If you’re a blue eyed person and have a kid with another blue-eyed person . . . you make damn sure that kid has blue eyes too.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
etaco wrote:
They teach about the mailman in genetics class?
That’s chapter one. They don’t pull punches.[/quote]
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
If you’re a blue eyed person and have a kid with another blue-eyed person . . . you make damn sure that kid has blue eyes too.
Professor X wrote:
etaco wrote:
They teach about the mailman in genetics class?
That’s chapter one. They don’t pull punches.
[/quote]
Unless both parents had similar recessive traits for eye color. Two parents of Rr and Rr genotype for eye color phenotype could very well produce a child of rr genotype.
Recessive genes, huh?
Not quite that easy, because it does not answer the question what the survival benefit of homosexual behaviour is.
I am pretty sure there is one, because it is too widespread, even in non-demon possesed penguins.
Recessiv genes are (maybe) the how, bit not the why.
I was under the impression that when 2 blue eyed people had a baby, it would automatically mean the kid had blue eyes, since it’s a recessive trait or something. And this isn’t true for other colors. Or some crap like that. I never paid much attention in school.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
If you’re a blue eyed person and have a kid with another blue-eyed person . . . you make damn sure that kid has blue eyes too.
Professor X wrote:
etaco wrote:
They teach about the mailman in genetics class?
That’s chapter one. They don’t pull punches.
Unless both parents had similar recessive traits for eye color. Two parents of Rr and Rr genotype for eye color phenotype could very well produce a child of rr genotype. [/quote]
[quote]orion wrote:
Recessive genes, huh?
Not quite that easy, because it does not answer the question what the survival benefit of homosexual behaviour is.
I am pretty sure there is one, because it is too widespread, even in non-demon possesed penguins.
Recessiv genes are (maybe) the how, bit not the why.[/quote]
It could be a more powerful expression of a gene which otherwise serves a useful purpose. The parallel would be sickle cell anemia in this case. When a person has one copy of the gene for it they have relatively minor medical issues but they have greater resistance to malaria. If they have both copies though they have full on SSA with the reduced lifespan and reproductive viability (long term) which results. The advantage of being a recessive carrier seems to be great enough in some parts of the world that the mutation is able to “survive”.
Similarly, if this theory had some baring then one would expect the gay gene to provide a propagative advantage which outweighed the lower reproduction rate which would occur in the small percentage that fully expressed the gene.
This is obviously a gross simplification, but food for thought none the less.
[quote]orion wrote:
Recessive genes, huh?
Not quite that easy, because it does not answer the question what the survival benefit of homosexual behaviour is.[/quote]
What is the survival benefit for red hair? What is the survival benefit for color blindness?
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
I was under the impression that when 2 blue eyed people had a baby, it would automatically mean the kid had blue eyes, since it’s a recessive trait or something. And this isn’t true for other colors. Or some crap like that. I never paid much attention in school.
Professor X wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
If you’re a blue eyed person and have a kid with another blue-eyed person . . . you make damn sure that kid has blue eyes too.
Professor X wrote:
etaco wrote:
They teach about the mailman in genetics class?
That’s chapter one. They don’t pull punches.
Unless both parents had similar recessive traits for eye color. Two parents of Rr and Rr genotype for eye color phenotype could very well produce a child of rr genotype.
[/quote]
From Oregon State University, this summary explains pretty clearly the complexity of eye color. The dominant point being that brown eye color is the dominant trait and that two blue eyed parents could still have a brown eyed baby:
[quote]At one time scientists thought that a single gene pair, in a dominant/recessive inheritance pattern, controlled human eye color. The allele for brown eyes was considered dominant over the allele for blue eyes. The genetic basis for eye color is actually far more complex. At the present, three gene pairs controlling human eye color are known. Two of the gene pairs occur on chromosome pair 15 and one occurs on chromosome pair 19. The bey 2 gene, on chromosome 15, has a brown and a blue allele. A second gene, located on chromosome 19 (the gey gene) has a blue and a green allele. A third gene, bey 1, located on chromosome 15, is a central brown eye color gene.
