Guest Jodie Posted November 6, 2011 Posted November 6, 2011 Well you aren't that out of date Mulder, you did say "set of genes". People forget that having a gene or set of genes doesn't necessarily mean you will express the trait, sometimes environmental factors cue the gene to become active, like some mental health disorders that have genetic components. We are only starting to understand the mechanisms now that we have the genome mapped out in ourselves, it will be awhile before we completely understand what does what. Looking at a car parked on a lot doesn't tell you how fast it can go until you take it out on the highway.
Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Posted November 6, 2011 Well you aren't that out of date Mulder, you did say "set of genes". People forget that having a gene or set of genes doesn't necessarily mean you will express the trait True, however (and this was what I was trying to point out), every person who DOES express said trait (at least the way I was taught genetics) WILL have the same gene or set of genes that blueprint that trait.
Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Posted November 6, 2011 I was taught in my science courses that any feature has a specific gene or set of genes that determines it's presence. The analogy often used was that of a blueprint. Any given part (say, a motor mount bracket for a specific car engine), has precise specifications as to the metal it is constructed of, it's dimensions, etc. So if any two engineers were to blueprint that bracket, their blueprints would have to be identical in order to properly produce that bracket. Admittedly it's been years since I've read much on genetics. If what you say is correct, then I may be out of date. You forgot Tigons and Ligers. And, not to be pedantic, but the bee example would be "Killer" bee (African honey bee/European honey bee), though there was (at least last I heard) some question as to whether or not the "Killer" bee is a true hybrid, or a case of African honey bee aggressiveness being a dominant trait. Gene or set of genes is correct, depending on what trait it is. I just took my midterm in Physical Anthropology last week, and it was heavily weighted toward heredity & genetics, lol. Depending on dominance, codominance, recessiveness, etc. the genes may or may not be passed down and/or be expressed in subsequent generations, and the expression of polygenic traits can very much be controlled by the environment, as Jodie said. Btw, I didn't add tigons or ligers because only the females are fertile in the F1 generation, and there is no record of reproduction in the F2 generation of either sex that I know of. It would be cool if ligers were totally reproductive, though! I like big cats, and those are the biggest cats in the world at 900 lbs!
Guest Jodie Posted November 6, 2011 Posted November 6, 2011 Now that is where you are wrong, the blueprint does not dictate the structure, other mechanisms do that. Look at the primate eye as an example for that: some have color vision, some not, some have night vision, other's don't, one species with night vision even sees color at night but the evolutionary blueprint is the same for all of them. My understanding is that primates just have minor shifts in timing for cell proliferation of rods and cones that will cause either nocturnal or diurnal vision to develop. It's one factor that allows the species to jump back and forth depending on environmental pressures over time.
Guest Posted November 7, 2011 Posted November 7, 2011 Now that is where you are wrong, the blueprint does not dictate the structure, other mechanisms do that. Look at the primate eye as an example for that: some have color vision, some not, some have night vision, other's don't, one species with night vision even sees color at night but the evolutionary blueprint is the same for all of them. My understanding is that primates just have minor shifts in timing for cell proliferation of rods and cones that will cause either nocturnal or diurnal vision to develop. It's one factor that allows the species to jump back and forth depending on environmental pressures over time. Those wouldn't be the same blueprint then. A Ford motor mount bracket and a Honda motor mount bracket may look different and be constructed differently from different blueprints. At any rate, I forgot to add the "pizzly" polar bear/grizzly to the list of known hybrids.
Guest Jodie Posted November 7, 2011 Posted November 7, 2011 Mulder maybe you need to read a little more. The motor analogy isn't exactly accurate. Try modeling clay as an example, you start with a basic lump, depending on where you squeeze it or put pressure on it you end up with a different sculpture. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090518213952.htm
bipedalist Posted November 7, 2011 BFF Patron Posted November 7, 2011 Yeah leave it to me to jack things up!!! LOL I found this to be an interesting lecture and good primer for this question of Human DNA. I give you Dr. Catherine S. Pollard PHD published in Scientific American What makes us human http://fora.tv/2009/10/03/Dr_Katherine_Pollard_What_Makes_Us_Human#fullprogram Thanks for this link again. The other significant was that the non-protein coding DNA (and even some RNA) is thought to be much more significant than previously thought (no longer thought of as junk DNA) as to it's ability to turn on and off and supervise function and morphology....case in point limb budding for example.
Guest Posted November 7, 2011 Posted November 7, 2011 I think this is germane....http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/rugg-dna/
bipedalist Posted November 7, 2011 BFF Patron Posted November 7, 2011 Good to know Rugg's tooth will be a candidate in another study.
Guest Posted November 7, 2011 Posted November 7, 2011 Those wouldn't be the same blueprint then. A Ford motor mount bracket and a Honda motor mount bracket may look different and be constructed differently from different blueprints. At any rate, I forgot to add the "pizzly" polar bear/grizzly to the list of known hybrids. I was listing fertile hybrids, not just hybrids, though I don't know whether the polar/grizzly cross is fertile or not.
southernyahoo Posted November 7, 2011 Posted November 7, 2011 Well there's a problem with this Kings, what lab is Mike using?What are the labs qualifications? What would the results mean without a peer review and without even more labs repeating the results? Who will have control of the project, the submitters or the people funding the project and who are they? Will there be NDA's before the DNA is released and or leaked?
Guest gerrykleier Posted November 7, 2011 Posted November 7, 2011 "I also heard that there are two sasquatch variants, 23 chromosome pairs, and a 24 chromosome pairs. Two Sasquatch species co-existing matches what some people have been reporting," Does anybody know whether a 'race' or 'species' of BF with 23 chromosone pairs could successfully produce offspring with a BF with 24 chromosone pairs? If they could would the offspring be fertile? I ask because if the answer to the either question is NO, then that might account for the very low population numbers. i.e. the two groups might be attracted to each other, form pair bonds, mate and then fail to produce any/any fertile offspring. If the two groups (23 Chrom/24Chrom) intermingled geographically that might happen a lot putting quite a drag on their reproductive success. Only groups that mated only with their own 'kind' would breed successfully. Eventually evolutionary pressures would drive the 2 groups apart, but who knows how long that would take and there could be a very long period where they gradually abandoned mating with each other though mating still occurred. Maybe someone has some insight... Thanks, GK
Guest Jodie Posted November 7, 2011 Posted November 7, 2011 Horses and donkeys have a different number of chromosomes, they produce mules. Some of the female mules can be fertile.
Guest Posted November 7, 2011 Posted November 7, 2011 They would likely be off the same species, just a different subspecies, which means they could breed & produce offspring. However, it is unlikely that the F1 generation would be fertile. It it is, it is, likely only the females of the F1 generation would be fertile, and they would have to breed with a homozygous sasquatch in order to produce an F2 (which, in reality, shouldn't realy be classified as an F2)
Guest Posted November 7, 2011 Posted November 7, 2011 What would be the DNA results if I took some of my blood, and mixed it with blood from a chimp or gorilla or any ape? Put it in a test tube, shake it up and mix it, and submit to Melba. What would that be for a result? I know very little about how the testing works.
Recommended Posts