THE PACK Message Boards

Is a werewolf geneticly simular to the werewolf that bit him/her in the first place?

I think the werewolf is geneticly simular to the one that bit him/her like a sibling. because of the virus that rewrites the DNA is made from the werewolf is self?

what do you think?

You mean like a clone? No..and I think its silly.



I didn't like that scene in Underworld where Michael Corvin gained Lucian's memories after being bit by him.

I think the DNA would be relevant to the person who was bitten, for example a blonde wolf bites me, I have dark brown hair so I would be a dark brown wolf.

I don't want their DNA

Haha.

similarities would only be at the species level. As in, you both got WW genes.

i think there will be differences along the line......even in hereditary births there would be differences........especially in the differences of humans that are bitten....there would be differences in the werewolf they become

White Paw wrote:i think there will be differences along the line......even in hereditary births there would be differences........especially in the differences of humans that are bitten....there would be differences in the werewolf they become

please rephrase... i'm confused...

Timber-WoIf wrote:similarities would only be at the species level. As in, you both got WW genes.

Exactly. Since the general consensus around here is that lycanthropy is essentially viral in nature, and viruses basically use host cells to complete and spread their own genetic coding, it makes good sense.

The "werewolf virus" infuses the host body with its own incomplete genetic structure, adding its own code to the host DNA rather than replacing it, thus why werewolves are not clones.

This would also be a good way to detect lycanthropy - a genetic profile on two anonymous blood-samples - one werewolf and one human - would easily identify the werewolf, due to the extraneous genes outside of the base 23 the profiling would detect, much like those for Down's Syndrome and other genetic abnormalities.

though but isn't dna's goals to reproduce itself and its genes ie that's a virus's only function so it may be really really close as in hight and claw length but certain aspects like fur would very, because the dominent human genes already have a hair color wich would over lap with the fur color, but we have no dna for claws.

Fenrir wrote:though but isn't dna's goals to reproduce itself and its genes ie that's a virus's only function so it may be really really close as in hight and claw length but certain aspects like fur would very, because the dominent human genes already have a hair color wich would over lap with the fur color, but we have no dna for claws.

No thats the job of individual cells. The DNA just tells it what the cell is supposed to look like.

neoritter wrote:

Fenrir wrote:though but isn't dna's goals to reproduce itself and its genes ie that's a virus's only function so it may be really really close as in hight and claw length but certain aspects like fur would very, because the dominent human genes already have a hair color wich would over lap with the fur color, but we have no dna for claws.

No thats the job of individual cells. The DNA just tells it what the cell is supposed to look like.

The DNA also controls what the cells do. and DNA is the genes. we have genotypes that influence our phenotypes (physical apperance) based on genetic traits. As in domintant traits, recessive traits, and co-dominant traits.

If the bite alters a person it should be related to the host from which it came. but be a unique mutation as the old DNA combines with the new DNA of the new host to produce a new Werewolf. So we end up with the basic features (werewolf type) combining with the unique features of the new host and maybe even mutations not found in either the original host or were present in the new host. like for no reason the new werewolf has spot patterns in the fur even though the original had stripes.

What is a phenotype? A trait that says what an organism looks like. What did I say DNA does.

I know this has been discussed before. (Once someone finds the thread, I suggest they be merged).


I think...BOTH.


My current Idea:

When someone is bitten, the form they take when they transform would share a blend of features originating from the heritage of werewolf (the "strain" of lycanthropy to use a viral comparrison) and features derived from the humans unique genetic makeup. ...like the child of two parents...


Let's say all the werewolves from the scottish pack have really tall pointy ears, and mostly silver hair.

If a Red Headed American, bitten by a scottish werewolf would likely inherit the tall ears, and silver tint, but likely still have reddish higlights mixed in there somewhere.


...another example...

Let's say most German Humans tend to become bigger werewolves on average and have alot of black hair, regardless of their hair color in human form. However, the japanise pack of werewolves are traditionally smaller and are light silver to almost white.

