I kept it as a separate bullet point from the mummification thing.
And in TOS he had a grifter of a captain who only got into the academy because of his father's reputation and friend
You seem to be confusing Prime Kirk with Kelvan Kirk. In prime canon Kirk was inspired to go into Starfleet by his father, he didn't get into Starfleet because of his father's reputation. And its been canon for awhile that to get into Starfleet you needed a recommendation by a Starfleet captain. Everyone got into the academy because they got recommended by someone they knew.
I am not "trying to push all of Gene's fault onto his lawyer", he certainly had plenty of faults of his own and could be difficult to work with, however insisting that all the characters be perfect was not one of them despite what the popular myth says. One of the origins of that myth was the fact that he absolutely refused to let Savvik be the traitor in The Undiscovered Country, and that was more because it would send a bad message that would cater to the nasty "bad blood" stereotype due to her Romulan heritage.
And yes Una (as they call her now) was a transhuman because Roddenberry was a humanist and fascinated by the humanist vs transhumanist ideological conflict and she was the vehicle for exploring that in the series (if it was ever picked up, which it wasn't since it was retooled into TOS). He tried again with Genisis II but that series was not picked up either.
Again with the attempted diversion with simplistic definitions? Give it a rest, it never worked before and it doesn't work now. If you do not know what I am talking about with soft sci-fi vs space opera or drama vs melodrama you are on your own, I tried several times to explain the concepts to you. Try a textbook on the subject instead of online dictionaries if you want to get the full concept.
Actually the dialog about the shields and phasers in TMP hints at it being the reason for the switch to sublight combat, which is sketchy but still reasonably confirms what Roddenberry wrote about it in the novelization.
And no, canon in the sense of IP rights like you are using it is not the only thing that defines continuity, observation does that just as much as canon, especially when that particular canon is basically defined as what is seen and said onscreen. I know you believe otherwise and take a more standalone-movie-with-sequels stance on it, but is one of those things we will never see eye to eye on no matter what the other says.
A. I don't have all day to research purported Klingon cannibalism, the short search I did only turned up the line in Heart of Glory (though it turns out there was at least one more in the episode you talk about later).
B. That one is obscure enough to not even be quoted on Memory Alpha. One they do have for that episode however is this:
"Which of us had slain him? No one could say for certain, so we cut out his heart and all three of us feasted on it together!"
"Big heart."
- Kor and Jadzia Dax, poking holes in his story about his, Kang, and Koloth's battle against T'nag
which still sounds as much like a tall story sort of thing as it does an actual practice.
And no, it is not absolutely necessary to literally eat a heart, they have said on numerous occasions that dying bravely in battle is the main ticket to Sto-vo-kor (though Worf, being a Klingon idealist/purist may indeed believe that is necessary, but then again the foe doesn't necessarily have to be a sentient either as long as it is a worthy challenge, or at least that is the impression some of his dialog over the years gives).
Either way it does not make much difference, certainly not going so far down the rabbit hole as all this, and the space barbarian aspect of the Klingons does not exactly rule it out so I will concede this particular point.
True, I suppose Shatner does not see the irony of his statement considering he was one of the people the Klingons took prisoner on Organia.
No, prime Kirk was just as much of a grifter as the Kelvin Kirk, he was just a lot smarter and better at it so it was not so blindingly obvious. In TOS and the movies he doesn't often win by being better at straight out battle skills than his opponent, he wins by being considerably trickier.
The need for a reference was a writer mixing up Starfleet academy with West Point. Over the years it has been shown that everyone and their dog who makes it through the Starfleet entrance application process goes to Starfleet academy though a good portion apparently get kicked out according to various backgrounds and anecdotes told by VOY characters, or at least the basic program anyway. They apparently do have to be recommended by way of promotion recommendation to get back in for the command/department head schools there however.
Prime Kirk was more relaxed and level headed at times than Kelvin Kirk. Probably because of his father's influence. Also Prime Kirk rose through the ranks on his own merits, not his father's. So an argument can be made that Prime Kirk was less wild than Kelvin Kirk. They both share the same traits, but the more rebelious elements are more pronounced in Kelvin Kirk because he didn't have that tempering influence of his father.
As for the Klingons eating the heart of an enemy... there are examples of similar practices in various cultures that revolve around either warriors or hunters. Some actually believing that if you eat the heart, you gain their power sort of thing. I wouldn't exactly call it cannablism per se. Its more ritualistic. And we have seen Klingons perform rituals in the past in one form or another. The mentioned Ak'voh, the coming of age ritual with the pain sticks, ritual combat between individuals... the Klingons are deeply rooted in their culture and rituals. And don't forget that while their government united their species they are still rather feudal in nature, being centered around varous Great Houses. Some Houses may be more ritualistic than others.
