www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/08...
Still pretty funny to read. That one person spread himself well over the course of 6-10,000 years if you see how many people have blue eyes these days.
I have a cat with blue eyes. What does that say about this supposed "single common ancestor"?
It says two things: First, he knew how to party. Second, I have more in common with him that just my eyes.
Somehow I don't think this is on the up n up.
Blue eyes are not a mutation, they are a chromosomal development.
Once you're looking at genetic variation over the course of millenniums the only difference between "mutation" and "chromosomal development" is one of terminology.
... It's like saying "i steped on a brake pedal this one time in this particular car and it decelerated"
Stating that by stepping on the brake pedal, your car accelerated until it stopped would be more entertaining.
... It's like saying "i steped on a brake pedal this one time in this particular car and it decelerated"
Stating that by stepping on the brake pedal, your car accelerated until it stopped would be more entertaining.
You drive a Toyota?
If we go with the assumption that the article actually has some merit, I wonder how they'd account for individuals like myself who have central heterochromia...
I have a cat with blue eyes. What does that say about this supposed "single common ancestor"?
If we go with the assumption that the article actually has some merit, I wonder how they'd account for individuals like myself who have central heterochromia...
It says that this ancestor was a cat
erSomehow I don't think this is on the up n up.Blue eyes are not a mutation, they are a chromosomal development.
... mutation is a common chromosomal development
(deletion, duplication, inversion, insertion, translocaction ...)
in fact we have a natural DNA repair mechanism which removes (some) mutations.
Somehow I don't think this is on the up n up.Blue eyes are not a mutation, they are a chromosomal development.
Mutation simply means change at the organism level and is one of the cornerstones of evolution, which is change at the species level. Without mutation there is no change, without change there is no evolution.
So where do hazels fit into all this? Are we a bastardization of the whole blue/brown eye thing? Because that's...eye-ist. 'Cause I'm actually a green-brown hazel, so...where do we come in on the mutation timeline?
Change is life. No change means you dead, foo.
The color of one’s eyes does not determine the usefulness of them. If different colored eyes caused different levels of vision I'd agree it was a mutation. As far as I can tell pigmentation is not a mutation.
Usefulness is not a criteria for mutation. A mutation is simply a deviation from the genetic norm for the species.
So where do hazels fit into all this? Are we a bastardization of the whole blue/brown eye thing? Because that's...eye-ist. 'Cause I'm actually a green-brown hazel, so...where do we come in on the mutation timeline?
Change is life. No change means you dead, foo.
You have brown eyes with different melanin levels, I imagine. Kinda what the article said.
Somehow I don't think this is on the up n up.Blue eyes are not a mutation, they are a chromosomal development.
Mutation simply means change at the organism level and is one of the cornerstones of evolution, which is change at the species level. Without mutation there is no change, without change there is no evolution.
Like RH?
Perhapes your english has failed you? By my reading there is no clear relation between your question and the quoted text. You should give your question better context so that we may clearly understand what the contents of the poorly thought out joke are when we inevitably roll our eyes and try our best to ignore it.
Autism acting up again?
not funny.
Autism acting up again?
not funny.
Is he ever?
Not intentionally.
What? I can see TA going back and forth in his room in front of the computer hitting himself on the head saying over and over: Goldy bad grammar, goldy bad grammar, goldy bad grammar...
How would that suggest autism?
What? I can see TA going back and forth in his room in front of the computer hitting himself on the head saying over and over: Goldy bad grammar, goldy bad grammar, goldy bad grammar...
Actually TA's grammar is far from perfect as well
Autism acting up again?
As I said before, "certain" topics?
Autism acting up again?
As I said before, "certain" topics?
I think it is obvious that people aren't uneasy around this topic. Just the number of people with Asperger syndrome on these boards shows this.
Uneasy discussing something in a mature and informed manner is one thing.
Uneasy about 100% tasteless jokes? Different matter.
And going 'derp derp you have Autisim!' is not a biting joke, just like walking up to someone on the subway and sneering '****ing ****' is not a joke. It is lowclass bigotry.
Edit: Hmm, language filter makes it hard to express by example. Hopefully you know what I mean.
Somehow I don't think this is on the up n up.
