Mutation Breeding, a question on.

Recessive characteristics will all but disappear outwardly in many organisms, only to reappear a subsequent generation further down the line. How would these widely prevalent features affect our line? If mordern man were the dominant characteristic and simian characteristics were recessive, shouldn;t we expect to see some of these recessions reverting back in preceding line? In fact, during the early 1900's this topic was the rage as Darwinism was battling for the hearts and minds of the populace. We should expect to see many offspring to display some of these recessive characteristics. So, why don't we? Some recessive stock should have became permanent if we in fact came from a simian lineage.Why, you ask?We always see one of the two parental phenotypes in this generation, at least as far as physical characteristics are concerned. But obviously, as much as half of the mother and fathers genome was transposed into the offspring. That means the offspring still carries the recessive traits. Those recessive traits may come back in their own offspring. An allele whose expression is suppressed in the presence of a dominant allele will usually express itself in subsequent generations.All of this was demonstrably proven by Mendel when he crossed a giant variety of peas with a dwarf variety. The offspring of this union ended up taking the dominant trait and were all tall. But as soon as the second generation came along, giants and dwarfs appeared in a heterozygous 3:1 ratio. But when these dwarfs were self-fertilized, successive generations were ALL dwarfs, showing that the recessive character was not lost, but invariably appeared again as the norm. In other words, breeders have to work hard to overcome what nature does naturally-- which is weed out aberrations. This is one aspect of evolution that I've never understood, or rather, never understood how its proponents glance over this.So, if we in fact come from simian stock, why then aren't their characteristics, like enormous brow ridges and huge, jutting mandibles not present in us? It should have reverted back to the norm. How, then, does evolution account for this?This is why I saw the man in the quote could have just pointed out Mendelian genetics and have been done with it.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to a dd

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

Are you saying it was the norm for such traits to reappear or that such traits would reappear and become the norm? Perhaps because they don't 'glance over' it but instead utilise it thoroughly in disciplines such as population genetics.What point is it you think you have made? Do you think that simply because straightforward mendelian crosses like you might do for a high school genetics problem maintain a proportion of both alleles that this is some sort of inviolable law?There is nothing to stop nature as you yourself say, weeding out particular alleles.There are several orders of magnitude of difference between the sort of F2 crosses you are discussing and the Fn crosses which might represent the descent from the last common ancestor of humans and chimps.Are you saying that Mendelian genetics doesn't allow for the production of a homozygous population with respect to a specific allele? If so then you should provide something approaching evidence for your claim. All you have done so far is give us a verbal representation of a trivial genetic cross.And that is only the start of how fascile and non-sensical your argument is.TTFN,WK

And yet speciation occurs.As for your stuff about recessive genes, I would like to help you, but I don't understand what it is you don't understand. It's all gone ... how shall I put this? ... a bit Brad McFall.Of course if you self-fertilize a pea plant with a recessive trait, then the recessive trait will be present in the offspring. This is well-known to all biologists. What the heck does this have to do with (a) speciation (b) jaw size in humans?

Instead of trying to appeal to your audience by trivializing Mendelian genetics, simply because it is the backbone of genomics, and answer me why no simian characteristics exist today. Following the simple premises of Mendel, why and how would all telltale characteristics have been enveloped within the population?Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characters, which means that he and Mendel were diametric opposites. Mendel wasn't timid about how he felt evolution to be fraught with error. But his work went unnoticed as he himself was dwarfed by Darwin's popularity. It wasn't until the rediscovy of Mendel's laws that one of the great paradoxes of science has culminated into what it is today. Mendelian genetics is still largely responsible for a temporary decline in Darwin's credibility. Are you saying that they've been swamped in the gene pool? Traits once expressed may become hidden for a generation but are not usually lost entirely, as would the case have to be for simian lineage. A recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation, but how would it account for the vast morphological dissimilarities between simian and man? You can only reshuffle the same genes only so long until you come up with at least one person reverting back. I'm simply saying that an uncontrolled cross will tend to go back to the norm. Here, look:(S)=simian / (H)=human (Let it represent some arbitrary allele that distinguishes between two lines)SS-----------------------------------HH-----(Parent generation}
|
|
------------- (F1 generation)
| | | |
SH SH SH SH
|
----------------------- (F2 generation)
| | | |
SS SH SH HH
/ \ \ \
/ \ \ \
/ \ \ \
----------- ----------- \ \ <---(f3 generation)
| | | | | | | \ \ /|
SS SS SS SS SH SH HH \ \ / |
\ \ / |
\ \ |
\ \ |
--------------------- \ V
| | | | \
SS SH SH HH \
\
\
\
--------------------------
| | | |
HH HH HH HHDifferent pairs of alleles have been passed to the offspring independently of each other. The result is recombinants of genes. The only way for us to not share any immediate features is for three lines , represented as (SS homozygous, SH heterozygous, and HS heterozygous) to have died out, and only line HH (homozygous) to survive. If it was not this way, then we should still see strong evidence of reverting back to the norm, and more and more people's recessive traits becoming more dominant in the population as it relates to this diagram.I hope that clarified my position, because doing these little graphs are annoying and I'd really not have to it again.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

