gib65 Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 Let me put it another way: Do dominant genes ultimately lead to a phenotype that has the greatest chances of survival, or are these completely unrelated? Could a couple have 3 out of 4 children who are "weaker" than the fourth child? Gib
Skye Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 Let me put it another way: Do dominant genes ultimately lead to a phenotype that has the greatest chances of survival, or are these completely unrelated? It's largely unrelated. A dominant gene might be advantagous in one situation, the recessive might be better in another. Isn't white skin recessive? Not that I know of, unless you mean albinism.
Auburngirl05 Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 I don't think dominant genes necessarily lead to more "fit" phenotypes. Polydactyly and several types of dwarfism result from dominant genes.
5614 Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 It would be good if all dominant genes were good for us, however that is not how it is. a good example posted by Auburngirl05 about dwarfism, there are a few others too. the answer to the original question is: sometimes depending on which gene you are referring to i.e. it changes from gene to gene (some yes, some no).
ecoli Posted December 4, 2004 Posted December 4, 2004 A good example of uncommon dominant genes is polydacylism, a genetic disorder where an infant is born with an extra finger. It's usually small and nonfunctioning, and is cut off at birth. Why does this happen? Mutations in the sex cell genes of animal cause physical characteristic to be passed on to their offspring. If it is beneficiall then they will be able to have more offspring and pass on the trait. If not, the organism will die off before it can reporduce. This is Darwin's theory of evolution (without the genetics part)
premjan Posted December 4, 2004 Posted December 4, 2004 I seem to have heard that over time, intermarriage between fair skinned and dark skinned people will end up in dark skin (but of course this may be anecdotal and influenced more by environmental factors than pure genetics).
ecoli Posted December 6, 2004 Posted December 6, 2004 Children from a White skin person and Dark skin person usually end up with skin color somewhere in between. An instance of incomplete dominance?
Skye Posted December 6, 2004 Posted December 6, 2004 It seems to be reasonably complicated, and not fully understood. Here's an article that gives an overview. http://www.plosbiology.org/plosonline/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0000027
rakuenso Posted December 18, 2004 Posted December 18, 2004 I think you forgot about environmental factors as well, since going beach tanning can transform frankenstein into dave chappelle
ecoli Posted December 18, 2004 Posted December 18, 2004 Sure, but it doesn't effect there genetic codes (skin cancer aside)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now