Honestly one of the best examples of this feudal House system was in Discovery. Under Kol the Empire acted as one unified force during the war. But as soon as Kol was killed... there was no unifying voice. The Great Houses reverted back to their feudal nature and one enemy became somewhere around 24, each with their own distinct tactics. And that is why the Federation was struggling. Because against one unified enemy they had a better chance than they did against 24 smaller enemies competing with each other to gobble up as much territory as possible.
As I have had to keep REPEATEDLY pointing out...it's ONLY cannibalism if you eat part of a member of your OWN species, not any other - level of sapience means less than nothing in these cases. Even if Klingons DO eat the hearts of those they've killed, unless those hearts were Klingon, not a single member of the species is a cannibal.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
As I have had to keep REPEATEDLY pointing out...it's ONLY cannibalism if you eat part of a member of your OWN species, not any other - level of sapience means less than nothing in these cases. Even if Klingons DO eat the hearts of those they've killed, unless those hearts were Klingon, not a single member of the species is a cannibal.
Species are defined by the ability to reproduce and have fertile offspring. Thus, klingons and humans are the same species if their children can reproduce, which Miral Paris proves.
As I have had to keep REPEATEDLY pointing out...it's ONLY cannibalism if you eat part of a member of your OWN species, not any other - level of sapience means less than nothing in these cases. Even if Klingons DO eat the hearts of those they've killed, unless those hearts were Klingon, not a single member of the species is a cannibal.
Species are defined by the ability to reproduce and have fertile offspring. Thus, klingons and humans are the same species if their children can reproduce, which Miral Paris proves.
Turns out that if you look at definitions up close, "species" is just a term of convenience. Or are you going to maintain that Panthera tigris and Panthera leo are the same species, just because some ligers and tigons are in fact fertile? (And we won't even get into the mess that's to be found in genus Canis, where there are at least three interfertile species.)
Species are defined by the ability to reproduce and have fertile offspring. Thus, klingons and humans are the same species if their children can reproduce, which Miral Paris proves.
Uh... no. Humans and Klingons are not the same species. They are genetically compatable, but that doesn't mean humans should start calling themselves Klingons or Klingons should start calling themselves Humans. And I seriously doubt Vulcans can be considered the same species as humans because THEY HAVE COPPER BASED BLOOD RATHER THAN IRON.
Genetic Compatability is different from just outright declaring them to be the same species.
Species are defined by the ability to reproduce and have fertile offspring. Thus, klingons and humans are the same species if their children can reproduce, which Miral Paris proves.
Uh... no. Humans and Klingons are not the same species. They are genetically compatable, but that doesn't mean humans should start calling themselves Klingons or Klingons should start calling themselves Humans. And I seriously doubt Vulcans can be considered the same species as humans because THEY HAVE COPPER BASED BLOOD RATHER THAN IRON.
Genetic Compatability is different from just outright declaring them to be the same species.
Genetic compatability is precisely what defines a species. Again, if they reproduce and have fertile offspring thats where the species line has to be drawn. Anything else makes the word meaningless by virtue of being arbitrary. There is a hard line that one can draw, where things that have X trait are on one side, and things that don't are on the other.
That Star Trek makes ridiculously different genetics compatible isn't realistic, nor believable, but it is fiction not reality. Lets also not forget the Preservers are what seeded many of the worlds, and thus its not unreasonable to see that many races despite divergent evolution stayed same species because of it.
As I have had to keep REPEATEDLY pointing out...it's ONLY cannibalism if you eat part of a member of your OWN species, not any other - level of sapience means less than nothing in these cases. Even if Klingons DO eat the hearts of those they've killed, unless those hearts were Klingon, not a single member of the species is a cannibal.
Species are defined by the ability to reproduce and have fertile offspring. Thus, klingons and humans are the same species if their children can reproduce, which Miral Paris proves.
Turns out that if you look at definitions up close, "species" is just a term of convenience. Or are you going to maintain that Panthera tigris and Panthera leo are the same species, just because some ligers and tigons are in fact fertile? (And we won't even get into the mess that's to be found in genus Canis, where there are at least three interfertile species.)
Evolution did happen somehow. Things that had a common species parent eventually diverged, but its a bit presumptuous to think it can't also happen in reverse. But then are they really different species if it can happen in reverse?