I can guarantee that you're not qualified to make that statement, and thus your skepticism means nothing. I can also guarantee that you more than likely lack formal training in biochemistry, genetics, and other relevant subfields of biology, further reducing your credibility.
Blue eyes are not a mutation, they are a chromosomal development.
Take note of the parts in bold, and this is how I know. It's not opinion, its a conclusion, based on empirical, verifiable facts through genetic comparisons and protein studies. Don't like it? Get in the lab and prove them wrong.
And a "chromosomal development?" What the hell are you talking about? (This was the other dead give away.)
The genes are located in the chromosomes, which are in turn located in the nucleus of cells, or in the case of prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria, the nucleoid region. Given this, let's follow it to its logical conclusion. All new traits start off as mutations at some point. Blue eyes are recessive alleles to other dominant eye colors, in particular, brown. You either have the genes or you don't.
Mutations to the genes take place on of the chromosomes. The original mutation which brought about the blue eye phenotype took place on the chromosome, at the specific locus where the eye color genes are located. The article isn't saying that blue eyes are a mutation, but they were brought about by a specific mutation in a single individual. Blue eyes don't "develop" spontaneously, and the genes haven't always been around.
The color of one’s eyes does not determine the usefulness of them. If different colored eyes caused different levels of vision I'd agree it was a mutation. As far as I can tell pigmentation is not a mutation.
Most mutations are neutral, actually. Some are detrimental, but on the rare occassion, some of them are beneficial. Whether or not a mutation is beneficial plays no part in whether it IS in fact a mutation. It's a process of biochemistry, not human understanding of "usefulness." But the other thing is that it can create a mating preference.
If members of a species, for example, out of a group with dominant brown eye genes, find blue eyes attractive, then members with blue eyes will spread the blue eye allele through the population group. Because the allele is recessive in most people, it takes two copies of the gene to be expressed, but some of the population will come out with blue eyes, and some with brown. Nothing more than random mutation and mate/sexual selection.
-satisfied sigh- Now that felt good. : )
The color of one’s eyes does not determine the usefulness of them. If different colored eyes caused different levels of vision I'd agree it was a mutation. As far as I can tell pigmentation is not a mutation.
Most mutations are neutral, actually. Some are detrimental, but on the rare occassion, some of them are beneficial. Whether or not a mutation is beneficial plays no part in whether it IS in fact a mutation. It's a process of biochemistry, not human understanding of "usefulness." But the other thing is that it can create a mating preference.
If members of a species, for example, out of a group with dominant brown eye genes, find blue eyes attractive, then members with blue eyes will spread the blue eye allele through the population group. Because the allele is recessive in most people, it takes two copies of the gene to be expressed, but some of the population will come out with blue eyes, and some with brown. Nothing more than random mutation and mate/sexual selection.
I was wondering when you would hop on this topic
I was wondering when you would hop on this topic
Actually, I haven't been able to access the forums for the last few weeks. I thought maybe something I'd said got me suspended or something.
But I'm glad I found it. : P
I was wondering when you would hop on this topic
Actually, I haven't been able to access the forums for the last few weeks. I thought maybe something I'd said got me suspended or something.
But I'm glad I found it. : P
next time just make another account bro
I was wondering when you would hop on this topic
Actually, I haven't been able to access the forums for the last few weeks. I thought maybe something I'd said got me suspended or something.
But I'm glad I found it. : P
next time just make another account bro
That's just it. I couldn't access the forums to do so. I kept getting some "run time error," and when I tried to access the forums the hard way, it said that the domain didn't exist anymore.
I was wondering when you would hop on this topic
Actually, I haven't been able to access the forums for the last few weeks. I thought maybe something I'd said got me suspended or something.
But I'm glad I found it. : P
next time just make another account bro
That's just it. I couldn't access the forums to do so. I kept getting some "run time error," and when I tried to access the forums the hard way, it said that the domain didn't exist anymore.
probably because of all the changes
they put in a rating system then twitter youtube and facebook and like a ton of useless thingsThat's just it. I couldn't access the forums to do so. I kept getting some "run time error," and when I tried to access the forums the hard way, it said that the domain didn't exist anymore.
Where you using a bookmark? That happened to me as well. I had to go to the wizards.com homepage and work my way through to the forums from there.
That's just it. I couldn't access the forums to do so. I kept getting some "run time error," and when I tried to access the forums the hard way, it said that the domain didn't exist anymore.
