• See Mew, a legendary pokemon from Pokemon universe, it is claimed to contains the DNA of all pokemon ever lived. Is it possible there can be a lifeform on Earth that can also claim similar achievement?

  • We have already created hybrids, so can we create the king of all hybrids, the ultimate chimera?

Conditions Given the science of a type II civilization.


closed as off-topic by user4239, bowlturner, Ghanima, James, 2012rcampion Apr 3 '15 at 2:32

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question does not appear to be about worldbuilding, within the scope defined in the help center." – user4239, bowlturner, Ghanima, James, 2012rcampion
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ I've mentioned it before in creature questions, but Dean Koontz's Phantoms novel contains a creature called the ancient enemy which has absorbed the dna and knowledge of its victims, presumably for thousands of years. Very well written piece, especially in terms of the mental state of the creature. $\endgroup$ – Henry Taylor Apr 2 '15 at 4:48

Biologically speaking (ie, pedantically using the scientific definition over the common English usage) a Chimera and a Hybrid are quite different things (potentially with interesting consequences).

A hybrid is basically a mix; a cross-breed. You are a hybrid of your parents for example. Usually no net gain in genes is made, so the child has the same number of genes, picked more or less at random from both parents with the remainder being discarded. Occasionally genes get added, very occasionally an extra chromosome will get inserted or all chromosomes will double up.

An additive hybrid might be interesting, eg, the child has the sum of it's parent's (and ancestor's genes) all mixed up. It could also exhibit the most incredible Hybrid Vigour.

Edit Building on @Henry Taylor's comments to User6760's answer. The developmental genetics of this Hybrid would need some extra super-monster oversight, possibly from it's own set of super-monster genes. Developmental Genetics comes into play most when we're still embryos, where genes are turned on and off in a strict order, to make sure (for example) that the inside of your spleen doesn't end up on the outside, or that you have the correct number of heart chambers.

A Chimera is even more fun. Chimeras have 2 distinct genomes making up different parts of their body. The simplest artificial example is a grafted tree, where roots with one genome (bred for disease resistance and vigour) are joined to the stem and leaves of another (bred for tasty tasty fruit). Frankenstein's monster (or a transplant recipient) might be considered an artificial Chimera.

It happens a lot in plants and animals naturally too, usually where 2 fertilised embryos have fused and gone on to grow as a single creature, with different tissues (or even whole organs) being composed of one or other genome.

On Earth now, we see two genomes often, several genomes occasionally. So, what about all the genomes? Well, with a bit of storytelling, why not.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ".. with a bit of storytelling, why not." Yes, absolute accuracy (should) always take a backseat to the needs of the story, +1000 $\endgroup$ – 2012rcampion Apr 2 '15 at 18:24

Well the strange thing is that we already have genes in common with about anything. Here are some examples:

  • chimps: 99% similarity
  • cats: 90%
  • fruit fly: 60%
  • chicken: 60%
  • mushrooms: 40%
  • rice: 25%
  • yeast: 18%

A quick google search lets you find even more results. So in a sense, we already are hybrids. Note that is not just us: any two species have genes in common.

There are two reasons for that: one is that we all share a common ancestor. The other is that horizontal gene transfer seems to be a thing.

  • $\begingroup$ As the obvious follow up I would point out that trying to contain all the genes of another species would be very bad thing, since it's pretty much impossible to get a functional organism that way. At most you could contain all the genes in parts of the genome that are 'ignored', not all of our genes are used to control our development, in fact were probably more junk gene's then useful genes. Still, what would be the point of having all of a creatures genes if they did nothing? $\endgroup$ – dsollen Apr 2 '15 at 16:04

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.