Star Trek: The Next Generation


1 star

Air date: 3/21/1994
Written by Brannon Braga
Directed by Gates McFadden

Review by Jamahl Epsicokhan








Previous episode: Eye of the Beholder
Next episode: Journey's End

◄ Season Index

122 comments on this review

Ian Whitcombe
Tue, Dec 4, 2012, 10:20pm (UTC -5)
Tue, Dec 4, 2012, 11:21pm (UTC -5)



Wed, Dec 5, 2012, 12:03am (UTC -5)
Wed, Dec 5, 2012, 12:57am (UTC -5)
Latex Zebra
Wed, Dec 5, 2012, 3:43am (UTC -5)
Dimitris Kiminas
Wed, Dec 5, 2012, 5:33am (UTC -5)

Wed, Dec 5, 2012, 8:40am (UTC -5)


As for season 7 versus season 1 ...



Wed, Dec 5, 2012, 1:27pm (UTC -5)
Wed, Dec 5, 2012, 3:45pm (UTC -5)
Wed, Dec 5, 2012, 4:21pm (UTC -5)
Wed, Dec 5, 2012, 5:29pm (UTC -5)
Wed, Dec 5, 2012, 6:07pm (UTC -5)
Fri, Dec 7, 2012, 3:43pm (UTC -5)

Fri, Dec 7, 2012, 4:11pm (UTC -5)
Fri, Dec 7, 2012, 8:12pm (UTC -5)
Sat, Dec 8, 2012, 9:14pm (UTC -5)
John the younger
Wed, Dec 12, 2012, 9:44am (UTC -5)

So I'd give this 1-star instead of zero.
Thu, Dec 13, 2012, 4:50am (UTC -5)
Sun, Dec 16, 2012, 2:23am (UTC -5)

If all that can happen, well we are all doomed.
Latex Zebra
Mon, Dec 31, 2012, 9:30am (UTC -5)
Will we get the last TNG reviews before midnight tonight?

Can Jammer do it?

Tue, Jan 1, 2013, 1:44pm (UTC -5)

Best line of the review. That is all.
Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 12:35am (UTC -5)
Sat, Jan 26, 2013, 10:35pm (UTC -5)
@ Ken...

Thu, Mar 7, 2013, 7:38am (UTC -5)
Any chance we'll ever get those last six episodes?
Fri, Mar 8, 2013, 1:50pm (UTC -5)
Fri, Mar 8, 2013, 3:11pm (UTC -5)
Sun, Mar 10, 2013, 5:25am (UTC -5)
So, you'll take care of thing??
Wed, Mar 13, 2013, 10:31pm (UTC -5)
"Genesis" allowed is not -- is episode forbidden!
Fri, May 17, 2013, 3:59am (UTC -5)
"Riker turns suddenly stupid"


Sorry, cheap shot.


At least the finale was good :)
Sat, Aug 3, 2013, 2:37pm (UTC -5)
Thu, Aug 22, 2013, 11:45am (UTC -5)

Wed, Oct 16, 2013, 8:02am (UTC -5)
Where was Alexander during all this?

William B
Tue, Oct 29, 2013, 1:23am (UTC -5)








William B
Tue, Oct 29, 2013, 10:17pm (UTC -5)
Sun, Nov 24, 2013, 6:29am (UTC -5)
Mon, Dec 2, 2013, 7:10pm (UTC -5)
Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 6:09pm (UTC -5)
Wed, Feb 5, 2014, 10:40am (UTC -5)
William B
Wed, Feb 5, 2014, 12:17pm (UTC -5)
Sun, Feb 9, 2014, 4:33pm (UTC -5)

Fri, Feb 28, 2014, 8:14am (UTC -5)

Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 9:54pm (UTC -5)

THAT's how bad this episode is...
Wed, Apr 2, 2014, 1:04pm (UTC -5)

Sun, Apr 13, 2014, 2:48am (UTC -5)

Thu, Apr 17, 2014, 9:48am (UTC -5)
am i the only one that liked this episode?
Tue, Jun 3, 2014, 9:33am (UTC -5)
Sun, Jul 6, 2014, 11:57pm (UTC -5)