At some point there is a difference between genetic anomalies and normalcy, no question, and its an interesting question/debate/etc to have. It isn't as if every human pairing results in fertile offspring either, due to genetics. Do we say someone who is naturally infertile for whatever reason is not human, or that their parents were different species? Where is that line between a breed of cats and two species of cats? A species is based on reproductive capability, but it also isn't sensible to throw every genetic outlier into a new category.
Like many things science, the definition of a species is hard orderly logic fit to a chaotic, disorderly reality. If we bend that definition to draw the lines we want to see, though, it becomes aribtrary and useless.
Star Trek uses Lego-Genetics. If a species with heavy ridges and a species with no ridges produce offspring it will have light ridges. Throw opposites together and you always get the middle ground.
However at no point in the franchise you will find anyone debating whether Klingons and Humans are the same species. What is indisputable is that all humanoid species (or at least most of them) share the same ancestor; they're still different species for all intends and purposes relevant for this debate.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Star Trek uses Lego-Genetics. If a species with heavy ridges and a species with no ridges produce offspring it will have light ridges. Throw opposites together and you always get the middle ground.
However at no point in the franchise you will find anyone debating whether Klingons and Humans are the same species. What is indisputable is that all humanoid species (or at least most of them) share the same ancestor; they're still different species for all intends and purposes relevant for this debate.
This. We still have distinct species, however due to a common ancestor, genetic compatibility comes into play.
Lions and Tigers are two distinct species with a common ancestor. They're both feline species. Looking at their DNA, yea you'd see some common elements, but you're not gonna look at Tiger DNA and say that's a Lion. Also that would be like saying my Domestic Short-hair Tabby is really an African Lion.
And on top of that, how can you justify species with completely different bloods, like Vulcans, being the "same species" as humans. Humans have iron based blood while Vulcans have copper based blood.
Star Trek uses Lego-Genetics. If a species with heavy ridges and a species with no ridges produce offspring it will have light ridges. Throw opposites together and you always get the middle ground.
However at no point in the franchise you will find anyone debating whether Klingons and Humans are the same species. What is indisputable is that all humanoid species (or at least most of them) share the same ancestor; they're still different species for all intends and purposes relevant for this debate.
This. We still have distinct species, however due to a common ancestor, genetic compatibility comes into play.
Lions and Tigers are two distinct species with a common ancestor. They're both feline species. Looking at their DNA, yea you'd see some common elements, but you're not gonna look at Tiger DNA and say that's a Lion. Also that would be like saying my Domestic Short-hair Tabby is really an African Lion.
And on top of that, how can you justify species with completely different bloods, like Vulcans, being the "same species" as humans. Humans have iron based blood while Vulcans have copper based blood.
DNA can't reasonably be used to delineate species. DNA differences are absolutely tiny among species in the same genus, which is why we get ligers and tigons. Even tigers to house cats is maybe only a 4% difference.
DNA is also entirely arbitrary as a measure. Humans don't have the exact same DNA, that's why we look different, have different physical and mental attributes and so on. So where is that line in a genome that marks one species from the next? If they are 50% different but can still produce viable offspring, how are they not a species? If they are 99.999% similar but can't produce viable offspring, aren't they a different species? This is why a real world effect is used to define, not some arbitrary line.
There is no realistic way a Vulcan and human can reproduce. Its absurd to consider it, certainly because of copper blood among other things, yet Star Trek allows it. And again I don't disagree that Star Trek does goofy things with what SHOULD be different species and their impossible reproduction, but then what defines a Star Trek "species?" If we aren't using the real definition, then what is the Star Trek definition, and how can it be justified?
A Star Trek species is probably defined by their homeworld and common culture. Vulcans and Romulans are closer related than say Klingons and Humans, yet they are still designated at two different "species".
Ultimately, it's just fantasy - you know it when you see it. A Dwarf and a Orc are clearly visible to be different races/species, it's the same with Klingons and Tellarites and Trill - you just know it when you see it that these are "one of a kind".
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
A Star Trek species is probably defined by their homeworld and common culture. Vulcans and Romulans are closer related than say Klingons and Humans, yet they are still designated at two different "species".
Ultimately, it's just fantasy - you know it when you see it. A Dwarf and a Orc are clearly visible to be different races/species, it's the same with Klingons and Tellarites and Trill - you just know it when you see it that these are "one of a kind".
I know you don't mean it this way, but classifying people purely on looks is not the sort of Star Trek that anyone should encourage.
I know you don't mean it this way, but classifying people purely on looks is not the sort of Star Trek that anyone should encourage.
