Davros wasn't a human. He was a Kaled, the human-like species that the Daleks evolved into. We see the Kaleds running around like ordinary people in Genesis of the Daleks, a series with the Fourth Doctor, the wikipedia entry of which I have conveniently linked below.
The Daleks were what happened to the Kaleds who got stuck outside the dome and irradiated, evolved to their endpoint by Davros' experiments, I think. Ref, also Genesis of the Daleks. /geek
Nonono. Daleks were created by Davros within the dome.
They were irradiated mutations of the original Kaleds though, hence why he named them with an anagram...
So how was Tom wrong?
Forced evolution is still evolution.
I suppose it depends on which story you go by, though. I think the one provided with the first Dalek episode (1st Doctor) was nuclear war.
*MySmiley*
structured procrastinator
structured procrastinator
so... Doctor Who?
27/12/2009 10:36:29 AM
- 494 Views
I'm glad we got so much of The Master - John Sim is a pretty wonderful actor. (some slight spoilers)
27/12/2009 03:11:27 PM
- 386 Views
I liked it.
28/12/2009 03:49:41 PM
- 347 Views
Technically, you're wrong about that.
28/12/2009 07:44:35 PM
- 470 Views
Re: Technically, you're wrong about that.
29/12/2009 01:35:17 PM
- 345 Views
Supposedly they are humanoid. I always took that to mean
29/12/2009 01:59:27 PM
- 469 Views
Timelords are also humanoid
29/12/2009 02:34:32 PM
- 342 Views
But they have two hearts. Different evolutionary ladder.
29/12/2009 05:16:46 PM
- 355 Views
For all we know the daleks have three.
29/12/2009 05:50:15 PM
- 369 Views
Unless explicitly stated, we assume the simplest explanation - one heart. And human(oid).
29/12/2009 08:11:06 PM
- 330 Views
I always thought it was more a function of the series' budget restrictions.
29/12/2009 03:26:37 PM
- 384 Views
No, that was Leela.
29/12/2009 02:01:23 PM
- 443 Views
I knew it was one of them
29/12/2009 02:16:48 PM
- 315 Views
Wikipedia swallows less time than the Weeping Angels, though. *NM*
29/12/2009 03:24:09 PM
- 180 Views
Umm, technically, you're wrong about that.
29/12/2009 05:37:10 PM
- 368 Views
Mnonono
29/12/2009 05:51:10 PM
- 355 Views
Ok inside the dome.
29/12/2009 06:03:37 PM
- 352 Views
Re: Ok inside the dome.
29/12/2009 06:06:04 PM
- 363 Views