Mon, Jul 14, 2014, 7:25am (UTC -5)
Tue, Jul 15, 2014, 8:10pm (UTC -5)
Thu, Sep 4, 2014, 8:24pm (UTC -5)







Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 9:19pm (UTC -5)
Wed, Feb 25, 2015, 1:38pm (UTC -5)

Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:14am (UTC -5)
Dave in NC
Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:42am (UTC -5)



*** 3 stars
Mon, Jul 20, 2015, 12:43pm (UTC -5)




Wed, Aug 26, 2015, 5:23pm (UTC -5)
Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 5:07pm (UTC -5)
Tue, Sep 29, 2015, 8:33pm (UTC -5)
Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 11:05am (UTC -5)


Sat, Oct 24, 2015, 8:52pm (UTC -5)
Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 11:33pm (UTC -5)
So "Genesis"....







Fri, Oct 30, 2015, 10:12am (UTC -5)
Diamond Dave
Sat, Nov 7, 2015, 5:22am (UTC -5)

Sat, Nov 21, 2015, 7:21pm (UTC -5)
Wed, Mar 2, 2016, 9:19pm (UTC -5)
Greg Q
Wed, Apr 6, 2016, 1:52am (UTC -5)
Greg Q
Thu, Apr 7, 2016, 12:41am (UTC -5)
"Star Trek is fundamentally a show about science,"
Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 9:53pm (UTC -5)





Fri, May 6, 2016, 11:51am (UTC -5)
Thu, Jun 23, 2016, 1:28am (UTC -5)
Thu, Jun 23, 2016, 1:45pm (UTC -5)
Fri, Jul 1, 2016, 1:06am (UTC -5)


Fri, Jul 1, 2016, 1:13am (UTC -5)
Fri, Jul 1, 2016, 2:50pm (UTC -5)




Paul Allen
Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 12:52pm (UTC -5)
Far better than the previous 2 episodes at least...
Daniel Blumentritt
Sat, Jun 10, 2017, 2:03am (UTC -5)

You know what's so rare about TNG? They knew exactly when to end it. Seasons 1 and 2 mostly blew. Seasons 3-6 were mostly great. Season 7 was uneven. Had enough good episodes to be better than 1 and 2 but it was still undeniably weak overall. They were out of ideas and needed to move on to something else. But despite the low points, ending in season 6 would have been too soon because they still had a few bullets left in the gun. How many good shows can say they ended at just the right time? Most get cancelled too soon or else refuse to call it quits when their time has gone.
Sat, Jun 17, 2017, 1:58am (UTC -5)
Yet another episode where Data almost single-handedly saves the day. If this was a season one episode he probably would have "de-evolved" into a toaster or a commodore 64 or something. ;P

Star Trek is science fiction in that any "science" they portray is almost always fiction.
Sat, Jun 17, 2017, 8:31am (UTC -5)
One of the most monumentally idiotic moments in Trek history (thus far). This time I have no problems with your 1 star rating. I wonder if Gates McFadden volunteered to direct this, or if they bribed her because nobody ekse would touch it?
Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 12:48am (UTC -5)
As with 'Masks', I am of the minority in that I enjoyed this as well.

Many of the comments point to this episode as an example of 'bad writing', but I think bad writing is when a piece fails to convey what it meant to convey to the audience. For the episode for the most part did what it set out to do using a familiar structure: a 'disease' sweeps through the ship, altering the behavior of the crew (not unlike 'The Naked Now' or even episodes with mind-altering incidents not biologically based, like 'Night Terrors') and the last of the unaffected or not-as-affected members (usually including Data) have to problem-solve to save the ship and undo the 'infection'. I enjoyed the spooky prehistoric jungle-like shift in environment when Picard and Data return and the definite monster-movie vibes (the jump-scare with Spider-Barclay and the chase between Picard and the Worfasaurus).

Again, this isn't 'makes-you-think' Trek; this is 'bizaare-otherworldly-adventure' Trek. Still, I can understand how this can repulse people. The problem with the horror/suspense genre this episode emulates is that a successful piece is based so strongly on invoking those emotions in the audience and is often at odds with other aspects of storytelling that we find compelling, like plausibility or character development. Either the monsters fascinate and frighten you, or they're weird and silly; there really isn't much room in between.