Where you using a bookmark? That happened to me as well. I had to go to the wizards.com homepage and work my way through to the forums from there.
ILY <3
On the origional topic, the article claims (IIRC) that all blue eyed people can be traced to a single ancestor. Isn't it possible that the blue-eyed mutation happened independantly to 2 or more individuals over the course of human developement?
After working my way back here through the wizards.com homepage 3 or 4 times, I finally got smart and updated my bookmark.
On the origional topic, the article claims (IIRC) that all blue eyed people can be traced to a single ancestor. Isn't it possible that the blue-eyed mutation happened independantly to 2 or more individuals over the course of human developement?
I have it in my favorites and I didn't have any trouble
After working my way back here through the wizards.com homepage 3 or 4 times, I finally got smart and updated my bookmark.
Nothing to do with smarts. I did that as well and it still didn't work.
Somehow I don't think this is on the up n up.
I can guarantee that you're not qualified to make that statement, and thus your skepticism means nothing. I can also guarantee that you more than likely lack formal training in biochemistry, genetics, and other relevant subfields of biology, further reducing your credibility.
Blue eyes are not a mutation, they are a chromosomal development.
Take note of the parts in bold, and this is how I know. It's not opinion, its a conclusion, based on empirical, verifiable facts through genetic comparisons and protein studies. Don't like it? Get in the lab and prove them wrong.
And a "chromosomal development?" What the hell are you talking about? (This was the other dead give away.)
The genes are located in the chromosomes, which are in turn located in the nucleus of cells, or in the case of prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria, the nucleoid region. Given this, let's follow it to its logical conclusion. All new traits start off as mutations at some point. Blue eyes are recessive alleles to other dominant eye colors, in particular, brown. You either have the genes or you don't.
Mutations to the genes take place on of the chromosomes. The original mutation which brought about the blue eye phenotype took place on the chromosome, at the specific locus where the eye color genes are located. The article isn't saying that blue eyes are a mutation, but they were brought about by a specific mutation in a single individual. Blue eyes don't "develop" spontaneously, and the genes haven't always been around.The color of one’s eyes does not determine the usefulness of them. If different colored eyes caused different levels of vision I'd agree it was a mutation. As far as I can tell pigmentation is not a mutation.
Most mutations are neutral, actually. Some are detrimental, but on the rare occassion, some of them are beneficial. Whether or not a mutation is beneficial plays no part in whether it IS in fact a mutation. It's a process of biochemistry, not human understanding of "usefulness." But the other thing is that it can create a mating preference.
If members of a species, for example, out of a group with dominant brown eye genes, find blue eyes attractive, then members with blue eyes will spread the blue eye allele through the population group. Because the allele is recessive in most people, it takes two copies of the gene to be expressed, but some of the population will come out with blue eyes, and some with brown. Nothing more than random mutation and mate/sexual selection.
-satisfied sigh- Now that felt good. : )
I was hoping you would jump in here and give us an explanation... and it was very good...
I was wondering when you would hop on this topic
Actually, I haven't been able to access the forums for the last few weeks. I thought maybe something I'd said got me suspended or something.
But I'm glad I found it. : P
next time just make another account bro
That's just it. I couldn't access the forums to do so. I kept getting some "run time error," and when I tried to access the forums the hard way, it said that the domain didn't exist anymore.
Yes, me to. but I have a theory about why and a work around: Something is wrong with the login program. If you click "remember me" it crashes when you try to go to the sight. If you go to the wizards site (www.wizards.com/dnd) and sign in and then sign out, it removes the cookies when you try and go back to the forum and sends you back to the login page. You need to type in your stuff each time, trying to "remember" people (at least me) causes it to **** up.
Probably you can get on now because the time frame on remembering a user has expired or your cleared out the cookie involved.
Not really. The filter really doesn't help. And I rarely understand what you try to say.
Not surprising. Your reading comprehension is notoriously poor. I tried to make it nice and easy for you, but the language filter blocked it out, so... ohwell.
Not really. The filter really doesn't help. And I rarely understand what you try to say.
Not surprising. Your reading comprehension is notoriously poor. I tried to make it nice and easy for you, but the language filter blocked it out, so... ohwell.
