Talk:List of Marvel Comics mutates

Moved from Talk:Marvel comics mutates

What is a Mutate?

I've recently created an article called Marvel comics mutates, which should probably be renamed List of Marvel Comics Mutates. However, I wonder whether the definition of "mutate" should not be reexamined. Looking at the page, derived from the Category: Mutate page, I see quite a few characters that are cyborgs or technologically-enhanced humans. I also see many who were either transformed or merely empowered by magic or a magical object.

I wonder first whether a mutate must be genetically altered. Does merely having machinery or a magic crystal or amulet make one a mutate? Does it have to be bonded to the skin or such? Are implants like Songbird's enough? An amulet like Darkhawk's? Adamantium bonded to the bones like Deathstrike? Is Hammerhead a mutate? What about Juggernaut? Donald Pierce? Thunderstrike?

Also, should there be a category for alien or non-human mutates? We have alien mutants, like Warlock, Longshot, Cadre K, and the Brood Mutants. Would Beta Ray Bill be an alien Mutate? All the Galactus Heralds? The Inhumans?

If the character was born with the characteristics, isn't he/she a mutant, or hybrid, or member of a new breed? Atlanteans, or at least Namor's family, aren't mutates, are they? How about the members of ClanDestine (not counting the Djinn)? Eternals? Externals? was Bird-Brain a mutate, or a non-human mutate, or a new breed? What about the New Men? The Young Gods (comics)? Adam Warlock?

And what about mutants that were subsequently enhanced? Wolverine (comics)? Archangel (comics)? Can you be a mutant AND a mutate?

And don't you have to decide what a human is before you can define a mutate? For instance, what about Drax the Destroyer? Is a human spirit animating an artificial form a mutate? What about the High Evolutionary?

And how slight can the difference be? Is Captain America a mutate? If you are just peak-human rather than super-human, does it count? What if it was some sort of intensive training and esoteric techniques rather than a serum or device, ray or spell? Is the key that the change is mutagenic? Where then does magic come in? An amulet that makes you super-powered versus a spell versus a pair of bracelets versus a shard of crystal stuck in your skin versus an implanted device versus a foreign substance bonded to your bones versus boosted adrenaline?

I think this is more complicated than we thought. Rosencomet (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

:A human mutate is a previously normal human being whose genetic material has been artificially changed. According to Marvel Comics' own publications there are both "science based" (ex. Spider-Man) and "magic based" (ex. Juggernaut) mutates. Alien mutants are just that: aliens who are also mutants (relative to their own species). Any being born with DNA not found in its parents is a mutant, no matter the base species. Yes, Beta Ray Bill and the Heralds are mutates. The Inhumans are mutates who are also a divergent sub-species of humanity. Yes, mutants can be further mutated artificially (Archangel, Beast). As you say, Drax is an artificial being and thus not a mutate. High Evolutionary artificially mutated himself, therefore: MUTATE. Yes, Cap is a mutate. The magnitude of the difference is irrelevant. He was genetically one way, then exposed to the Super-Soldier serum, now genetically different. Training and technique do not affect DNA, thus not mutate. Yes, the key is that it is mutagenic (ie: causing changes at the genetic/DNA level). Things stuck into/onto you do not a mutate make. Thus, cyborgs are not mutates. In the case of Deathstrike, I think her DNA has been changed to give her a healing factor. That would make her a cyborg AND a mutate. Khajidha (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What you say contradicts the definition I used from the article Mutate (comics), which describes mutates as SUPERHUMANS. I'm not saying you are wrong, but it should be changed to "superbeings" if you are right. Should alien mutates be listed with the rest, or should they have a separate section? In any case, I guess I will have to review many of my edits here.

I'm not sure how to judge the state of a superbeing that got that way because a magical item was embedded in their skin, especially if they revert back when it is removed, such as Moonstone. I would say this is not a genetic change. But what about vampires and werewolves? In the Marvel Universe, scientists can recognize these states by observing their blood. But is Manwolf a mutate? Is there a distinction between "magically mutated" and "enchanted"? You assume Juggernaut is a "magic-based mutate", but I don't recall ever reading that his DNA has been examined. What if it remains the same, in spite of his magically-induced shape and power changes?

As far as Beast is concerned, he was mutated further via his own experimentation. However, Emma Frost was mutated further by what is apparently a natural process in human mutation, the secondary mutation. So she is not a mutate, but Beast is a mutate who ALSO underwent a secondary mutation, like Archangel (transformed by Apocalypse AND received a healing power via secondary mutation).