Also, I wouldn't consider Picard 'cowardly' as some previous comments have; if he were a coward, he wouldn't have volunteered to distract Worfasaurus while Data comes up with the antedote. He is certainly more frightened by what is going on, but he still comes through when it's needed.
Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 1:18am (UTC -5)
3 stars. I remrmber back in 1994 thinking to myself finally a decent entertaining episode after such an underwhelming stretch of episodes. I could usually count on Brannon Braga to come through with something fun even when nobody else was

Liked the idea of re activating latent entrons causing the transformations

Liked the idea that Ogawa amniotic fluid could create antidote

Brannon would usually do something unsettling in his episodes. In Schosms having Riker's arm surgically amputated then reattached and here having Beverly being disfigured by Worf's acidic spray

I also quite enjoyed Picard and Datas investigation and research. As well as the fact that Barclay was the only person Spot liked. That made sense

I liked the mention that the Enterprise were testing recent tactical upgrades and conducting test in an asteroid field.

The Enterprise spinning around dead in space was neat as was the shuttle matching movement in order to board the ship. Brannon on TNG continued to impress
Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 4:00pm (UTC -5)
I'm definitely in Team 2.5 stars for this one. It's one of the few episodes I can vividly remember watching it when it was aired on TV. And I knew the Barclay/spider moment was coming, but it got to me again. Spot turning into a lizard is just great fun. On rewatching it did seem a bit silly to fly three days in a shuttle to retrieve a torpedo. Anyways: loved it again.

Also: can people stop writing ridiculously long comments? Thank you. (I know this year's too late to ask, but still. I will turn off the lights now.)
Peter G.
Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 8:58pm (UTC -5)
@ Jasper,

Fri, Sep 1, 2017, 9:29pm (UTC -5)
This episode always makes me think about the concept for the Star Trek Phase II episode Savage Syndrome.
Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 5:56pm (UTC -5)
Re-watched yesterday, and while I knew it was bad, it still had fun parts. Barclay and Troi's transformations were weirdly interesting, I wish I could have seen more of the Enterprise as an atmospherically dark biological preserve with odd creatures huddled into corners of shuttlebays and laboratories, and a lot of the setup really was funny.

Scientifically absurd? Oh yeah, definitely. But so are rubber forehead aliens that can feel Westernized notions of romantic love and morality, then crossbreed. The premise of the show is scientifically absurd. We accept it because it is dramatically useful as metaphor. In this episode in particular, I would wish for a better technobabble explanation, which should not have been that difficult, but either you can get into the sequence of events or you can't, and I could.

The two worst scenes are the first and last. The first, in sick bay, is obnoxious, cutesy, Starship Pleasantville slice-of-life that established very little that would become plot and left no tension to be resolved, which that opening scene before the title really should do. For some reason, this annoyed me more than anything else. And the last scene, with that acknowledged too-pat wrap up... I can't help but to think that if the first part of the show had been accelerated, we could have had time for something, anything, to give the episode a hint of harrowing shock that such chaos would have created. I love that TNG is so cerebral, but it shouldn't ignore trauma, just acknowledge and overcome it.