They are fantasy people...
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
So wait. You're trying to tell me that deoxyribonucleic acid, an actually quantifiable and measurable substance with a defined purpose in cellular reproduction, is "arbitrary", while the works of Linnaeus, long out of favor in the real-world biology community, are definitive?
A Star Trek species is probably defined by their homeworld and common culture. Vulcans and Romulans are closer related than say Klingons and Humans, yet they are still designated at two different "species".
Ultimately, it's just fantasy - you know it when you see it. A Dwarf and a Orc are clearly visible to be different races/species, it's the same with Klingons and Tellarites and Trill - you just know it when you see it that these are "one of a kind".
Actually Romulans and Vulcans are the exact same species, Romulus is for all practical purposes an estranged independent colony of Vulcans who prefer not to called "Vulcans". The only difference between them is cultural and technological.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
> @phoenixc#0738 said: > Actually Romulans and Vulcans are the exact same species, Romulus is for all practical purposes an estranged independent colony of Vulcans who prefer not to called "Vulcans". The only difference between them is cultural and technological.
That's why I wrote 'homeworld and culture'...
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
2,000 years is more than enough time for evolution to cause differences. Maybe not major ones, but there WILL be differences.
No, it would only be forty generations or thereabouts since Vulcans live about twice as long as humans. How much have humans evolved physically since the eleventh century?
What could happen in that time though is a bit of natural selection, which could explain why there are more "V-ridged" Romulans but more smooth foreheaded Vulcans. Perhaps conditions on Romulus could be better for the survival of the V-ridged type than the smooth and on Vulcan for the smooth (though technology would have reduced the environmental impact on the colonists to some extent).
There has long been a fan theory that the ridges are part of an adaptation to a damper (and probably more iron based) environment, and something like that is certainly possible in light of some of the views of the Romulan "homeworld" show a lot of water (one of the cities looks to even be on an ocean coastline) even from space were Romulus is shown mostly green while Vulcan has a decidedly Mars-like look to it. In fact, Mintaka III supports that theory as well, their ridges seem a bit heavier than Vulcan or Romulan ones and their world has a blue Earthlike look from space.
So wait. You're trying to tell me that deoxyribonucleic acid, an actually quantifiable and measurable substance with a defined purpose in cellular reproduction, is "arbitrary", while the works of Linnaeus, long out of favor in the real-world biology community, are definitive?
You don't seem to understand the point. DNA varies from individual to individual. If you want to put a bound around a group to call it a species, where does that begin and end within that diversity range? Why does something fall outside that range while something else does not?
It is easy to point to existing species and say, "well look at all these differences!" They didn't start out different, though. They evolved divergently, supposedly gradually. Here we are looking at groups that can interbreed, thus their DNA is obviously compatible, yet trying to call them different species based on superficial differences. That doesn't make a lot of sense, as most species do have a lot of superficial differences among them.
2,000 years is more than enough time for evolution to cause differences. Maybe not major ones, but there WILL be differences.
No, it would only be forty generations or thereabouts since Vulcans live about twice as long as humans. How much have humans evolved physically since the eleventh century?
What could happen in that time though is a bit of natural selection, which could explain why there are more "V-ridged" Romulans but more smooth foreheaded Vulcans. Perhaps conditions on Romulus could be better for the survival of the V-ridged type than the smooth and on Vulcan for the smooth (though technology would have reduced the environmental impact on the colonists to some extent).
There has long been a fan theory that the ridges are part of an adaptation to a damper (and probably more iron based) environment, and something like that is certainly possible in light of some of the views of the Romulan "homeworld" show a lot of water (one of the cities looks to even be on an ocean coastline) even from space were Romulus is shown mostly green while Vulcan has a decidedly Mars-like look to it. In fact, Mintaka III supports that theory as well, their ridges seem a bit heavier than Vulcan or Romulan ones and their world has a blue Earthlike look from space.
Moving from one continent to another on the same planet is not even CLOSE to being comparable to moving to an entirely alien planet hundreds of lightyears away - there ARE evolutionary differences, period.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
2,000 years is more than enough time for evolution to cause differences. Maybe not major ones, but there WILL be differences.
No, it would only be forty generations or thereabouts since Vulcans live about twice as long as humans. How much have humans evolved physically since the eleventh century?
What could happen in that time though is a bit of natural selection, which could explain why there are more "V-ridged" Romulans but more smooth foreheaded Vulcans. Perhaps conditions on Romulus could be better for the survival of the V-ridged type than the smooth and on Vulcan for the smooth (though technology would have reduced the environmental impact on the colonists to some extent).