Not trying to white-knight for Goldo, but I also had a difficult time trying to understand what you were saying. Truth-be-told, you don't speak "douche" very well. I'm a native English speaker, and I've got pretty good reading comprehension. I passed my Communications 101 class last semester with an "A", and it was the part of my college entrance exam that I scored the highest on, and even I had problems trying to figure out what you were saying.
Perhaps if you'd worded what you were saying in proper English instead of trying to be "witty"...
Not really. The filter really doesn't help. And I rarely understand what you try to say.
Not surprising. Your reading comprehension is notoriously poor. I tried to make it nice and easy for you, but the language filter blocked it out, so... ohwell.
Not trying to white-knight for Goldo, but I also had a difficult time trying to understand what you were saying. Truth-be-told, you don't speak "douche" very well. Perhaps if you'd worded it in English...
I understood very easily and I'm not exactly the most intuitive around here.
There was an issue with the login script and the 'remember me' function was involved. Navigating to the forums through the home page still worked and that's something to keep in mind if the runtime error ever pops back. Anyhoo, the reason we can get in easily now is because they fixed it. Took some time, but there was an actual fix put out to correct the issue. Hopefully this clears up the goings on.
Oh, and issues like this are frequently discussed in the Community Business forum. I try to follow 'em there and post the stuff here, but it seems some people missed my updates. At any rate, if there is some odd bug goin' on and you can navigate to that forum, it's a good place to look for conversation on the issue or to start a thread discussing it. Obviously if you can't get in it's not any help, but other stuff pops up and it's useful then.
EDIT: Also, I have blue eyes so that makes me specialer and uniquerer than you fools what don't. n0085.
Not trying to white-knight for Goldo, but I also had a difficult time trying to understand what you were saying. Truth-be-told, you don't speak "douche" very well. I'm a native English speaker, and I've got pretty good reading comprehension. I passed my Communications 101 class last semester with an "A", and it was the part of my college entrance exam that I scored the highest on, and even I had problems trying to figure out what you were saying.
Perhaps if you'd worded what you were saying in proper English instead of trying to be "witty"...
Mind if we make sure we are on the same page here before we continue? Which post of mine did you find unclear? My statment was a response to goldo's response where he appears to have completly missunderstood my comment about how the language filter made it dificult to express myself and asked that he let me know if he knew what I meant with the words that got censored out. (He responded by saying that the word filter did not help him understand me, and that I have autisim. Not exactly a sensical response from my perspective. The post in question was the one where I was attempting to explain why his jokes about mental illness where not "cutting whit" as I belive he refeered to them.)
EDIT: Also, I have blue eyes so that makes me specialer and uniquerer than you fools what don't. n0085.
Blue eyes look empty, like no one is home.
Sounds like a blond joke.
So your saying I can use the "remember me" button again?
I have been for about a week now with no troubles.
Blue eyes look empty, like no one is home.
Spoken like a true, poo colored eye haver. Flush your irises, please. They're stinkin' up the joint.
I'm blue eyed, both my parents were blue eyed. Both sets of grandparents were blue eyed. My brother is blue eyed but my brother screwed up and married a brown-eye and so his baby has brown eyes. I just wonder how strong the blue eye gene (or whatever it is) is. And if it's true that all blue eyed people have common ancestor, then man I'm one inbred sum bitch.
Also, if the blue eye gene (or whatever it is) is strong enough to contaminate an entire species (or is race the correct word) then you would think my brother's baby would have blue eyes, wouldn't you?
So am I correct in assuming that everyone may have one common ancestor or am I just wrong that my Mom's brother's and sister's didn't have blue eyes? I don't think I am, but if its a statistical impossibility, then I must be wrong, right?
As I said, that's the 101 as I recall it. And the 101 tends to only explain the simple, common case. So I suspect that someone that has a better understanding would be able to explain any apparent inconsistencies, even if only because the genetics 101 I learned back in high school was just the happy (but wrong) model they taught to high school students to us shut up about it already.
You will flush your eyes out and cease calling people nazi's
Right. Just half crazy.
The other half is sane. Very, very sane...
As a certified crazologist, I can say that half-crazy does not exist. You are or you're not.
"Do, or do not. There is no try" -Master Jedi Yoda.
Isn't just as likely that two blue-eyed people could have children with brown or hazel eyes.