I'd give it 1.5, maybe 2, could have been 2.5 with a few minor changes.
Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 6:03pm (UTC -5)
Data detected 1011 individual lifeforms on the ship. Considering at least twelve of those are the aforementioned male felines, 1 is spot and 5 are the kittens...
I figure the Worfmonster must have eaten close to 2 dozen people in 3 days. I can't imagine how hungry a metamorphosis like that would make a person.
I think a better episode would have had Data manage the zoo while he flies the ship to a starbase.
Thu, Nov 2, 2017, 5:58pm (UTC -5)
I've loved crappy sci-fi space stories since the late '50's on Saturday afternoons tv "Movies for an Afternoon". I even adore "Plan 9 From Outer Space" by Ed Woods. This episode is tantamount to Voyager's version, which Braga was probably responsible for resurrecting. He must love amphibians as in this the crew "de-evolved" & on Voyager's turn they (Paris & Janeway) evolved. Remember '70's song "Muskrat Love"? Now it's giant salamander froggy love & "Me! Caveman! Bop you on head & drag you away!" I sometimes wonder if it's, along with Riker's flip off in the office when he's pursuing sushi, that this is Braga's f.u. to everyone in that he's believing he's "The Q" of Star Trek Universe. Feeling a bit omnipotent in that "I can do what I want & they'll love it because I wrote it." Even with my love of crappy sci-fi, this is too contrived. At least Woods was a bit of a nutter & his passion for making the best (in his mind) he could is now appreciated by we who love the worst of it. Will our minds change in another 25 years on this ST TNG episode for the true believers? Meh, not.
Wed, Nov 8, 2017, 5:09am (UTC -5)
To be honest I found Dark Page much harder to get through than this and masks. The concepts are slightly absured and some of the DNA science is questionable, but I suppose as Jammer says what comes under your view as Sci-Fi. (That's not me saying they're great episodes just ones I can watch with a few laughs, I particularly enjoyed Deanna's line at the end of the episode which certainly is a change)

A few side

Overall I felt genisis was well directed by McFadden the spoder scene even made me jump.

I'm suprised from my brief scroll through (sorry if anyone has) that no one has mentioned the follow up from lower decks with Alyssa it was a small moment but I enjoyed it and its unusual seeing how episodic TNG normally is.
I think the first act is so funny that i like it for it's comedic effect. It is TNG's Spock's Brain.

Dark Page and Sub Rosa are still worse because they are just too soap opera.
Sun, Jan 14, 2018, 5:22pm (UTC -5)
I'm watching this now and noticed that Data states that Riker's cranial plating has increased in size and his brain is much smaller. I guess the virus reset button restored all that brain matter and its original state. :)

Also sucks to be that redshirt at the Conn who had his spine broken in multiple places though, no viral enzyme intron resequencing to correct that I guess.
Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 2:44pm (UTC -5)
I agree with Lisa that some of you take this stuff way too seriously. The characters have developed enough by this point to make this episode absolutely hilarious.

Riker losing his train of thought, Worf becoming super aggressive and agitated during lunch, Barclay turning into a spider (makes sense given his neurologic and jittery nature), and Picard experiencing an ultra sense of awareness and fear had me laughing the whole time.

Not everything has to be Earth shattering and totally plausible to be entertaining. Jmo. 3 stars.
Mon, Apr 9, 2018, 5:13pm (UTC -5)
I always hated this episode. I mean, it had some interesting parts. Like seeing monster Worf, I guess.

But the premise seems...beneath Star Trek.

This isn't sci-fi, it's fantasy. Things need to at least be plausible.
Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 6:44pm (UTC -5)
Rediculous but a lot of fun to watch. Great to have Barclay back, our beloved characters acting erratically, the tension, and great direction by McFadden. Call it a guilty pleasure and I think we should all take it given the lack of them in the 7th season.
Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 2:46pm (UTC -5)
It's interesting how GENESIS' comments are extremely negative, but get increasingly positive as the years go by. Has the generally poor quality of subsequent Trek made GENESIS now look relatively good? Has the episode been slightly misjudged?

Regardless, I rewatched it yesterday and found it to be an interesting take on the final season's obsession with family. Here we don't have an individual character meeting a family member, but an entire crew morphing into its ancestors.

Sure, everyone complains about the junk science here, but I look at it as a kind of metaphorical reverse phylogenesis; some kind of magical virus tapping into ancient junk DNA and then hand weaving it into new mutations. I thought it was a hilariously cool, high-concept and audacious idea. Wasn't surprised when I saw it was written by Braga, the king of mind-bending plots. One imagines the showrunners giving him a season brief ("Something about family, Braga") and then him writing this with a goofy grin ("Oh, Ima give you family. Ima give you a whole damn family tree!).

Obviously the episode has problems - its first act is slack and its last act "monster chases" likewise - but the middle act has a nice Cronenbergian vibe, and offers a decent take on schlocky bodyhorror. Some of the creature effects are also cool: Ogawa turns into a kind of monkey, Troi's a floppy fish and Barclay's spider-face is creepy. The final line's a hoot as well ("He transformed into a spider and now he has a disease named after him. I'll clear my calendar.")

