Should Superman Recognize Superboy as His Son?

[DracoMalfoy]

I mean, he IS technically his son. Should Superman recognize Connor as his son. Should He and Lois adopt him? Should Superman and Superboy play *sniff* football in the backyard and *sniff* watch Rudy twenty times over....

If He HAS already done all this than forgive my ignorance.

[lucasb]

Supes and Luthor should adopt him, since they are the parents.

[Gernot]

I think Conner is more or less recognized as a COUSIN of Clark Kent's. Conner and Clark DID play a bit of football over Thanksgiving during Chuck Austen's run, too.

[glennsim]

I mean, he IS technically his son. Should Superman recognize Connor as his son. Should He and Lois adopt him? Should Superman and Superboy play *sniff* football in the backyard and *sniff* watch Rudy twenty times over....

If He HAS already done all this than forgive my ignorance.

Speaking as someone who was adopted and has recently made contact with his birth father, it takes more than just a biological connection to create an emotional one.

I think the brother/cousin dynamic is just about right.

Now that I think about it, if Connor had been aged to adulthood rather than stopping at teens, would we still be asking this question? We'd probably be suggesting they consider themselves brothers. Thus the status of an individual who was cloned relative to the individual who supplied the cells would seem to be quite dynamic based on the situation.

[Yoda]

I mean, he IS technically his son. Should Superman recognize Connor as his son. Should He and Lois adopt him? Should Superman and Superboy play *sniff* football in the backyard and *sniff* watch Rudy twenty times over....

If He HAS already done all this than forgive my ignorance.

Technically wouldn't he be more of a half-brother than a son? I mean a clone is basically and indetical twin.

[Calculator]

I mean, he IS technically his son. Should Superman recognize Connor as his son. Should He and Lois adopt him? Should Superman and Superboy play *sniff* football in the backyard and *sniff* watch Rudy twenty times over....

If He HAS already done all this than forgive my ignorance.

I personally don't see a natural connection between Connor and Clark like the way Bruce and Dick Grayson have over in the bat-books. It feels more like Bruce and Tim's relationship, mentor-student, and nothing more.

I personally prefer it this way too. The father-son relationship should be be used sparringly so as to vary things up. Too much of anything can be bad.

[Lorendiac]

Technically wouldn't he be more of a half-brother than a son? I mean a clone is basically and indetical twin.

As I understand it - I have half of my father's genes. And my brother and I (since we are not identical twins, but have the same parents) probably have almost exactly half our genes in common with each other as well, by the law of averages. From that perspective, you could argue that Superman and Superboy are genetically the "equivalent" of older brother/younger brother, or the "equivalent" of father/son, depending upon which side of the argument you happened to feel like taking on any given day :)

[mohammedali]

Not quite. You have roughly half your fathers genes, that is correct. However, you technically share more genes to your brother, because you have half of your mothers genes and half of your fathers genes as does he. Laws of average would suggest you share more similarities with your brother than with your father.
Superman and Superboy can be seen as similar to either Father-Son, or brothers, or even cousins. Given there relationship, I would say cousins is the most suitable.

[Hellstormer]

has Earth-2 Superman and Superboy met? I think they would have more of a father-son dynamic but for Earth-1 Supes I think they're more like brothers.

[dancj]

Not quite. You have roughly half your fathers genes, that is correct. However, you technically share more genes to your brother, because you have half of your mothers genes and half of your fathers genes as does he. Laws of average would suggest you share more similarities with your brother than with your father.

Nope - Assuming it's random for each Gene whether you get your father's or your mother's then there are four combinations. If we assume that F is Father and M is mother then for any given gene the possibilities are:

1 2
F F
F M
M F
MM

In half of those they share the same gene. Each twin will have the same as his father in half of them and each will have the same as their mother in half of them, so assuming there's no other factor, the law of averages would have each of the brothers sharing roughly half of their genes with each other and each of their parents

[mohammedali]

You're making an incorrect assumption there. It's not all down to probability in genetics. There are dominant genes that take presidence over other genes. Hence, there is not an equal chance that one would inherit the same from each.
Now, let us assume that each child inherits 50 percent from either parent, such that 35 percent from each parent is due to it being a dominant gene. With this being the case, there is a strong chance that 2 children will have a 70 percent match. Of course this isn't always the case (due to the 'dance of the zygote'), but the fact remains that on average, you're expected to share more DNA with your siblings than your parents, simply because your parents can only share a maximum 50 percent (and minimum of 0 percent), whilst your siblings can technically be upto 100 percent like you (twins) and dominant genes prevent there ever being 0 percent like you.

[Hellstormer]

Woah they're speaking another language to me :rolleyes:

[Lorendiac]

You're making an incorrect assumption there. It's not all down to probability in genetics. There are dominant genes that take presidence over other genes. Hence, there is not an equal chance that one would inherit the same from each.
Now, let us assume that each child inherits 50 percent from either parent, such that 35 percent from each parent is due to it being a dominant gene. With this being the case, there is a strong chance that 2 children will have a 70 percent match. Of course this isn't always the case (due to the 'dance of the zygote'), but the fact remains that on average, you're expected to share more DNA with your siblings than your parents, simply because your parents can only share a maximum 50 percent (and minimum of 0 percent), whilst your siblings can technically be upto 100 percent like you (twins) and dominant genes prevent there ever being 0 percent like you.

You lost me there - if I understood you correctly, then you seem to be saying that if the Father has a dominant gene paired with a recessive gene in his genetic code, the dominant gene is much more likely to be inherited by any given child of his than the recessive gene that was paired with it.