Not just as likely, but certainly possible. If there have ever been brown, hazel or other colored eyes in your family history, there's always a chance (however small) that they'll show up in one of your siblings even if both of your parents have blue eyes. My friend Sue is a very dark-skinned black woman from Anguilla, but one of her grandfathers was white and both of her kids have blue eyes despite no history of it on their fathers' sides of the family. Remember that your mother's family's genetic history goes back thousands of generations, so even if there haven't been brown eyes in your mom's family for as long as they can remember, the potential for them is quite possibly still there. A "statistical impossibility" isn't the same thing as an actual impossibility.
See, genetics works out like this... Each individual passes on half their DNA to the offspring. If both halves of the person's DNA contain the dominant trait, or both halves contain only the recessive trait, they're considered to be homozygous. If an individual possesses genes for both the dominant and recessive trait, they're heterozygous.
Let's say two individuals are mated. It's basically a matter of percentages.
If both individuals possess a dominant genetic trait, and do not possess the recessive trait, there is a 100% chance of their offspring having the dominant trait. (Barring a spontaneous mutation, of course.)
The same also applies to two parents who both possess the recessive trait, but not the dominant one.
If either of them are homozygous for the dominant trait but the other is heterozygous for it, then all of their offspring will exhibit the dominant trait, but there's a 50% chance that they'll be heterozygous for it, and thus able to pass down the recessive gene to their own offspring.
If both are heterozygous, possessing both the dominant and recessive traits, there's only a 75% chance of their offspring exibiting the dominant trait and a 25% chance of them exhibiting the recessive trait.
You can graph this with what they call a Punnett square...
The DNA pairs of each parent are cross-referenced, one across the top of the square and one down the side...
D = Dominant
d = recessive
__D_____D___
| |
D |__DD_| DD__
| |
D | DD | DD
Because each possible combination results in a homozygous pairing of dominant traits (DD), there's a 100% chance that any offspring of that pairing will exhibit the dominant trait. The same is true for two individuals who possess homozygous DNA for the recessive trait as well (dd).
__D____d____
| |
D | DD | Dd
| |
D | DD | Dd___
With one heterozygous parent and one homozygous parent, all of the offspring exhibit the dominant trait, but half of them possess the recessive gene as well and thus may pass it on to their own offspring.
__D____d___
| |
D | DD | Dd___
| |
d | Dd_| dd___
If both parents are heterozygous, there is only a 75% chance that their offspring will exibit the dominant trait, however, there's still a 50% chance of any offspring being heterozygous for the dominant trait and thus able to pass down the recessive gene even though they don't exhibit that trait.
Unlike with the other examples, two heterozygous parents also have a 25% chance of producing a homozygous offspring for the recessive trait. That offspring doesn't possess the dominant trait at all and thus can't pass it down to their offspring.
Note that none of these percentages are dependent on any other - this is why recessive traits occasionally "spontaneously" pop up in families that usually exhibit the dominant trait or why the dominant trait may reassert itself in families that usually exhibit the recessive trait if outside blood is introduced. And keep in mind that for some traits, the dominance of one characteristic over another isn't necessarily as strong as it might be for some other trait. Some traits are determined by a group of genes rather than a single one and there are genes whose only purpose is to control or influence the effects of other genes, which is where things can get complicated and things like hazel or green eyes and heterochromia come into the picture. Unlike with simple graphs mapping a specific trait on a piece of paper, there are a lot of other factors that can influence the probabilities of exhibiting a specific genetic trait. In the case of your family, if some of your aunts and uncles had brown eyes when the rest of your family has blue eyes, then your family has most likely always been heterozygous for the dominant trait on both sides, and it's been simple random chance (possibly combined with some other mitigating factor) that every time an offspring was produced it beat the odds and ended up with blue eyes.
As far as everyone with blue eyes having a single common ancestor, it's theoretically possible, but if I remember right brown eyes are the norm in all primates, so it's quite possible that if blue-eyed lower primates exist that that "one common ancestor" might have been a chimp.
Your explanation of how genetics work fits my limited understanding of the subject picked up during middle school science class and later highschool biology.
so if two blue eyed people get it on, is that incest?
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/08...