There has long been a fan theory that the ridges are part of an adaptation to a damper (and probably more iron based) environment, and something like that is certainly possible in light of some of the views of the Romulan "homeworld" show a lot of water (one of the cities looks to even be on an ocean coastline) even from space were Romulus is shown mostly green while Vulcan has a decidedly Mars-like look to it. In fact, Mintaka III supports that theory as well, their ridges seem a bit heavier than Vulcan or Romulan ones and their world has a blue Earthlike look from space.
Moving from one continent to another on the same planet is not even CLOSE to being comparable to moving to an entirely alien planet hundreds of lightyears away - there ARE evolutionary differences, period.
Moving from one planet to another in the Trek era is comparable to moving from one continent to another today. For an equivalent, you'd want to look at populations on differing continents before easy sea travel.
A fair example would be the humans who crossed Berenigia into North America, around 40,000 years ago or so. Kept separate from other human populations, they developed into a breed of humanity with certain visible differences, particularly as regards skin tone and facial structure - but still human, nonetheless. Romulans are Vulcans, and the forehead ridge is no more significant a differentiator than a Native American's skin or an Inuit's nose. If you want them to develop into a genetically-distinct subspecies, you're going to need a much longer period of separation than that. The evolutionary differences between H. neandertalis and H. sapiens required a separation of about 380,000 years, and that was with markedly shorter generations than Vulcans.
(Oh, and fox, those were separate species by taxonomy, with clear physiological differences, but plainly they were able to create viable, fertile offspring, as witnessed by the fact that about 3% of the modern human genome can be traced to neanderthal ancestors. Please forget Linnaeus and study a little modern evolutionary biology.)
It's actually a nice way to reconcile the "Starship Class"
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
It is easy to point to existing species and say, "well look at all these differences!" They didn't start out different, though. They evolved divergently, supposedly gradually. Here we are looking at groups that can interbreed, thus their DNA is obviously compatible, yet trying to call them different species based on superficial differences. That doesn't make a lot of sense, as most species do have a lot of superficial differences among them.
That still doesn't explain how a Vulcan, with Copper based GREEN BLOOD, can be considered "the same species" as Humans with Iron based RED BLOOD. Or the fact that its been pointed out many times that the location of organs in Vulcans is different from Humans, their Psionic capabilities compared to humans, sheer physical strength and enhanced senses, the longer natural lifespans...
And then we have Klingons with redundant organs...
And please don't tell me you think Humans and Ferengi might be the same species too because there's no way in hell that is true.
You want to know why most humanoid species are genetically compatible with each other? The Preservers seeding life across the galaxy. That is why there's so many humanoid species.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Comments
Of course, none of it was the Federation's fault, as I doubt they care nearly as much about Klingons shaving themselves during war or using their dead as armor as the whole slavery, POW brutality and planetary exploitation aspects of Klingon culture - it was just something the Klingons did on their own.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
No, Roddenberry did not insist that characters be "perfect" (though Maizlish might have told some of the writers that as part of his trolling games). What he insisted on was that they act in a professional manner, and that with the elimination of elitism and with the post-scarcity economy eliminating "haves" and "have nots" there would in general be less prejudice, bullying, sexism, racism, etc. than we have now (but not entirely eliminated either, note Styles and his hatred of Romulans and distrust of Vulcans).
TOS was subject to the same kind of nonsense from the network executives wanting fist fights on the bridge, soap opera style bickering and backstabbing, and other garbage that J. Michael Straczynski had to deal with thirty years later (in Straczynski's case he finally got fed up with Turner execs demands and walked away from the Babylon5 spinoffs). In TNG Paramount pushed for the same kind of nonsense, but when Roddenberry pushed back he was accused of wanting everyone to be perfect.
In fact, Roddenberry put a genetically enhanced transhuman who had to suppress her emotions and use an ethical calculus based on Kantian rules to overcome her faulty moral sense (Number One) and a captain described by an NBC executive as "too whiney and brooding" (Pike) in the first pilot until NBC insisted he "dump the broad, fix the captain, and get rid of the ears" (Spock) as they put it.
And in TOS he had a grifter of a captain who only got into the academy because of his father's reputation and friends and was part of a conspiracy to hunt down an atrocity committing ex-governor, a first officer with family and personal issues, an engineer who was brilliant but just short of a boozehound, and other unperfect people.
That said, it still has nothing to do with my original point about traditional Trek being soft sci-fi drama and DSC being space opera action and melodrama. Maybe you cannot tell the difference between the sci-fi subgenres or between drama and melodrama, but the difference is still there.