Geneticists have designed a model using the bey 2 and gey gene pairs that explains the inheritance of blue, green and brown eyes. In this model the bey 2 gene has a brown and a blue allele. The brown allele is always dominant over the blue allele so even if a person is heterozygous (one brown and one blue allele) for the bey 2 gene on chromosome 15 the brown allele will be expressed. The gey gene also has two alleles, one green and one blue. The green allele is dominant to the blue allele on either chromosome but is recessive to the brown allele on chromosome 15. This means that there is a dominance order among the two gene pairs. If a person has a brown allele on chromosome 15 and all other alleles are blue or green the person will have brown eyes. If there is a green allele on chromosome 19 and the rest of the alleles are blue, eye color will be green. Blue eyes will occur only if all four alleles are for blue eyes. This model explains the inheritance of blue, brown and green eyes but cannot account for gray, hazel or multiple shades of brown, blue, green and gray eyes. It cannot explain how two blue-eyed parents can produce a brown-eyed child or how eye color can change over time. This suggests that there are other genes, yet to be discovered, that determine eye color or that modify the expression of the known eye color genes.
[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
Recessive genes, huh?
Not quite that easy, because it does not answer the question what the survival benefit of homosexual behaviour is.
What is the survival benefit for red hair? What is the survival benefit for color blindness?[/quote]
Actually, there is an advantage to colorblindness. I just read about it in a magazine. They had men look at series of 15 different shades of beige (Talk about boring!) “Normal” people had a hard time picking one from another. Colorblind men aced the test, though. The scientists believe that being colorblind would allow someone to see through camouflage or concealment easier, making them better hunters or soldiers.
Sorry for the hijack, I’m just a nerd.
[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
Recessive genes, huh?
Not quite that easy, because it does not answer the question what the survival benefit of homosexual behaviour is.
What is the survival benefit for red hair? What is the survival benefit for color blindness?
Actually, there is an advantage to colorblindness. I just read about it in a magazine. They had men look at series of 15 different shades of beige (Talk about boring!) “Normal” people had a hard time picking one from another. Colorblind men aced the test, though. The scientists believe that being colorblind would allow someone to see through camouflage or concealment easier, making them better hunters or soldiers.
Sorry for the hijack, I’m just a nerd.
[/quote]
So, every color blind man is a better hunter? I know what you are saying and that is interesting. I am just calling bullshit on the logic used in the article to relate that to seeing camouflage. Aside from our actions in desert terrain, most camo is largely green, black and dark brown. Apparently, according to that article, man has evolved into a specific war in Iraq? How apocalyptic is that?
This isn’t so new and exciting.
I the last years, I read about a couple of gay animals in zoos around the world.
The best were the two bustards which happened to come out of the closet in the “biblical” zoo somewhere in Israel. It’s purpose was to show every animal that plays a role in the Bible.
The guardians even smuggled a fake egg into the cage and one of the bustards started to try to “breed”, sitting all day on the wooden egg.
i’ll ask again:
do any of these ‘gay’ animals plow?
because if they dont try to get off with each other then they aren’t gay.
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
i’ll ask again:
do any of these ‘gay’ animals plow?
because if they dont try to get off with each other then they aren’t gay.[/quote]
Good point. They may just be good friends.
[quote]orion wrote:
Recessive genes, huh?
Not quite that easy, because it does not answer the question what the survival benefit of homosexual behaviour is.
I am pretty sure there is one, because it is too widespread, even in non-demon possesed penguins.
Recessiv genes are (maybe) the how, bit not the why.[/quote]
Starting to get a LITTLE over my head, but I’m just going to throw this out there: hemophilia has no survival benefit. Hell before blood transfusion and artificial coagulants I’m not even sure if any hemophiliacs would’ve survived infancy. That found a way to be passed on tho.
Maybe a “more severe expression” of an otherwise beneficial gene like etaco mentioned.