That isn't what I remember from a high school textbook. Granted, it's been a good many years since I took a biology class that taught students the basics of genetics, but I believe they told us at the time that a "dominant" gene is simply a gene that is more likely to have its special coded characteristic show up in my body, very noticeable to anyone who looks for that "characteristic" in me , if I inherit that gene in the first place - but it is not "likelier" to be inherited in the first place than a "recessive" gene that might have been paired with it in the genetic code of one of my parents. I might inherit the dominant one from my father, I might inherit the recessive one instead - a straight fifty/fifty proposition.

I think it goes like this: Brown eyes are supposed to come from a dominant gene. Blue eyes are a recessive gene - so a baby would only have blue eyes if it inherited a blue-eyed gene from its Father, and a matching blue-eyed gene from its mother. Supposing for the sake of argument that Father and Mother both had brown eyes, and also supposing that both of them had a recessive blue-eyed gene paired up with the brown-eyed gene. But they didn't know they had a blue-eyed gene because it had no visible effect on their bodies. Then there are four possible combinations for what the baby might inherit (as far as genes for eye color are concerned).

From____From_____(Actual Eye Color)
Father__Mother____
Blue____Brown_____(Brown)
Blue____Blue______(Blue)
Brown__Brown_____(Brown)
Brown__Blue_______(Brown)

As I recall from school, each of those four possible genetic combinations is equally likely to happen. A fifty-fifty chance of inheriting Father's blue-eyed gene. And a fifty-fifty chance of inheriting Mother's blue-eyed gene. But only a twenty-five percent chance of the same child inheriting blue-eyed genes from both sides of the family as a matched pair in his genetic code. That is the only result that could have him grow up with blue eyes.

Which means that in the other three cases out of four, a child of such parents would grow up with brown eyes because he would have inherited at least one "dominant" brown-eyed gene. Maybe two, but it only takes one to get the job done. :)

To be fair, I suppose it is possible that geneticists have learned some weird new twists on the rules of heredity since I graduated from high school. If we have to, I suppose we can start using search engines to dig out websites run by geneticists that will tell us if they still believe a single gene in a parent, whether it's dominant or recessive, only has exactly a fifty percent chance of making it into any given child of that parent? :)

[dancj]

You're making an incorrect assumption there. It's not all down to probability in genetics. There are dominant genes that take presidence over other genes. Hence, there is not an equal chance that one would inherit the same from each.

Ah - you hadn't mentioned that part in your previous post. I was about to concede, but what Lorendiac said does sound more like how I remember it. I don't know if there are any factors which make some genes more likely to be there, but I don't think it's the dominant gene thing - unless there's some other dominant gene thing.

Dan

[Agentum]

Supes and Luthor should adopt him, since they are the parents.
yes and they can have shared custody, one week with Luthor and one the other one with Superman :D

Luthor - "superboy, Superman doesn't love you like i do"

[Citizen V]

Superboy is still a clone right?Did they recon that?I say that Superman should not recongize Superboy as his son.It does not seem right,they should be on good terms.But nothing like that.

[mohammedali]

Lorendiac, that sounds about acurate. In all fairness I haven't done biology since High School either :) I was thinking more about looks than actual DNA when I was explaining. Hence brothers are more likely to *look* like each other due to dominant genes rather than have the same DNA per say.
In terms of DNA itself though, a child has half of each parent's DNA, whilst siblings could share as much as 100% to as little as (theoretically) 0%. Hence on average it would be around 50% (though I imagine there are other factors we're missing). Yet, the actual physical effects of the genes would still mean you look more like your sibling than any one parent. I think that's right :o
Anyway, with regards to the original question, I guess Superboy is biologically like Superman's son, though Clark and Lex couldn't really have a child so it's all very odd :P

[Hellstormer]

yes and they can have shared custody, one week with Luthor and one the other one with Superman :D

Luthor - "superboy, Superman doesn't love you like i do"O my.......

[cmndob]

Judging from the characterization it seems as though Conner sees Clark as a father figure but Clark chooses to guide him more as an older brother/ cousin. Conner has the legacy issues of a son of a great man, and is destined to take his place. Clark seems to care for Conner but doesn't take responsibility for him in the same way Bats might for a younger Dick. He sends him to his parents to raise him as a father who isn't ready for a son might. I actually like this angle because it gives more personal responsiblity to Conner to figure the world out on his own and is a slight character flaw in Clark.

[seaflower]

Superman has too many "woe is me" and "I'm too power" to be a great father now...

Maybe later on.....

[Gernot]

W@sn't th@t ch@r@cter fl@w @LW@YS in Superm@n? @fter @ll, in the Silver @ge, didn't he h@ve his cousin Supergirl r@ised in @n orph@n@ge, effectively p@ssing her upbringing to others?

[dancj]

In terms of DNA itself though, a child has half of each parent's DNA, whilst siblings could share as much as 100% to as little as (theoretically) 0%. Hence on average it would be around 50% (though I imagine there are other factors we're missing). Yet, the actual physical effects of the genes would still mean you look more like your sibling than any one parent. I think that's right :o


Well you're more likely to be a similar age to your sibling

[Nightfly]

yes and they can have shared custody, one week with Luthor and one the other one with Superman :D

Luthor - "superboy, Superman doesn't love you like i do"


Yeah, and before you know it, whenever Superboy screws up, Lex'll say to Supes, "Well, Mr. I-Had-To-Save-The-World-Again, guess what YOUR son did today!"

:eek:

[mohammedali]

Well you're more likely to be a similar age to your sibling
lol. True. But I also think people look more like their siblings than their parents.

Mohammed Ali