As for combat in warp, it has always been consistent. TOS and TAS showed that the combat doctrine was for engaging the enemy in warp when possible, which TMP shows changed in the 2270s due to improvements in shield technology that required the phasers (and presumably disruptors) to be connected to the warp core to get enough power to overcome them.
Later (in real world time) the Enterprise TV series established that UESPA started using FTL combat as soon as they worked out how to accomplish it a few years after the NX-01 was launched but technical limitations often required them to drop out of warp to continue a battle at sublight speeds.
You are the only one talking about "canon", I was talking about consistency and plausibility. While it is technically possible that they could use one kind of uniform and rank insignia scheme in 2254 then two years later be using a totally different aesthetic and insignia system, then nine years later in 2265 switch back to an evolved version of the one they had before DSC, it is not really plausible. Think about it, how often in the real world does a service go through a complete uniform change AND insignia change?
And that is ignoring the "no round engines" rule DSC designers were limited by along with the fact that the Sech was identified as the DSC version of the D7 in first season before Moonves was ousted and the production went into damage control, along with all sorts of other inconsistencies between DSC and the two shows closely bracketing it (and even ENT in certain matters like the already talked about FTL combat).
As for the Klingons, the cannibalism was one line of dialog which could just as easily have been a turn of phrase rather than a literal action: and even if it was meant as actual cannibalism at the time the DSC version is still the first time it was unambiguously presented as a real thing instead of a possible colloquialism.
The suicide tactics are irrelevant, throwing those BoP raiders into battle in droves showed it plainly enough, and Valkris's actions even more so. Same with the prisoners thing, traditional Trek shows Klingons taking prisoners as far back as TOS.
The only reference in DS9 to the Black Fleet is in one song, and there is nothing about bodies, only the spirits of the fallen warriors in an eternal war in the afterlife. For convenience, the translation of the lyrics from Memory Alpha:
The Ak'voh is the vigil that I mentioned in my previous comment, again it is to symbolically guard the body long enough to keep scavengers away until the spirit gets to Sto-vo-kor, and according to dialog in that same episode the body is considered a worthless empty shell afterwards.
And again, as I said before having differing practices between sects is actually a good thing that too many shows ignore.
I am not "trying to push all of Gene's fault onto his lawyer", he certainly had plenty of faults of his own and could be difficult to work with, however insisting that all the characters be perfect was not one of them despite what the popular myth says. One of the origins of that myth was the fact that he absolutely refused to let Savvik be the traitor in The Undiscovered Country, and that was more because it would send a bad message that would cater to the nasty "bad blood" stereotype due to her Romulan heritage.
And yes Una (as they call her now) was a transhuman because Roddenberry was a humanist and fascinated by the humanist vs transhumanist ideological conflict and she was the vehicle for exploring that in the series (if it was ever picked up, which it wasn't since it was retooled into TOS). He tried again with Genisis II but that series was not picked up either.
Again with the attempted diversion with simplistic definitions? Give it a rest, it never worked before and it doesn't work now. If you do not know what I am talking about with soft sci-fi vs space opera or drama vs melodrama you are on your own, I tried several times to explain the concepts to you. Try a textbook on the subject instead of online dictionaries if you want to get the full concept.
Actually the dialog about the shields and phasers in TMP hints at it being the reason for the switch to sublight combat, which is sketchy but still reasonably confirms what Roddenberry wrote about it in the novelization.
And no, canon in the sense of IP rights like you are using it is not the only thing that defines continuity, observation does that just as much as canon, especially when that particular canon is basically defined as what is seen and said onscreen. I know you believe otherwise and take a more standalone-movie-with-sequels stance on it, but is one of those things we will never see eye to eye on no matter what the other says.
A. I don't have all day to research purported Klingon cannibalism, the short search I did only turned up the line in Heart of Glory (though it turns out there was at least one more in the episode you talk about later).
B. That one is obscure enough to not even be quoted on Memory Alpha. One they do have for that episode however is this: which still sounds as much like a tall story sort of thing as it does an actual practice.
And no, it is not absolutely necessary to literally eat a heart, they have said on numerous occasions that dying bravely in battle is the main ticket to Sto-vo-kor (though Worf, being a Klingon idealist/purist may indeed believe that is necessary, but then again the foe doesn't necessarily have to be a sentient either as long as it is a worthy challenge, or at least that is the impression some of his dialog over the years gives).