This episode oft gets lumped amongst the worst of Trek, but I think it's fairly solid.
Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 7:51pm (UTC -5)
Has anyone mentioned this? After Data examines Froggy Troi he says to Picard, "She is no longer fully human." She never was fully human.
Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 11:39pm (UTC -5)
Awful. Not as mind numbing as Masks, but still awful.

I do agree with William B that the transformation choices for each character were not random but meant to represent some basic "underneath it all" characteristic of each person - or cat, as the case may be.

Ogawa's look reminded me of Dr Zira on Planet of the Apes.
Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 1:16pm (UTC -5)
Truly one of the worst TNG episodes -- probably requires some of the most amount of suspension of disbelief I can think of. Not a believer in evolution to begin with so de-evolution becomes even more ridiculous. Just not a fan of DNA manipulation episodes. In a way, I think of "The Naked TIme" or "The Naked Now" when all hell breaks loose on the ship because of a virus affecting people -- but here the transformations make zero sense and the ending resolution is basically waving a magic wand - wraps up far too quickly.

And if people though the green rubber Gorn costume was bad (I don't personally) then WorfMonster's costume has to be worse -- he's still wearing the same Star Fleet uniform boots as he chases Picard. And he's supposed to be 200 kilos, according to Data's scan -- didn't look at all like it. This chase scene was not suspenseful and it was like going for a cheap thrill -- look a scary monster is chasing Picard!

What also makes no sense is how different humans could devolve into different things -- like Barclay turns into some kind of arachnid, Riker a caveman, Picard was on his way to becoming a lemur? And Spot turns into a lizard?? It's really hard to take anything at face value here let alone be entertained by it.

Braga has a few good episodes but far more bad ones and this is likely the worst for me. Overall I'm not a fan of his contribution to Trek.

It was initially interesting seeing the crew start their devolution, however little sense it made. I also liked the shot as the shuttle approaches the Enterprise where the ship is tilted at an angle signalling all's not well -- kind of like the shots of Empok Nor.

0.5 stars for "Genesis" -- terrible concept and execution with the magic wand solution at the end (which also makes no sense), just too much nonsense here. Can't believe "Threshold" would borrow ideas from this turd. TNG definitely limping toward its series end in Season 7.
Sun, Oct 7, 2018, 1:42am (UTC -5)

The nice thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.
Sun, Oct 7, 2018, 7:43am (UTC -5)

No, science isn't always true, but the good thing about Science is that if its principles are consistenly applied, it's self correcting.

Anyhow, I'm a lover of Science, and don't mean to give you a hard time, but that saying just hits a nerve with me. Truth, facts are always true, whether you believe them or not . . . whether they originate with Science or Philosophy or the Bible or the Koran, etc. And falsehoods aren't true, even if they are (seemingly) well-founded Scientific claims, or assertions from our most brilliant Philosophers, or statements in the most highly revered and sacred religious texts.

Science doesn't get to claim its always true, whether you believe it or not. If it does that, it's no different than religions making similar claims about the Bible, and other religious texts, IMO.
Entropic Amalgam
Sun, Oct 7, 2018, 8:07am (UTC -5)
When we say a scientific fact is 'true' we are relying upon a whole range of metaphysical assumptions which science rests upon. So-called 'facts' need a substratum in order to be verified in reference to it, and because you can never get beneath the final substratum (because that would require another substratum) you cannot really call something the truth.

Most competent scientists understand this and do not consider it to devalue their work.
Sun, Oct 7, 2018, 8:12am (UTC -5)
The funny thing is the episode should work better if you don’t believe in evolution because nothing shown here is how evolution works.
Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 3:47pm (UTC -5)
just randomly came across this, so thought I'd post it here -- theory of evolution is a sham. Sometimes human thinking gets so set in its ways...

Anyhow, regardless of your stance on evolution "Genesis" sucked and for me not believing in evolution hardly makes it any more palatable.
Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 4:25pm (UTC -5)

I always find it funny when people link articles like that saying “life is too complex to be left to the chance of evolution” but inevitably offer no alternative scientific theory of how life progressed over the aeons.

