My question is what happens when someone steals Parsons genetic material in order to make the world's most powerful super baby?
My personal theory? Citizen Dawn gets Expatriette instead.
I vaguely remember someone bringing up the idea of Legacy being twins for the generation that had the American Civil War, because symbolism.
I had that idea, myself, as part of my vague incipient Sentinels RPG campaign idea. The basic idea was "several generations back, the Parsons legacy had twins. One of the twins inherited the Legacy power, the other inherited something else. They aren't Legacy, and don't become Legacy. . . but several descendents of that line, sparked by envy, have discovered that dangerous methods could awaken power within themselves."
Didn't Cristopher allude to a future splitting of the Legacy line recently?
Does that mean the magic genetics get it wrong about the whole "only the first-born" thing?
Could easily be twins.
Yes, twins seem like the most plausible story reason for this splitting. The allusion was during the recent AMA: "There is a notable split in the Parsons line in the distant-but-not-terribly-distant future... I am not talking about the split of the timelines with the SC:RPG and Tactics. I am talking of a split in the Legacy line."
But we all know that in Sentinels nothing happens simultaneously… so technically there is still only one first-born.
I can't recall exact posts, but my recollection of a conversation about all of this years ago on the message boards left the strong implication that eventual iterations of twins (or more) born from Legacy lines will give all of humanity low-level superpowers by the future of Galactic Strike Force, hence the term "metahumanity".
Meanwhile, in my group's own continuity, the "first born" rule got mucked about with by the current Legacy concieving a child whilst on an unstable parallel dimension - she got twisted "inverted" versions of Legacy powers (mostly predicated on destroying things, rather than strengthening herself), and Pauline still got Legacy powers as expected.
What if the first born was conjoined twins who were able to be surgically seperated?
This is kind of bold statemrnt to make if you ask me , I mean even if it 's it's your opinion does not mean other can't say something about it
Eh, Silverleaf is entitled to her opinion, just as anyone else is. I mean, I enjoy comics but I agree that sometimes things get too handwavey for my taste.
I feel like it's a slippery slope to "All superheroes are magic. Also, based on our current understanding of the universe, basically all sci-fi as well."
I'll make your slopes slippery
Foote, you already do. ;)
I didn't say they couldn't.
Other opinions are awesome. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them, or that I shouldn't express my opinion because someone might not agree wth me.
Pretty much all superheroes are either magic or science fiction though.
My one issue with calling everything we think isn't science as magic is: How much of science don't we understand? Do we know how gravity works? What about magentic fields? Or why neutrinos disappear when they're moving slower than a certain speed? Should we call all of that magic, too?
My problem is with things that are contrary to what we do know of science, because comics.
I mean the genre's full of stuff that writers try to explain with science that they give every impression of knowing nothing about (or not caring about enough to get right). I'd much rather no reason was given for the superpowers the X-Men have than entirely failing to understand what we know about how mutation actually works. Even "a wizard did it" would be better than that.
Of course it's completely understandable that a comic writer isn't going to get a degree in genetics just to make their writing more scientifically accurate, but it wouldn't take much to do a basic check that what you've written isn't complete nonsense, or failing that, just don't write about stuff you don't have a decent amount of knowledge of!
Non-comic example: Jurassic Park. I just can't enjoy that movie because there's a huge glaring error in the method they used to obtain the dinosaur DNA - the amber that the mosquitos were trapped in was formed millions of years before those dinosaurs lived, so there's no way that they could have fed on dinosaur blood. (Incidentally, all those dinosaurs were actually from the Cretaceous period rather than the Jurassic, but that's another problem.) A tiny bit of "is this even a sensible idea?" research would have nipped that one in the bud right away. If they hadn't have invoked science to explain how they did it, I would not have cared.
Good points. I suspect, however, that a great many books and comics would be more boring if they explained everything fantastical in them as magic instead of science on the edge of probability! (or despite the impossibility in some cases. 
)