Biology Q: Symbiosis? - Writers Forum

DaNorthernLight · 01-18-2006, 10:58 PM

Greetings!

I once pondered that being the title of the fiction I'm still working on in it's preliminary stages (Symbiosis). It has elements of Biopunk in it, but onto the long-winded question (I really don't know how to ask it):

Suppose, now just suppose, that there's a forced symbiosis between two organisms (one macro, and one micro). The macro organism being human, and the micro being a glandular like cousin of an alien species. This tiny, glandular structure takes root at the base of the cerebrum, and works around the whole of the mind as time passes in careful precision so as to not harm the host it depends on. However, this process will not work unless the host is near the zygote stage. The process desires to grow with the humanoid's mind from as close to conception as possible without compromising it's size. In effect, the organism will only attach itself onto a fetus as though it were a deposited egg.

The bearer of this symbiosis is given biological functions that are quite inhuman - most of them, of course, directly related to the agendas of this species of life. Can a symbiosis like this directly stretch the DNA of the bearer? Can the fetus have it's genetic material run into strains of the gestating creature (so the internal transformations can eventually take root)? I imagined that the fetus-stage would be necessary so that the genes can be rewired easily.

As complicated as this is, it's more plausible that this symbiosis was engineered, and brought to life through test-tube babies.

Kat · 01-19-2006, 02:43 AM

that sounds more like genetic enginering than a symbiotic relationship. LIke you inject alien DNA into a fertilized egg, it could be more like a virus.

Hodge · 01-19-2006, 02:55 AM

A symbiot wouldn't be able to alter your DNA unless it got into all the cells of your body... It could alter the DNA of one part of your body, but I think your immune system would start attacking the altered parts, and it would have to have the means to alter your DNA.

There are some parasites that get into your DNA in order to reproduce, I think (and you can pass it on to your children), but none that actually change what your body does. And certainly no symbiots do this.

DaNorthernLight · 01-19-2006, 01:18 PM

Thank you for your valued input.

Yes, you are indeed correct. This would be more like a parasite than a symbiote. It looks like I'm going to have to evaluate my idea around the plot. Abilities that the organism provides to the host are limited, and purely an act designed to enhance it's own survival. Physical abilities are granted, but more than that: a telepathic link to an agent, if you will. The human mind is given an ESP link to this inhuman celestrial intelligence. This agent wants the creature Sorren holds inside of himself, but there's a fun little paradox about needing the host.

Mike C · 01-19-2006, 05:23 PM

Try reading Hothouse by Brian W Aldiss, it won a hugo in 1961 and features a symbiotic fungus which attaches itself to the brain.

mammamaia · 01-19-2006, 05:35 PM

da... this is science-fiction... you are the writer... 'it' can be ANYthing your little heart desires!

woodcut.evolution · 01-20-2006, 12:08 PM

I agree with mammamia, do whatever you want. But just for disambiguation I should point out that symbosis is not always mutualistic, parasitism is a kind of symbosis. Sybiosis only means that two organism are living together in association.

Mike C · 01-24-2006, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woodcut.evolution

I agree with mammamia, do whatever you want. But just for disambiguation I should point out that symbosis is not always mutualistic, parasitism is a kind of symbosis. Sybiosis only means that two organism are living together in association.

Incorrect. A mutually beneficial relationship is symbiotic. A relationship that is to the advantage of one over the other is parasitic; hence, fleas are parasites not symbiotes. Agents are symbiotes, vanity press is parasitic.

The two words provide sufficient 'disambiguation'. You reambiguate by suggesting that both can mean the same.

woodcut.evolution · 01-24-2006, 01:52 PM

*sigh*
Why do people never believe what I say?

From the American Heritage Dictionary:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/72/S0957200.html

Quote:

1. Biology A close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.

Or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis

Quote:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The various forms of symbiosis include:
* parasitism, in which the association is disadvantageous or destructive to one of the organisms and beneficial to the other (+ −)
* mutualism, in which the association is advantageous to both (+ +)
* commensalism, in which one member of the association benefits while the other is not affected (+ 0)
* amensalism, in which the association is disadvantageous to one member while the other is not affected (− 0)