What the?!!!! Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! Expletive, expletive, Bleep, bleep!!! I just worked on that for about 45 minutes trying to format it properly. Forget it.............

Are you really saying what I think you are here? That no simian characteristics exist in humans? That I didn't have six wisdom teeth and don't have a hairy, somewhat silvery back? That humans don't have the same blood types as chimps? That we don't share the odd migration of our vomeronasal organs away from the roof of the mouth while we're embryos, and the resorption of our accessory olfactory lobes? That we don't share dozens of pseudogenes that, say, New World monkeys have as functional genes?You're in denial, NJ.

Kerning is a bitch, ain't it? Try the

tag, maybe? it should force a monospace font.

​

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This doesn't seem to be an accurate protrayal of Mendel's views:

quote:

---

Mendel had read a German translation of Darwin's Origin (as evidenced by underlined passages in the copy in his monastery), after completing his experiments but before publishing his paper. Some passages in Mendel's paper are Darwinian in character, evidence that The Origin of Species influenced Mendel's writing. Darwin did not have a copy of Mendel's paper, but he did have a book by Focke with references to it. The leading expert in heredity at this time was Darwin's half-cousin Francis Galton who had mathematical skills that Darwin lacked and may have been able to understand the paper had he seen it. In any event, the modern evolutionary synthesis did not start until the 1920s, by which time statistics had become advanced enough to cope with genetics and evolution.

​

The historian of evolution, Peter J. Bowler, has argued that it would not matter much if Darwin or even Galton had read Mendel, because not even Mendel was attempting to make the argument that his observed ratios were universal (he considered them to be a special case).

---

Mendel - WikipediaAnd apparently, you can only have so many reversions before we wind up electing one as President. (Sorry, cheap shot. But you really have to be purposefully blind, or have a pathological need to avoid zoos, not to see the obvious homologies between humans and other apes.) Recessive traits becoming "more and more dominant" isn't a feature of either Mendelian or molecular genetics, so you're way off the reservation here.

We have many simian characteristics. What the heck does that mean? Please give evidence that Mendel "felt evolution to be fraught with error". Please explain this "great paradox of science", and also explain why it is totally invisible to biologists. This is absolute nonsense. Simian-human evolution involved new genes arising through mutation. What in the world gave you the idea that only sexual recombination was involved? We have different genes from monkeys. Hello? Recessive traits don't become dominant. Insofar as it makes it clear that you are not familiar with basic genetics, the theory of evolution, or the history of science, yes.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, not genomics. The backbone of genomics is genetic sequencing. Mendelian genetics is the backbone of population genetics and the basis of more complex analyses such as Quantitive trait loci mapping. As others have pointed out not all such traits have disappeared, in fact it is the very existence of a plethora of similar traits that lead us to classify Homo sapiens as primates and great apes. Yes, the rediscovery of Mendel's work solved the question of the mode of inheritance. Rather than raising a paradox however it obviated one.The entire basis of neo=darwinism is the fusion of darwinian evolutionary theory with mendelian genetics. How did this manage to escape you? Of course that is what I am saying. It is perfectly possible for a specific allele to become fixed in a population especially if there is a strong selective pressure involved and especially if the population is a small one. The hominid lineage leading to man has gone through at least one major population bottleneck that we know of and it is quite possible that it went through many more prior to that. Such bottlenecking events can easily greatly reduce the variation at a locus. Even in the absence of such an event alleles can run to fixation. 'Not usually' does not mean never. It doesn't of course, but only someone completely ignorant of modern biology, let alone evolutionary theory, would suggest that it should. This is certainly the case if you do it randomly and assume a calssical dominant/regressive but once you allow for the sort of complex genetic interactions which actually exist and for selective factors then it is by no means a certainty. And by saying uncontrolled you entirely miss out on the concept of natural selection. Your graphs didn't add anything particularly enlightening so I wouldn't put yourself out.TTFN,WK