First there was Adam and Eve. Then there was incest. It's all good ;)
Thanks Mad_Jack. Basically what I was getting at is the article assumes that the brown-eyed people have remained genetically "pure" through the generations. I have a slight problem with that assumption.
Hmm.. I really didn't get the impression from the article that they were portraying having one eye color or the other as having any better or worse connotation than the other... From a purely scientific standpoint, though, it certainly is true that having brown eyes is the default condition for human beings and still the dominant gene, and thus brown-eyed people could be described (without any positive or negative connotations associated with it) as being more genetically pure than those with blue eyes, but it's really just a way of saying that the genetic blueprint of brown-eyed people has changed less from the original human blueprint than those who have blue eyes when considering only this one particular trait. But, you could also look at it from the perspective that brown-eyed people are less "evolved" than blue-eyed people, lol.
When it speaks about the gene that causes blue eyes being a switch that turns off the ability to have brown eyes and being neither a positive or negative mutation as far as survival is concerned, I think it's simply explaining the first point and addressing the second point due to the that most folks without a good understanding of genetics hear the word "mutation" and think of some negative consequence like birth defects or people turning into post-apocalyptic zombies or growing a third eye in their armpit or something.
As a person possessing a number of mutations myself including central heterochromia (my eyes are both blue and brown), the ability to dislocate my thumbs at will and an extra bit of cartilage in my right ear, I really didn't get the impression that there was any sort of intentional bias implied in the article. I think it's an interesting premise that all blue-eyed people have a common ancestor that could theoretically be identified, although I personally question whether or not the blue eyes mutation happened within our species, within earlier species of proto-humans or even earlier within the primate family. Attempting to link all brown-eyed people to a single ancestor simply through the presence of brown eyes becomes much more problematic due to the fact that having brown eyes was not one of the mutations that distinguished us from previous species we evolved from, i.e., brown eyes are the default condition in all primates, so the logical conclusion would be that the first brown-eyed homosapiens would have to have also been the first homosapiens in general.
Not really. The filter really doesn't help. And I rarely understand what you try to say.
Not surprising. Your reading comprehension is notoriously poor. I tried to make it nice and easy for you, but the language filter blocked it out, so... ohwell.
Not really. The filter really doesn't help. And I rarely understand what you try to say.
Not surprising. Your reading comprehension is notoriously poor. I tried to make it nice and easy for you, but the language filter blocked it out, so... ohwell.
Not trying to white-knight for Goldo, but I also had a difficult time trying to understand what you were saying. Truth-be-told, you don't speak "douche" very well. I'm a native English speaker, and I've got pretty good reading comprehension. I passed my Communications 101 class last semester with an "A", and it was the part of my college entrance exam that I scored the highest on, and even I had problems trying to figure out what you were saying.
Perhaps if you'd worded what you were saying in proper English instead of trying to be "witty"...
Not really. The filter really doesn't help. And I rarely understand what you try to say.
Not surprising. Your reading comprehension is notoriously poor. I tried to make it nice and easy for you, but the language filter blocked it out, so... ohwell.
Not trying to white-knight for Goldo, but I also had a difficult time trying to understand what you were saying. Truth-be-told, you don't speak "douche" very well. Perhaps if you'd worded it in English...
I understood very easily and I'm not exactly the most intuitive around here.
There was an issue with the login script and the 'remember me' function was involved. Navigating to the forums through the home page still worked and that's something to keep in mind if the runtime error ever pops back. Anyhoo, the reason we can get in easily now is because they fixed it. Took some time, but there was an actual fix put out to correct the issue. Hopefully this clears up the goings on.
Oh, and issues like this are frequently discussed in the Community Business forum. I try to follow 'em there and post the stuff here, but it seems some people missed my updates. At any rate, if there is some odd bug goin' on and you can navigate to that forum, it's a good place to look for conversation on the issue or to start a thread discussing it. Obviously if you can't get in it's not any help, but other stuff pops up and it's useful then.
EDIT: Also, I have blue eyes so that makes me specialer and uniquerer than you fools what don't. n0085.
Not trying to white-knight for Goldo, but I also had a difficult time trying to understand what you were saying. Truth-be-told, you don't speak "douche" very well. I'm a native English speaker, and I've got pretty good reading comprehension. I passed my Communications 101 class last semester with an "A", and it was the part of my college entrance exam that I scored the highest on, and even I had problems trying to figure out what you were saying.
