Not really spoilers, but story points to follow...
So the Evolutionaries are proto-humans tasked by Phastos the Eternal with "safeguarding evolution." The do this by defending the enemies of the branch of humanity that shows the most (in their words) evolutionary potential and wiping out those who they see as predators.
The problem is that if a species is in jeopardy of being wiped out by predators, then it by definition is not evolutionarily superior. Evolution is not goal oriented and does not have an end point it is trying to reach.
This really irks me because it betrays a complete lack of understanding the process that is the key point in the storyline.
Rant over.
Replies
I read X-Men Giant-Size and the next chapter and I still don't get it. Dangerous beings created by Phastos?? Couldn't they have used Zuras or Thena? Y'know someone who actually mattered!
Plus there's the dread Professor X and Cyclops have for these guys! Sheesh! Just sic Wolverine on 'em and be done with it!
Seriously, I hope there's more to this story.
There's some messiness with Magneto, and I'm delighted to see that they portray the 1960s Magneto just as he was -- a totally unlikeable, vicious, arrogant bad@$$. Seeing that, I hope today's fans can understand why I don't buy any of his current quasi-heroic portrayal (one that's attractive to X-women like Rogue). I know I'm supposed to believe it, but I just can't discard decades of reading about a sub-human monster to believe he's reformed.
I mean, seriously. This guy has planned the deaths of billions forever. Now he's a good guy? Bah!
I grew up with the 100% evil Magneto, too. I might have read some X-Men reprints* but I first saw him as the villain of Avengers #110-111 and Defenders #15-16 where he (and the then-current roster of his Brotherhood of Evil Mutants) were turned into infants by Alpha the Ultimate Mutant. As a baby he was sent to Muir Island where either Professor X or Moira MacTaggert "altered" his way of thinking so he would not be so murderous. Then he was adultified in Uncanny X-Men #104 though younger and stronger.
* I even missed the Thomas/O'Neil version who did not look so thuggish and hatefilled!
Phastos is the Eternal equivalent to Hephaestus or Vulcan, so he's the "maker" of the pantheon. It makes sense in that context that he'd be the one to do something like this...if the concept itself made any sense.
Philip Portelli said:
Really, if you think about it, the mutants of the Marvel Universe are much more an argument against evolutionary theory and for Intelligent Design than anything in the real world.
(Also, I have no idea what comic you're talking about...)
Alan M. put his finger pretty close to where I am on this discussion philosophically.
Obviously, Rich, you're 100 percent right about evolution. And anything that undermines evolution as a biological fact (despite being a "theory") in today's environment is something those who believe in science should smother in its crib. So I agree with your complaint in principle.
But Alan M. is right in that this is comics, and the X-Men have never complied with evolutionary theory. None of this makes sense under real-world evolutionary process: 1) spontaneous mutation at adolescence, 2) mutations that aren't present in either parent, 3) mutations that don't breed true, 4) mutations that don't make a lick of sense. (What biological process allows for Cyclops' power? It's not even possible under our present understanding of physics, because Newton says his head should fly backwards off his shoulders every time he opens his eyes. Only by the use of made-up comic-book physics -- the recoil is shifted to another dimension -- is it possible. This same problem exist with Angel, Iceman and a host of others.)
X-Men veered from evolutionary theory on page one, panel one of X-Men #1, so all of the "Homo Superior" blather is just that to me.
No, I fully realize that the ship has sailed for the most part on scientific plausibility as to mutants themselves, but in this day and age, a new concept like the Evolutionaries should be more bound by reality. I know that evolution was used improperly back when the X-Men were created, but that doesn't mean it should still be. After all, wouldn't we all roll our eyes if we read a modern Iron Man stories that bandied the word "transistors" around like it was a miracle universal invention?
What irks me is how easy this could have been explained without altering the conflict at all. All the writers would have to do is say that while evolution itself is not goal oriented, Phastos is. Phastos is playing with eugenics in order to guide the mortal branch of humanity created by the Celestials toward a stature similar to his own Eternals.
In other words, it's not the plot that bothers me as much as the complete lack of understanding of the terms that are being bandied around.
I'm in full agreement. The Silver Age gets a lot of flak these days, but Julius Schwartz, John Broome and Gardner Fox knew their science. I learned a lot from DC Comics -- not only the speed of light (The Flash) and the melting point of Lead (Metal Men), but also proper spelling and grammar. Over at Marvel, Stan Lee taught me Shakespearean and Biblical quotes, while later on Roy Thomas got me interested in looking up his literary allusions.
Now we get bad science and "Issac Newton" on a cover in 72-point type. (I'd better stop before I start yelling at kids to get off my lawn.)