|
Notices |
General Character Discussions Discussions about the characters in *general*, or groups of characters, belong here. Please place discussions about *single* specific characters in their appropriate category. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
12-20-2006, 08:52 AM | #1 |
Co-Administrator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 2,276
|
Genetics of Imaginary Friends
We have heard it mentioned on the show that in the "Foster's Universe", Imaginary Friends are, for the most part, biological beings just like us. We have heard mention of them having DNA("Eddie Monster")and seen strong evidence of some, at least, being capable of sexual reproduction("Land of the Flea"). We have also heard mention of a genetic relationship between at least some Imaginary Friends and their creators("Crime After Crime"). That brings up the question: since most IF's are brought to life via the powers of a child's imagination, rather than being conceived and birthed as most sentient beings are, where does their DNA and genetic code come from, if it's not inherited from a set of parents?
Here's my theory, for what it's worth: anyone remember the movie, Starman, which starred Jeff Bridges as an alien being stranded on Earth? In that movie, this being, in its natural form, actually had no form as all, but was simply an entity of pure energy. It had no body, no voice, just a conciousness. Upon finding itself on Earth, where the dominant lifeforms(us)DO have visable bodies, it created a body for itself using the DNA of a woman's recently-deceased husband, DNA that came from a strand of his hair still in his hairbrush that she had not thrown away. Now, assume that some children can generate concious thoughts so powerful that these are able to use the DNA of living things around them, including that of their creators, to form a physical, biological body for themselves, and you have the Imaginary Friends of the Foster's Universe. Does that make any sense at all? Some could possibly be almost entirely human, in terms of their genotype, yet look quite different from us, because the child's imagination shaped their physical appearance, or phenotype, that way. I would guess that Wilt probably fits well into that category, and that his DNA might very well be indistinguishable from ours...well, maybe with a bit of gecko thrown in! Others, like Mr. Herriman, could have gotten enough DNA from some other species that they have the distinctive appearance of that species, in his case, a rabbit, which could have been a favorite pet of young Madame Foster. pitbulllady |