Myths of human genetics

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
May 9, 2010
58,308
5,099
245
This is why I read a lot of shit, and then read even more.

I remember digging through books researching things, and coming across something that had nothing to do with what I what looking for that led me to something fascinating. That doesn't hapen nearly as often as it used to because of Google, but I still stumble across things that remind me of the joy of hard research in books.

Anyone that really cares about science will teach their children not to believe crap like this.

A fun way to teach the basics of genetics is to have students look at traits on themselves. Just about every biology student has, in one class or another, been asked to roll their tongue, look at their earlobes, or check their fingers for hair. Students can easily collect data on several different traits and learn about genes, dominant and recessive alleles, maybe even Hardy-Weinberg proportions. Best of all, these data don't require microscopes, petri dishes, or stinky fly food.
Unfortunately, what textbooks, lab manuals and web pages say about these human traits is mostly wrong. Most of the common, visible human traits that are used in classrooms do NOT have a simple one-locus, two-allele, dominant vs. recessive method of inheritance. Rolling your tongue is not dominant to non-rolling, unattached earlobes are not dominant to attached, straight thumbs are not dominant to hitchhiker's thumb, etc.
In some cases, the trait doesn't even fall into the two distinct categories described by the myth. For example, students are told that they either have a hitchhiker's thumb, which bends backwards at a sharp angle, or a straight thumb. In fact, the angle of the thumb ranges continuously, with most thumbs somewhere in the middle. This was clearly shown in the very first paper on the genetics of hitchhiker's thumb (Glass and Kistler 1953), yet 60 years later, teachers still ask students which of the two kinds of thumb they have.
In other cases, the trait really does fall into two categories, but it isn't determined by genetics. For example, students are asked to fold their arms, then told that the allele for having the right forearm on top is dominant. It is true that most people fall into two categories, right arm on top or left arm on top, but the very first study on the subject (Wiener 1932) clearly demonstrated that there is little or no genetic influence on this trait: pairs of right-arm parents are just about as likely to have right-arm children as are pairs of left-arm parents.
Some traits, such as tongue rolling, were originally described as fitting a simple genetic model, but later research revealed them to be more complicated. Other traits were shown from the very beginning to not fit the simple genetic model, but somehow textbook authors decided to ignore this. A quick search in the standard reference on human genetics, Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM), makes it clear that most of these traits do not fit the simple genetic model. It is an embarrassment to the field of biology education that textbooks and lab manuals continue to perpetuate these myths.

Myths of Human Genetics: Introduction
 
Gays say they were born that way...the gay gene...what are your thoughts on that?
 
Gays say they were born that way...the gay gene...what are your thoughts on that?

That it's fully possible. Some girls have been born with 2 vaginas. Some girls have been born without any vagina. Are they any less in the eyes of God?

Do we have any right to judge?

Possible is one thing, proven is another.

Gods judgement isn't up to me but in my opinion life has full value from conception.
 
Last edited:
Gays say they were born that way...the gay gene...what are your thoughts on that?

That it's fully possible. Some girls have been born with 2 vaginas. Some girls have been born without any vagina. Are they any less in the eyes of God?

Do we have any right to judge?

Possible is one thing, proven is another.

Gods judgement isn't up to me but in my option life has full value from conception.

I owe you a rep in the future
 
The Art of Albino Alligators


When we watch genetics-paranoia Hollywood (USA) movies such as "The Fly" (1986) and "Gattaca" (1997), we confront our own bizarre anxieties about genetics manipulation and its consequences.

Genetics is both elegant and complex.

The comic book world offers us eccentric strength-hybridization 'super-humans' who exhibit traits of extra-ordinary measure.

Serpentor (G.I. Joe) is a fictional diabolical super-soldier created from the genes of warlords. Pythona (G.I. Joe) is one of his allies who possesses great skill with handling toxins and devising terrorism. The Green Goblin (Marvel Comics) is a jet-soaring maniac who throws pumpkin bombs and deals with his own strange biochemical mutations.