Let me just throw an example out here: dogs. Domesticated dogs originally came from various wolf breeds that humans befriended and raised as companions. Over thousands of years humans have selected dogs that have desirable qualities (good at hunting, pulling sleds, watchdogs, beauty for showdogs) and selectively bred those dogs so their offspring would have those desirable qualities. Thus, there’s documented evidence of unnatural or man-made selection that we know works.

Now natural selection is different. Instead of an intelligent human choosing which animal survives, various other natural factors (harsh weather, food only available for animals that can jump or swim or fly, possessing adequate intelligence to avoid predators) decide who reproduces. But the outcome is similar to bred dogs; only offspring with qualities found adequate are able to survive and create offspring.

Now of course evolution is just a theory, but unless you can irrefutably debunk natural selection and offer a better alternative, the theory is going to remain predominant in the scientific community.

As to how this relates to this episode - well if any the writers made an attempt to show how deevolution works without resorting to magic technobabble then it would’ve been better received by those who believe in evolution. For those who don’t believe in evolution, at least they don’t necessarily need to dismiss their understanding of science to enjoy the episode.
Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 6:25pm (UTC -5)

For me, I just think the arguments against evolution are too powerful to ignore. And one can take that stance without having to provide a foolproof alternative scientific theory.

Who knows -- science may not be able to explain everything rigorously. And maybe there is something to the belief that God created man etc. It used to be that what science could not "explain" was sometimes attributed to the divine.

But yes, there are reasons why evolution has stuck around. No better scientific theory and examples from natural selection.

As for "Genesis" - there are so many problems with the episode and I think it's an insult to Trek. Data positing the rapid de-evolution theory is an attempt to bring some "science" to what's happening but it's hopeless.
Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 8:34am (UTC -5)

You realize that's a fake news website right?
Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 8:36am (UTC -5)
Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 9:15am (UTC -5)
@Iceman -

What CBS News calls a fake news site is irrelevant. It's up to the news consumer to judge. Personally, this article is the first time I've even heard of the news site in question -- I came across the article through social media where somebody I trust shared it.

I think what CBS News is doing is identifying sites which have maybe once or twice got something wrong - and calling it "fake news". I couldn't give a rat's ass what CBS's motivations are. In this case, what is more important is if the news on the site is decent journalism or not. In this case, regarding nixing the theory of evolution, I think it is -- that is if you even bothered to check out the story and the links/sources.
Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 9:46am (UTC -5)

This website's only "source" is a document in which 500 people who claim scientific credentials sign off that they think the theory of evolution is wrong. These credentials can't be checked, and the group's methodology is not explained. That is not journalism, good or bad; that is just propaganda. If you're going to be a skeptic about something about which there is broad consensus, you had better bother to actually understand the underlying science. Otherwise, you're just manufacturing consent for your own ignorance.
Peter G.
Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 9:56am (UTC -5)
Having observed this topic to an extant in the past, I find speculations doubting the Darwinian story interesting and potentially plausible, which is different from saying they're correct. It's hard to say they're correct, but then again their premise is that it's hard to say that Darwin is correct because we have no literal evidence that we evolved from microbes. At best it's a black box hypothesis, at worst extreme speculation based on very limited short-term evidence. I agree it's the best we've got for now and there's no reason to treat the theory as fake, but it's also "settled" that it's a theory and not a fact, so there's nothing wrong there.

What I find funny about the article isn't the lack of methodological footnotes, especially because most popularizing journalism never has that anyhow. This kind of stuff isn't meant for science journals. What I do find funny is the mention of the origin of human life potentially being from aliens, which isn't altogether far-fetched even though it probably doesn't belong in a "scientific" article about objections to evolution. That's really out there, even though it's nice to see many bases covered and for weird ideas to be included. The main objection, though, which is that it's totally unknown how (or whether) complex systems can come about from simple ones is a significant objection.
Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 10:07am (UTC -5)

It's fine for a story to have just one source -- not sure why you say the credentials of the scientists can't be checked. I checked this guy's credentials and they seem to be fine: Professor Colin Reeves, from the Department of Mathematical Sciences at Coventry University.

