To answer questions about
The Last Town,
please sign up.
Meriska Mutiara
Logically and scientifically speaking, it's impossible for human (or any living creatures) to evolve that drastically in only 2000 years. But it's only a work of fiction, just enjoy it :)
Nichole (DirrtyH)
Going by the book, I think the answer is that David Pilcher discovered that our genome was degrading and he predicted that this would happen. How exactly and why is not explained. Something to do with all our pollution and industrialization wreaking havoc on our DNA, I guess.
Going by my own thoughts - I was wondering the same thing. Humans are pretty much the same now as we were 2,000 years ago so that seems like a huge evolutionary leap. I try not to get caught up on things like logic and plausibility in this series. :)
Going by my own thoughts - I was wondering the same thing. Humans are pretty much the same now as we were 2,000 years ago so that seems like a huge evolutionary leap. I try not to get caught up on things like logic and plausibility in this series. :)
John
Genetic engineering run amok is what the TV series based on the books explained. Science could certainly accelerate the natural process I would think.
Jeffrey Getzin
Yes, left on their own, there is no way humans would change that much that quickly. However, as Crouch was quick to point out, humans didn't leave themselves alone. With so many environmental factors at play vast mutations could be occurring. And while most mutations either have no effect or are deadly, some are beneficial and would be selected. Throw in a few climate or environmental changes, and the species could evolve quickly ... at the cost of a lot of others dying.
The evolving is a bit of a leap but not a huge leap. What's MORE of a leap is how Pilcher could have predicted it. While it is true that most of Evolution is (contrary to popular opinion) not random, it IS extremely complex, which would make it virtually impossible to predict a genetic outcome past a few generations with any degree of certainty at all.
But it's a work of science fiction, and Pilcher is described as one of the smartest people on the planet BEFORE the fall of humanity, so if anybody could have predicted it, it makes sense that Pilcher can. He was a genius, and this prediction was in his area of expertise.
The evolving is a bit of a leap but not a huge leap. What's MORE of a leap is how Pilcher could have predicted it. While it is true that most of Evolution is (contrary to popular opinion) not random, it IS extremely complex, which would make it virtually impossible to predict a genetic outcome past a few generations with any degree of certainty at all.
But it's a work of science fiction, and Pilcher is described as one of the smartest people on the planet BEFORE the fall of humanity, so if anybody could have predicted it, it makes sense that Pilcher can. He was a genius, and this prediction was in his area of expertise.
Martin Barrett
This was the only part of the story that really bothered me (well, along with the villain's descent into cliche) and I was forced to conclude that the author could either use a realistic evolutionary time period and stretch our credibility in relation to the machinery etc., or make that side of things more believable and hope the biology part slipped by without causing too much of an issue.
Tad Kilgore
This isn't hard science fiction. I think of it more as horror. If you want a real scientist writing fiction on this issue and this sort of change, read Darwin's Radio and/or Darwin's Children by Greg Bear. Search on punctuated equilibrium & you'll get an example of how this could work. The strength of this book and this writing is not the science. Its strength rests in the characters and the consideration of the situation.
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more