Posted on 11/23/2006 4:02:06 AM PST by peyton randolph
...Using new technology to study the genomes of 270 volunteers from four corners of the world, researchers have found that while people do indeed inherit one chromosome from each parent, they do not necessarily inherit one gene from mom and another from dad.
One parent can pass down to a child three or more copies of a single gene. In some cases, people can inherit as many as eight or 10 copies....
(Excerpt) Read more at theglobeandmail.com ...
I just want to know about the gene pool from which Janet Reno came.
;-)
****
Have a nice Thanksgiving.......
Eye colour inheritance is far more complex than the erroneously simplified "brown gene", "blue gene" etc.Make sense. I wish they'd stop teaching the oversimplified version. I know they are, because my 8 year old explained it to me a year or so ago.
I agree.
I have blue eyes, my husband has green w/ hazel around the pupil. My son has green, my other son has blue....my daughter has blue with hazel around the pupil. Strange.
There could be a dormant recessive gene for many generations though.
Bb x Bb = bb (blue), with p = 0.25
= Bb (brown), with p = 0.5
= BB (brown, no recessive gene), with p = 0.25
I'm an amateur here but you would think that a blue-eyed child would almost have to get one gene from each brown-eyed parent, rather than both genes from one parent.
My wife hd an interesting experience in her freshman biology class where simple genetics like this were discussed. The prof mentioned that if both parents were brown eyed, their children would be brown eyed. One girl raised her hand and argued against this because she had blue eyes and her parents both had brown eyes. The prof went into the detailed explanation and the girl ran out of the cloass crying.
Turns out she was adopted and wasn't told. She guessed in in class and left to confront her parents that confirmed it. Talk about a surprising way to learn somehting like that!
I have blue eyes, my husband has green w/ hazel around the pupil. My son has green, my other son has blue....my daughter has blue with hazel around the pupil. Strange.It is. As CarrotAndStick posted, it must be much more complicated than the simplistic Blue Gene / Brown Gene model that is taught in our institutions of primary education.
Hmmm...I looked at the above again.....if eye color is determined by 8 or 10 genes rather than 1 then all bets are off.
I thought the Australian aborigines had been isolated for something like 40,000 years.
-ccm
That's complete crap. Two brown-eyed parents can definitely have a blue-eyed child.
Yes, if they both inherited one blue gene from their parents. Because blue-brown or brown-blue are expressed as brown, they would both have brown eyes. Their child, if it inherits the blue-blue combination from them, would have blue eyes.
"...Janet Reno came."
Yeti gene pool.
How are there various vocalizations of humanity? What do you mean by facial type? Almond eyes are caused by more fat under the eyelid than European eyes (which also have fat, simply less of it). Asians tend to have wider cheekbones than Europeans, and Africans tend to have wider nasal cavities than either Asian or Europeans.
Body sizes are primarily determined (not totally, but primarily) by a combination of genetics and diet. Height is largely based on diet. Ecto-/Endo-/Meso- morph is often genetic. However, this is not race-based, just as right/left handism, and even blood type is not race-based. Even in cases leaning toward a distinction by people group (race) such as European have around half a chance of being type A bloodtype while the rest of the world is largely type O (along with around half of Europeans).
Prevalence is not the same as one group has this trait, and that trait is absent in the other groups.
People within people groups simply tend to be more related to one another than people in another people group, just as would be more related to those in your immediate family more than you would to your first cousins. Similar genetic markers simply show a mutual ancestor (with a mutation) for a particular group. Using the close family analogy again, your family could have inherited a mutation from your father, while your cousins could be devoid of such a mutation. Your cousins and you are still very closely related, hence the need for incest laws. The genetic variance of the human race (singular) is not large enough for there to be races of humanity, subspecies or your subgroups (which are one and the same: a subgroup of a species is a subspecies).
P.S. Appreciate your respectful tone in your response. Looking at the ping section, and there are a lot of replies. Guessing that many of them won't be as respectful as yours.
Actually it is the idea that there are races that is nonsense. There has not been enough time for races to surface. Humans live a long time, do not have that many children (compared to some organisms), and can travel and interact over large distances. Until recently, humans were a relatively small species (in numbers), too. Also, humans are social beings who tend to live together (and not in tiny groups which could promote more mutations that normal due to incest). There are species and races of ants. There are no races of humanity.
Something to take into account. After Japan figuratively whooped Russia's butt in the Russo-Japanese War, European racists from their point of view elevated Japanese and demoted Russians by hypothesizing that the Japanese were partially European and this European blood gave them the ability to be a success. Conversely, Russians were tainted with Asian blood which caused them to lose, and they weren't fully European (not only culturally but by what today would be considered genetically). Note that this was the first case of a European nation losing a war to a nonEuropean one, and it was a rather sound defeat. Indeed, it was one of first chinks in the armor of the myth that European-descendees were inheritantly more advanced than other peoples. And with kudos to the Japanese, they rejected the idea that they were part European, declaring themselves to be fully Asian.
On a bit darker note, they countered European racism with Asian racism, a case of two bad things don't make a good thing. While Europeans were quick to note similarities of Africans to apes, the Japanese did the same for Europeans. While Africans are dark skinned, similar to many apes, and have wider noses than other humans, the Japanese racists pointed out that Europeans are hairier than other people groups, as are apes. Also, Europeans tend to have longer arms in proportion to their bodies than other people, and have shorter legs (again in proportion) than Africans, also similar to apes. Asians also produce less body odor than Europeans or Africans. The BBC had an article (solely about the body odor issue, not the racism) about this, and apparently the b.o. is related to a gene for wet earwax which Africans and Europeans tend to have, while Asians tend to have dry earwax. On one hand, it was good that they showed Europeans they weren't particularly special compared to their peers around the world. It is good for practically everybody to bring arrogant people down a notch or two, or five.... On the other, it was still racism, and still bad.
However, in the Creationist model, the universe and world are some 6,000 Earth years old. Some 5,000 years ago the global population was wiped out except for one family from which every single human today is descended. Thus, at the very greatest extent, two people could be at most cousins separated by some 5,000 years.
Evidence that there can be respectful disagreement.
LOL
;-)
Here's wishing you a great Thanksgiving........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.