To understand why these genetics-paranoia avatars are so intriguing, we can think about how art informs social dialogue in the proverbial 'court of propaganda.'






:afro:

Gattaca (Film)

Serpentor (Wikipedia)

Pythona (G.I. Joe Wikia)

Green Goblin (Marvel Wikia)



green-goblin.gif
pythona.jpg
serpentor.jpg
 
The Drone Duracell


What is the difference between mobility and adaptation?

Mobility has changed human civilization. When human beings began to engage in sea travel, colonialization and globalization began. In modern times, network-connectivity (i.e., email) defines agility with information exchange.

Adaptation, on the other hand, is a much slower process and is observed when morphological structures arise as an effect of environmental pressures.

To understand the differences between mobility and adaptation could illuminate why modern society celebrates genetics-reorientation avatars such as the fictional genetically-engineered super-soldier terrorist Serpentor from the American paramilitary fantasy-adventure franchise "G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero" (Hasbro).

When I traveled to India, I saw a male carriage-driver called a 'rickshaw driver' who would pull passengers on a carriage-buggy on only back wheels --- the man-driver would literally pull the carriage along by running with it on his feet. I wondered how the Indian rickshaw runner/driver revealed a civilization interest in normalizing mobility (or traffic) engineering.




:afro:


Serpentor (Wikipedia)



aeon.jpg
 
I think it's a good way to demonstrate the concept to younger kids. That's a pretty abstract concept for anyone to learn about and what you talked about it is a fun and simple enough way to introduce the topic.

I don't see any problem with it.
I don't think spewing disinformation at kids is a good way to introduce them to science.
 
Avatar Archipelago

There are multiple American comic book characters who are super-humans able stretch their bodies to incredible lengths, enabling them to wrap themselves around their foes and tie them up in battle.

Mister Fantastic (Marvel Comics), Plastic Man (DC Comics), and Gorgeous George (Marvel Comics) stand out.

These avatars represent a sci-fi curiosity about body composition/element pliability. How can we use such characters to talk about genetics-related tensile strength sculpting (i.e., protein-carbon bonding)?



:afro:

Mister Fantastic (Wikipedia)


pm.jpg
 
Avatar Archipelago

There are multiple American comic book characters who are super-humans able stretch their bodies to incredible lengths, enabling them to wrap themselves around their foes and tie them up in battle.

Mister Fantastic (Marvel Comics), Plastic Man (DC Comics), and Gorgeous George (Marvel Comics) stand out.

These avatars represent a sci-fi curiosity about body composition/element pliability. How can we use such characters to talk about genetics-related tensile strength sculpting (i.e., protein-carbon bonding)?



:afro:

Mister Fantastic (Wikipedia)


View attachment 43979
Only purpose to use them really is to discover "is x power possible? Is y power possible? If so, how will/can/should they be used?"
 
Failure to Adapt: Folk Pheromones

The genetics-fantasy comic book character Morph is a member and sometimes traitor of the fictional mutant super-hero team called the X-Men (Marvel Comics).

Morph has the ability to change his phenotype at will to completely resemble in appearance the composition of anyone he chooses, be that person a mutant, hero, villain, or normal person.

Morph represents a social and scientific curiosity about metamorphosis failure.



:afro:

Morph (X-Men)

morph.jpg
 
Gays say they were born that way...the gay gene...what are your thoughts on that?

The only ones I hear talking about the "gay gene" are those who are anti-gay.

Homosexuals that I know say that they were born that way- that they didn't 'learn' or 'choose' to be gay.

And being born that way does not always mean its genetic.

Like being left handed.
 
Gays say they were born that way...the gay gene...what are your thoughts on that?

The only ones I hear talking about the "gay gene" are those who are anti-gay.

Homosexuals that I know say that they were born that way- that they didn't 'learn' or 'choose' to be gay.

And being born that way does not always mean its genetic.

Like being left handed.

I only mentioned it because I've heard the reference or excuse or reason or blah blah blah who knows or cares, it is what it is.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top