Perhaps if you'd worded what you were saying in proper English instead of trying to be "witty"...
Mind if we make sure we are on the same page here before we continue? Which post of mine did you find unclear? My statment was a response to goldo's response where he appears to have completly missunderstood my comment about how the language filter made it dificult to express myself and asked that he let me know if he knew what I meant with the words that got censored out. (He responded by saying that the word filter did not help him understand me, and that I have autisim. Not exactly a sensical response from my perspective. The post in question was the one where I was attempting to explain why his jokes about mental illness where not "cutting whit" as I belive he refeered to them.)
EDIT: Also, I have blue eyes so that makes me specialer and uniquerer than you fools what don't. n0085.
Blue eyes look empty, like no one is home.
Sounds like a blond joke.
So your saying I can use the "remember me" button again?
I have been for about a week now with no troubles.
Blue eyes look empty, like no one is home.
Spoken like a true, poo colored eye haver. Flush your irises, please. They're stinkin' up the joint.
I'm blue eyed, both my parents were blue eyed. Both sets of grandparents were blue eyed. My brother is blue eyed but my brother screwed up and married a brown-eye and so his baby has brown eyes. I just wonder how strong the blue eye gene (or whatever it is) is. And if it's true that all blue eyed people have common ancestor, then man I'm one inbred sum bitch.
Also, if the blue eye gene (or whatever it is) is strong enough to contaminate an entire species (or is race the correct word) then you would think my brother's baby would have blue eyes, wouldn't you?
So am I correct in assuming that everyone may have one common ancestor or am I just wrong that my Mom's brother's and sister's didn't have blue eyes? I don't think I am, but if its a statistical impossibility, then I must be wrong, right?
As I said, that's the 101 as I recall it. And the 101 tends to only explain the simple, common case. So I suspect that someone that has a better understanding would be able to explain any apparent inconsistencies, even if only because the genetics 101 I learned back in high school was just the happy (but wrong) model they taught to high school students to us shut up about it already.
You will flush your eyes out and cease calling people nazi's
Right. Just half crazy.
The other half is sane. Very, very sane...
As a certified crazologist, I can say that half-crazy does not exist. You are or you're not.
"Do, or do not. There is no try" -Master Jedi Yoda.
Isn't just as likely that two blue-eyed people could have children with brown or hazel eyes.
Not just as likely, but certainly possible. If there have ever been brown, hazel or other colored eyes in your family history, there's always a chance (however small) that they'll show up in one of your siblings even if both of your parents have blue eyes. My friend Sue is a very dark-skinned black woman from Anguilla, but one of her grandfathers was white and both of her kids have blue eyes despite no history of it on their fathers' sides of the family. Remember that your mother's family's genetic history goes back thousands of generations, so even if there haven't been brown eyes in your mom's family for as long as they can remember, the potential for them is quite possibly still there. A "statistical impossibility" isn't the same thing as an actual impossibility.
See, genetics works out like this... Each individual passes on half their DNA to the offspring. If both halves of the person's DNA contain the dominant trait, or both halves contain only the recessive trait, they're considered to be homozygous. If an individual possesses genes for both the dominant and recessive trait, they're heterozygous.
Let's say two individuals are mated. It's basically a matter of percentages.
If both individuals possess a dominant genetic trait, and do not possess the recessive trait, there is a 100% chance of their offspring having the dominant trait. (Barring a spontaneous mutation, of course.)
The same also applies to two parents who both possess the recessive trait, but not the dominant one.
If either of them are homozygous for the dominant trait but the other is heterozygous for it, then all of their offspring will exhibit the dominant trait, but there's a 50% chance that they'll be heterozygous for it, and thus able to pass down the recessive gene to their own offspring.
If both are heterozygous, possessing both the dominant and recessive traits, there's only a 75% chance of their offspring exibiting the dominant trait and a 25% chance of them exhibiting the recessive trait.
You can graph this with what they call a Punnett square...
The DNA pairs of each parent are cross-referenced, one across the top of the square and one down the side...
D = Dominant
d = recessive
__D_____D___
| |
D |__DD_| DD__
| |
D | DD | DD
Because each possible combination results in a homozygous pairing of dominant traits (DD), there's a 100% chance that any offspring of that pairing will exhibit the dominant trait. The same is true for two individuals who possess homozygous DNA for the recessive trait as well (dd).