So...a german get's bitten by a japanise werewolf, and the result is, he is leaner than most german werewolves, but still looks big compared to the japanise pack that initiated him, and has a mostly light silver coat but with really stark black on his back, highlights of his face and on his hands and feet, unlike anyone else in the japanise pack. (with little bits of his natural human blonde around the fringes, mostly unnoticed).


That is what works the best for me.

I pictured the virus-like agent having a recombinant factor, a group of genes that carry an existing set of genes in from the biter and splice them with genes from the bitee, to create a new set that will get carried over to the next lucky bite victim. There's a sort of trackable heritage, if you can do detailed genetic testing. I could lull you to sleep with imaginary specifics about gene segments and recombinant factor delta, differentiating LV-W1 from LV-CL, but you can get the same effect by watching the entire fifth season of Star Trek: Voyager in order.

i guess that makes sense...

Timber-WoIf wrote:

White Paw wrote:i think there will be differences along the line......even in hereditary births there would be differences........especially in the differences of humans that are bitten....there would be differences in the werewolf they become

please rephrase... i'm confused...

no..

White Paw wrote:

Timber-WoIf wrote:

White Paw wrote:i think there will be differences along the line......even in hereditary births there would be differences........especially in the differences of humans that are bitten....there would be differences in the werewolf they become

please rephrase... i'm confused...

no..

nvm i figuted it out anyway

The only way they would be related is that the person bitten would inherit the same form of lycanthropy as whoever did the biting. The type of animal they change into would be the same, but most of their genetic traits as werewolves should be determined by their human genetic code, not the genetic code of the virus.

I think it's just like vuldari said, it seems most right.
Its normal that two different DNA's melt together, 12 chronosomes lycan from the biter with 12 chronosomes human from the victim make 24 werewolf.

Terastas wrote:The only way they would be related is that the person bitten would inherit the same form of lycanthropy as whoever did the biting. The type of animal they change into would be the same, but most of their genetic traits as werewolves should be determined by their human genetic code, not the genetic code of the virus.

This also fit's with my own ideas, exept that instead of applying different animals, I imagine that in isolated arias, especially noticable in regions seperated by oceans, you would begin to notice distinguishable sub-species of werewolves.

That is what I was trying to say before. A certain 'species' of lycanthrope might be more common in Australia than in Europe, and depending on which kind of werewolf bit you, you would inherit features common to that 'breed' while also retaining elements distincltly unique to your core human genetics.

Vuldari wrote:

Terastas wrote:The only way they would be related is that the person bitten would inherit the same form of lycanthropy as whoever did the biting. The type of animal they change into would be the same, but most of their genetic traits as werewolves should be determined by their human genetic code, not the genetic code of the virus.

This also fit's with my own ideas, exept that instead of applying different animals, I imagine that in isolated arias, especially noticable in regions seperated by oceans, you would begin to notice distinguishable sub-species of werewolves.

That is what I was trying to say before. A certain 'species' of lycanthrope might be more common in Australia than in Europe, and depending on which kind of werewolf bit you, you would inherit features common to that 'breed' while also retaining elements distincltly unique to your core human genetics.

This is the basis behind werewolves in my own universe as well. In just Europe alone I made up seven or eight breeds of werewolves. and many more world wide even with out even switching species. and many times that with other species.

Terastas wrote:The only way they would be related is that the person bitten would inherit the same form of lycanthropy as whoever did the biting. The type of animal they change into would be the same, but most of their genetic traits as werewolves should be determined by their human genetic code, not the genetic code of the virus.

Thats the way I have always thought of it. You may have some cells from the virus that originated from the werewolf that has bit you, but thats as close as you'll get to that other werewolf. Your dominate gene traits should stay with your werewolf form, the only think I can think of that may not stay with you is the eyes, if you notice all wolves eyes are yellow when adults, and the werewolf is gonna need wolf eyes in order to see in the dark and etc.

Although it is possible to contain a little bit of the trait from the biter, your hair may be just a little thick than it would have been if the biters hair was thin. They can possess only a few dominant traits if possible, but overall I believe that the bitten should contain almost all of hes dominant trait, any recessive traits can easily be replace by the dominat trait from the biter.