Either way it does not make much difference, certainly not going so far down the rabbit hole as all this, and the space barbarian aspect of the Klingons does not exactly rule it out so I will concede this particular point.
True, I suppose Shatner does not see the irony of his statement considering he was one of the people the Klingons took prisoner on Organia.
No, prime Kirk was just as much of a grifter as the Kelvin Kirk, he was just a lot smarter and better at it so it was not so blindingly obvious. In TOS and the movies he doesn't often win by being better at straight out battle skills than his opponent, he wins by being considerably trickier.
The need for a reference was a writer mixing up Starfleet academy with West Point. Over the years it has been shown that everyone and their dog who makes it through the Starfleet entrance application process goes to Starfleet academy though a good portion apparently get kicked out according to various backgrounds and anecdotes told by VOY characters, or at least the basic program anyway. They apparently do have to be recommended by way of promotion recommendation to get back in for the command/department head schools there however.
As for the Klingons eating the heart of an enemy... there are examples of similar practices in various cultures that revolve around either warriors or hunters. Some actually believing that if you eat the heart, you gain their power sort of thing. I wouldn't exactly call it cannablism per se. Its more ritualistic. And we have seen Klingons perform rituals in the past in one form or another. The mentioned Ak'voh, the coming of age ritual with the pain sticks, ritual combat between individuals... the Klingons are deeply rooted in their culture and rituals. And don't forget that while their government united their species they are still rather feudal in nature, being centered around varous Great Houses. Some Houses may be more ritualistic than others.
Honestly one of the best examples of this feudal House system was in Discovery. Under Kol the Empire acted as one unified force during the war. But as soon as Kol was killed... there was no unifying voice. The Great Houses reverted back to their feudal nature and one enemy became somewhere around 24, each with their own distinct tactics. And that is why the Federation was struggling. Because against one unified enemy they had a better chance than they did against 24 smaller enemies competing with each other to gobble up as much territory as possible.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Species are defined by the ability to reproduce and have fertile offspring. Thus, klingons and humans are the same species if their children can reproduce, which Miral Paris proves.
Uh... no. Humans and Klingons are not the same species. They are genetically compatable, but that doesn't mean humans should start calling themselves Klingons or Klingons should start calling themselves Humans. And I seriously doubt Vulcans can be considered the same species as humans because THEY HAVE COPPER BASED BLOOD RATHER THAN IRON.
Genetic Compatability is different from just outright declaring them to be the same species.
Genetic compatability is precisely what defines a species. Again, if they reproduce and have fertile offspring thats where the species line has to be drawn. Anything else makes the word meaningless by virtue of being arbitrary. There is a hard line that one can draw, where things that have X trait are on one side, and things that don't are on the other.
That Star Trek makes ridiculously different genetics compatible isn't realistic, nor believable, but it is fiction not reality. Lets also not forget the Preservers are what seeded many of the worlds, and thus its not unreasonable to see that many races despite divergent evolution stayed same species because of it.
Evolution did happen somehow. Things that had a common species parent eventually diverged, but its a bit presumptuous to think it can't also happen in reverse. But then are they really different species if it can happen in reverse?
At some point there is a difference between genetic anomalies and normalcy, no question, and its an interesting question/debate/etc to have. It isn't as if every human pairing results in fertile offspring either, due to genetics. Do we say someone who is naturally infertile for whatever reason is not human, or that their parents were different species? Where is that line between a breed of cats and two species of cats? A species is based on reproductive capability, but it also isn't sensible to throw every genetic outlier into a new category.
Like many things science, the definition of a species is hard orderly logic fit to a chaotic, disorderly reality. If we bend that definition to draw the lines we want to see, though, it becomes aribtrary and useless.
However at no point in the franchise you will find anyone debating whether Klingons and Humans are the same species. What is indisputable is that all humanoid species (or at least most of them) share the same ancestor; they're still different species for all intends and purposes relevant for this debate.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
This. We still have distinct species, however due to a common ancestor, genetic compatibility comes into play.
Lions and Tigers are two distinct species with a common ancestor. They're both feline species. Looking at their DNA, yea you'd see some common elements, but you're not gonna look at Tiger DNA and say that's a Lion. Also that would be like saying my Domestic Short-hair Tabby is really an African Lion.
And on top of that, how can you justify species with completely different bloods, like Vulcans, being the "same species" as humans. Humans have iron based blood while Vulcans have copper based blood.
DNA can't reasonably be used to delineate species. DNA differences are absolutely tiny among species in the same genus, which is why we get ligers and tigons. Even tigers to house cats is maybe only a 4% difference.