It is certainly not propaganda (maybe you should take a history lesson and see what the USSR did during the Cold War and what the Chinese Communist regime does today for what propaganda is). I suspect you have some ulterior motives or some bizarre agenda to push.

All I'm saying is I don't buy the theory of evolution. I don't have to provide an alternative scientific theory to say I don't buy it. If you want to believe in evolution go ahead.
Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 1:32pm (UTC -5)

Except it kind of is. CBS news has a high factual reporting. What a reputable news source said about a fake one is absolutely relevant. And perhaps you shouldn't trust them if they use psuedoscience and conspiracy theory-spreading websites such as Yournewswire.


A "news source" that blatantly lies is not trustworthy. If they could lie once, they could lie again. And, in fact, they have.

I read it. I don't see five hundred trustworthy scientists. I see a few. Like Elliott said, that's not real journalism. is known for spreading pseudoscience and conspiracy theories.
Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 8:31pm (UTC -5)

So now you're the expert on journalism and can discern science from pseudoscience...interesting.

I'm actually a professional journalist and I'd much rather trust what somebody like Professor Colin Reeves, from the Department of Mathematical Sciences at Coventry University has to say about science than you or Elliott.

If you want to put a lot of stock in what CBS says, go ahead. Just don't necessarily expect me to. This particular article on is fine and who says that news site "blatantly lies"? CBS? Like I said, I could not care less what CBS says. I just consider the article.
Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 8:30am (UTC -5)
"So now you're the expert on journalism and can discern science from pseudoscience...interesting."

Two logical fallacies in one sentence! First of all, straw man. I never claimed to be an expert in either of those things. People who *are* experts in those things agree. Second of all, ad hominem. Attack the argument, not the character, especially not in the condescending and obnoxious way you've done in the past.


That's cherry-picking unverified sources.

" This particular article on is fine and who says that news site "blatantly lies"?"

People whose job it is to point out toxic media.

It's clear I'm not going to change your mind. I really shouldn't have entered this to begin with. I'm leaving this here. I apologize to Jammer for clogging up his site with a pointless argument.
Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 11:58am (UTC -5)
YourNewsWire... famous for being a kind of troll site. It proliferates on social media, where algorithms, and targeted ads running on mined/harvested data propagate click-baity links to it, and other (often far-Right) websites.
Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 1:38pm (UTC -5)
What I cared most about: the peril of the newborn kittens effectively without their mother. Apparently Spot was herself long enough to clean them, at least . . .
Jeffrey Jakucyk
Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 9:12pm (UTC -5)
So um, how did Barclay make those spider webs? Never mind, I don't want to know.

I also found Crusher's reaction to getting sprayed in the face with Worf's venom to be quite terrifying.
Fri, Nov 2, 2018, 12:05am (UTC -5)
"how did Barclay make those spider webs? Never mind, I don't want to know."

*sings* Spiderman, Spiderman, does whatever a spider can, spins a web, any size, catches thrives just like flies
Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 6:42pm (UTC -5)
It is a simple reason to explain "Genesis":

I mocked the Enterprise!!! :-P Gnah gnah gnah ghan ghan ghan!
Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 12:02am (UTC -5)
I don’t mind this ep. it’s not science; it’s science fiction. But if we are to believe Star Fleet is a reputable institution then this ep should have been Crushers last after being court marshalled all the way to the Alpha quadrant. The entire crew almost died as a result of her mistake... at least one bridge crew member did die. And Spot’s cute cuddly kittens likely died of starvation.
Sun, Dec 2, 2018, 1:02am (UTC -5)
Jamie. Good point. What about the guy on the bridge Worf killed? And me too about the kittens. I kept thinking somebody feed them please. Was a big distraction. Weird ep especially so close to end of season.
Jer Jer
Tue, Feb 26, 2019, 10:52am (UTC -5)
How could Spot get pregnant?

1. Why wasn't she neutered?
2. Where did Data find another cat for mating?
3. I thought Spot was male.
Fri, May 17, 2019, 9:10pm (UTC -5)

Enjoyable but degraded by technobabble in sickbay as they worked one solution after another. I like the creepy jungle atmosphere. Outer Limits?

Submit a comment

◄ Season Index