As for the claws I've been wondering, say you have a person(A) that has cut hes nails just recently, and you have another person(B) that hasnt cut hes nails in a few weeks. When they both turn into werewolves, would person(B) have longer claws than person(A)? Or will they just be the same size? Because someone here said something that claws is not written into our genetic code, so Im just curious if theres a default length for the claw.

Personally, I think that since your nails are no longer living tissue after they have grown out, they would just be discarded when claws grow in. Then grow back when the were shifts back to being human.

So, yeah, I think there is a default length. That might be something that runs in the virus, a dominant trait from the biter. (But, I dont imagine it would vary too much between weres, just 1 or 2 millimeters.)

Shadow Wulf wrote:Thats the way I have always thought of it. You may have some cells from the virus that originated from the werewolf that has bit you, but thats as close as you'll get to that other werewolf. Your dominate gene traits should stay with your werewolf form, the only think I can think of that may not stay with you is the eyes, if you notice all wolves eyes are yellow when adults, and the werewolf is gonna need wolf eyes in order to see in the dark and etc.

Although it is possible to contain a little bit of the trait from the biter, your hair may be just a little thick than it would have been if the biters hair was thin. They can possess only a few dominant traits if possible, but overall I believe that the bitten should contain almost all of hes dominant trait, any recessive traits can easily be replace by the dominat trait from the biter.

I personally don't care for the idea of inheriting traits from the person who bit you at all. ...merely the traits of the liniage of lycanthropy they passed to you. The human hair color, height, weight, skin-tone of the biter would not be passed along to the next person, but all of that would remain purely dependant on the traits of the person becoming host to the lycanthropy , only influenced by the common traits of the "breed" of werewolf they have become...not the human that was carrying it.

...IMHO...

Shadow Wulf wrote:As for the claws I've been wondering, say you have a person(A) that has cut hes nails just recently, and you have another person(B) that hasnt cut hes nails in a few weeks. When they both turn into werewolves, would person(B) have longer claws than person(A)? Or will they just be the same size? Because someone here said something that claws is not written into our genetic code, so Im just curious if theres a default length for the claw.

Personally, I don't think of the fingernails and the claws as being quite the same thing. The length and condition of the persons fingernails pre-shift would have no impact on the size and length the claws grow to. Likewise, when the fingernails grow back again, they would also likely grow to some pre-determined length...possibly somewhat long and in need of trimming.

Again, IMHO...

Vuldari wrote: I personally don't care for the idea of inheriting traits from the person who bit you at all. ...merely the traits of the liniage of lycanthropy they passed to you. The human hair color, height, weight, skin-tone of the biter would not be passed along to the next person, but all of that would remain purely dependend on the traits of the person becoming host to the lycanthropy , only influenced by the common traits of the "breed" of werewolf they have become...not the human that was carrying it.

...IMHO...

Well granted, it doesnt matter if it inherets some of the genes or not, it wont make one bit of a difference. But I do personaly believe that some of the dominant gene from the biter would be on some of the recessive genes of the bitten. But it dont matter to me really, it doesnt any kinds of impact.

Vuldari wrote:Personally, I don't think of the fingernails and the claws as being quite the same thing. The length and condition of the persons fingernails pre-shift would have no impact on the size and length the claws grow to. Likewise, when the fingernails grow back again, they would also likely grow to some pre-determined length...possibly somewhat long and in need of trimming.
Again, IMHO...

Well your probably right. but the claws has to start from somewhere, The nails have to be the foundation for the claws, other wise the nails would just fall off and the claws would take its place, and I dont like that idea, so the length of the nails has to make some kind of a difference.

And thats just my oppinion, Im not conflicting with yours Vuldari.

I agree with Vuldari's idea the most...it makes the most sense, when put that way.

I didn't really think about the werewolf species there. There is a discussion on this somewhere, I mentioned something like this on a thread, and some others did too, but this was ages ago.