DNA is also entirely arbitrary as a measure. Humans don't have the exact same DNA, that's why we look different, have different physical and mental attributes and so on. So where is that line in a genome that marks one species from the next? If they are 50% different but can still produce viable offspring, how are they not a species? If they are 99.999% similar but can't produce viable offspring, aren't they a different species? This is why a real world effect is used to define, not some arbitrary line.
There is no realistic way a Vulcan and human can reproduce. Its absurd to consider it, certainly because of copper blood among other things, yet Star Trek allows it. And again I don't disagree that Star Trek does goofy things with what SHOULD be different species and their impossible reproduction, but then what defines a Star Trek "species?" If we aren't using the real definition, then what is the Star Trek definition, and how can it be justified?
Ultimately, it's just fantasy - you know it when you see it. A Dwarf and a Orc are clearly visible to be different races/species, it's the same with Klingons and Tellarites and Trill - you just know it when you see it that these are "one of a kind".
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I know you don't mean it this way, but classifying people purely on looks is not the sort of Star Trek that anyone should encourage.
They are fantasy people...
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Actually Romulans and Vulcans are the exact same species, Romulus is for all practical purposes an estranged independent colony of Vulcans who prefer not to called "Vulcans". The only difference between them is cultural and technological.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
> Actually Romulans and Vulcans are the exact same species, Romulus is for all practical purposes an estranged independent colony of Vulcans who prefer not to called "Vulcans". The only difference between them is cultural and technological.
That's why I wrote 'homeworld and culture'...
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
No, it would only be forty generations or thereabouts since Vulcans live about twice as long as humans. How much have humans evolved physically since the eleventh century?
What could happen in that time though is a bit of natural selection, which could explain why there are more "V-ridged" Romulans but more smooth foreheaded Vulcans. Perhaps conditions on Romulus could be better for the survival of the V-ridged type than the smooth and on Vulcan for the smooth (though technology would have reduced the environmental impact on the colonists to some extent).
There has long been a fan theory that the ridges are part of an adaptation to a damper (and probably more iron based) environment, and something like that is certainly possible in light of some of the views of the Romulan "homeworld" show a lot of water (one of the cities looks to even be on an ocean coastline) even from space were Romulus is shown mostly green while Vulcan has a decidedly Mars-like look to it. In fact, Mintaka III supports that theory as well, their ridges seem a bit heavier than Vulcan or Romulan ones and their world has a blue Earthlike look from space.
You don't seem to understand the point. DNA varies from individual to individual. If you want to put a bound around a group to call it a species, where does that begin and end within that diversity range? Why does something fall outside that range while something else does not?
It is easy to point to existing species and say, "well look at all these differences!" They didn't start out different, though. They evolved divergently, supposedly gradually. Here we are looking at groups that can interbreed, thus their DNA is obviously compatible, yet trying to call them different species based on superficial differences. That doesn't make a lot of sense, as most species do have a lot of superficial differences among them.
Moving from one continent to another on the same planet is not even CLOSE to being comparable to moving to an entirely alien planet hundreds of lightyears away - there ARE evolutionary differences, period.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
A fair example would be the humans who crossed Berenigia into North America, around 40,000 years ago or so. Kept separate from other human populations, they developed into a breed of humanity with certain visible differences, particularly as regards skin tone and facial structure - but still human, nonetheless. Romulans are Vulcans, and the forehead ridge is no more significant a differentiator than a Native American's skin or an Inuit's nose. If you want them to develop into a genetically-distinct subspecies, you're going to need a much longer period of separation than that. The evolutionary differences between H. neandertalis and H. sapiens required a separation of about 380,000 years, and that was with markedly shorter generations than Vulcans.
(Oh, and fox, those were separate species by taxonomy, with clear physiological differences, but plainly they were able to create viable, fertile offspring, as witnessed by the fact that about 3% of the modern human genome can be traced to neanderthal ancestors. Please forget Linnaeus and study a little modern evolutionary biology.)
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
That still doesn't explain how a Vulcan, with Copper based GREEN BLOOD, can be considered "the same species" as Humans with Iron based RED BLOOD. Or the fact that its been pointed out many times that the location of organs in Vulcans is different from Humans, their Psionic capabilities compared to humans, sheer physical strength and enhanced senses, the longer natural lifespans...
And then we have Klingons with redundant organs...
And please don't tell me you think Humans and Ferengi might be the same species too because there's no way in hell that is true.
You want to know why most humanoid species are genetically compatible with each other?
The Preservers seeding life across the galaxy. That is why there's so many humanoid species.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"