__D____d____
| |
D | DD | Dd
| |
D | DD | Dd___
With one heterozygous parent and one homozygous parent, all of the offspring exhibit the dominant trait, but half of them possess the recessive gene as well and thus may pass it on to their own offspring.
__D____d___
| |
D | DD | Dd___
| |
d | Dd_| dd___
If both parents are heterozygous, there is only a 75% chance that their offspring will exibit the dominant trait, however, there's still a 50% chance of any offspring being heterozygous for the dominant trait and thus able to pass down the recessive gene even though they don't exhibit that trait.
Unlike with the other examples, two heterozygous parents also have a 25% chance of producing a homozygous offspring for the recessive trait. That offspring doesn't possess the dominant trait at all and thus can't pass it down to their offspring.
Note that none of these percentages are dependent on any other - this is why recessive traits occasionally "spontaneously" pop up in families that usually exhibit the dominant trait or why the dominant trait may reassert itself in families that usually exhibit the recessive trait if outside blood is introduced. And keep in mind that for some traits, the dominance of one characteristic over another isn't necessarily as strong as it might be for some other trait. Some traits are determined by a group of genes rather than a single one and there are genes whose only purpose is to control or influence the effects of other genes, which is where things can get complicated and things like hazel or green eyes and heterochromia come into the picture. Unlike with simple graphs mapping a specific trait on a piece of paper, there are a lot of other factors that can influence the probabilities of exhibiting a specific genetic trait. In the case of your family, if some of your aunts and uncles had brown eyes when the rest of your family has blue eyes, then your family has most likely always been heterozygous for the dominant trait on both sides, and it's been simple random chance (possibly combined with some other mitigating factor) that every time an offspring was produced it beat the odds and ended up with blue eyes.
As far as everyone with blue eyes having a single common ancestor, it's theoretically possible, but if I remember right brown eyes are the norm in all primates, so it's quite possible that if blue-eyed lower primates exist that that "one common ancestor" might have been a chimp.
Your explanation of how genetics work fits my limited understanding of the subject picked up during middle school science class and later highschool biology.
so if two blue eyed people get it on, is that incest?
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/08...
First there was Adam and Eve. Then there was incest. It's all good ;)
Thanks Mad_Jack. Basically what I was getting at is the article assumes that the brown-eyed people have remained genetically "pure" through the generations. I have a slight problem with that assumption.
Hmm.. I really didn't get the impression from the article that they were portraying having one eye color or the other as having any better or worse connotation than the other... From a purely scientific standpoint, though, it certainly is true that having brown eyes is the default condition for human beings and still the dominant gene, and thus brown-eyed people could be described (without any positive or negative connotations associated with it) as being more genetically pure than those with blue eyes, but it's really just a way of saying that the genetic blueprint of brown-eyed people has changed less from the original human blueprint than those who have blue eyes when considering only this one particular trait. But, you could also look at it from the perspective that brown-eyed people are less "evolved" than blue-eyed people, lol.
When it speaks about the gene that causes blue eyes being a switch that turns off the ability to have brown eyes and being neither a positive or negative mutation as far as survival is concerned, I think it's simply explaining the first point and addressing the second point due to the that most folks without a good understanding of genetics hear the word "mutation" and think of some negative consequence like birth defects or people turning into post-apocalyptic zombies or growing a third eye in their armpit or something.
As a person possessing a number of mutations myself including central heterochromia (my eyes are both blue and brown), the ability to dislocate my thumbs at will and an extra bit of cartilage in my right ear, I really didn't get the impression that there was any sort of intentional bias implied in the article. I think it's an interesting premise that all blue-eyed people have a common ancestor that could theoretically be identified, although I personally question whether or not the blue eyes mutation happened within our species, within earlier species of proto-humans or even earlier within the primate family. Attempting to link all brown-eyed people to a single ancestor simply through the presence of brown eyes becomes much more problematic due to the fact that having brown eyes was not one of the mutations that distinguished us from previous species we evolved from, i.e., brown eyes are the default condition in all primates, so the logical conclusion would be that the first brown-eyed homosapiens would have to have also been the first homosapiens in general.