But in a case where a so-called genetic change can be reversed, is the individual still a mutate? Are there temporary mutates? This seems to happen with magical transformations all the time, as well as those caused by technologies so far beyond ours that they might as well be magic.Rosencomet (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Mutates are usually defined as superhumans simply because non-humans are so rarely given much attention. The definition is not exactly wrong, but is severely incomplete. If the change is genetic and does not disappear when the power object is removed, the individual is a mutate. Juggernaut maintained some degree of superhuman ability even after being separated from the crystal of Cyttorak. Thus he is a mutate. He has even been listed as such (a "magic-based mutate" in various sources, I'll see if I can find a specific ref). Your comments on Beast and Emma are spot on. On the question of temporary mutates, the answer is yes. Consider Polaris. She developed emotion based strength when her magnetic powers were stolen and later lost them. Also she was temporarily given other powers as a Horseman of Apocalypse. Khajidha (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man 2211

We don't know the source of his powers, so how do we know he's a mutate? Rosencomet (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man: India

Granted powers by an ancient yogi? Is he a mutate? Rosencomet (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sundragon

Moondragon awakened her latent psionic powers which all humans have. In what way is she a mutate? Rosencomet (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the www.marvunapp.com website, Sundragon's powers were further awakened by manipulation by the cosmic being Cloud. The website calls this mutagenic, but I'm not sure if that is considered fully canon or not. That website seems to have at least a semi-official status with Marvel. Some suggestions made by the editors of the site have been incorporated into official publications and some of their editors have worked on official publications. Khajidha (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm. "Further awakened". That might still make her a genetically baseline human, though more able to use her natural abilities than virtually anyone else of her race. Or maybe not; I suppose this awakening could have triggered a mutagenic change. She and Moondragon continue to defy easy categorization. Rosencomet (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

PS I really like the revamp of this page that you have instituted.Khajidha (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Rosencomet (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Superia

Origin of powers unknown; could just be from her costume. Not a mutate? Rosencomet (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Will delete until someone comes up with a reason to assert that she is a mutate. Rosencomet (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrecking Crew members

Changed by magic, but is the change mutagenic? Are they Mutates?Rosencomet (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe Deluxe Edition Volume 15 (March 1987) "[t]he enchantment [that gave the Wrecker his powers] augmented his entire body strengthening his bone, muscle, and flesh." That certainly sounds like a mutagenic change to me.Khajidha (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as these powers and changes don't seem to be coming from a power object that must continue to be present for them to exist, I guess we can call the spell that made them what they are a mutagenic one. Hence, they are mutates.Rosencomet (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Khajidha (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Tuck (comics)

Tuck is an "artificial human" created on another planet. I don't know what this means. A clone? An android? Isn't the original Human Torch an artificial human? I don't see if Tuck can be a mutate, unless further enhanced. Rosencomet (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it (from her entry at www.marvunapp.com), Tuck is a genetically engineered being. She WAS further enhanced by the Sapphire Lotus. The Appendix website calls this mutagenic, but I haven't read the issues and am not sure if that note is canon or not. Khajidha (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, a list of artificial life forms might be in order, including the original Human Torch, possibly the Vision, the Supreme Intelligence, Tuck, Him/Adam Warlock, Kismet, Quasimodo, Awesome Andy, Dragon Man, and others. Sections on robots, androids, Life Model Decoys, and clones could accompany it. Rosencomet (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

GHHHGK! Brain shutting down at thought of all the work needed for that. But it is a good idea. Khajidha (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wild Child (comics)

It is unclear if anything mutagenic has been done to Wild Child by the organizations that messed with him. Therefore, while he is a mutant, he does not seem to be a mutate. Rosencomet (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the All-New Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe A-Z #12 of 12 (2006), the "Canadian government...stabilized his mutation", since that would be a genetic change he is a mutate as well as a mutant. Khajidha (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe. A little thin.Rosencomet (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It also caused variations in his physical appearance (phenotype) which may be assumed to be related to a change in his genetic structure (genotype); but, yeah, it's not exactly a direct statement. Khajidha (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's always hard to tell how much of that is just the next artist's interpretation, especially with animal/human characters. Say, wouldn't Wolverine belong there in that case, since he would look totally different if there wasn't adamantium in his body, as we saw when it was removed? Or is that a phenotypical difference due to a suppression of his body's ability to EXPRESS his genetic characteristics, rather than an actual mutagenic change cause by an agent capable of genetic alterations? And wouldn't that fit the phrase "stabilized his mutation"? Definitely some grey areas here.Rosencomet (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The phenotypic change was specifically referenced in the Handbook, thus not just artistic license. Your comment about Wolverine is right on the money. It is similar to ancient Chinese footbinding, a physically forced change in his appearance not a genetic change of any source. I wouldn't call it a stabilization of his mutation though. Lots and lots of grey. Khajidha (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Venom & Carnage

Are they mutates? Rosencomet (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no. They are symbiotic joinings of aliens and humans. I don't think any of the former hosts of these lifeforms has shown any changes after being separated from the symbiotes, which would suggest that their DNA has not been changed. Khajidha (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Eddie Brock suffered greatly from his separation, but it's hard to say how much of that was psychological. His cancer was cured; is a cure for cancer a mutagenic change? How does that differ from the Canadian Gov "stabilizing" Wild Child's mutation? Both just seem to be a correction of a medical problem.

One could say that Eddie Brock was a human who was turned into a mutate by the introduction of a symbiote, which certainly caused profound physical alterations while they were bonded.

Is one not a mutate if it is reversible?Rosencomet (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right on the psychological bit. He may have even been physically or psychologically addicted to the suit, but I don't think he was mutated by it. The cancer thing may just mean that the symbiote boosted his immune system while bonded or may have even consumed the damaged cells itself. A change that reverses itself is not truly mutagenic. However, a mutagenic change may be undone (ironically, that would ALSO be a mutagenic change). Khajidha (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)