4 ms·
That doesn't really follow. We don't need to have a complete map genotype to phenotype in order to have an understanding of the weight of genetic component of c
by ddiq 7y ago
That doesn't really follow. We don't need to have a complete map genotype to phenotype in order to have an understanding of the weight of genetic component of certain traits. Just because we don't know exactly which genes cause a certain hair color doesn't mean we can't guess which parents are more likely to have children with that hair color. The same goes for behavior that can be measured and predicted. As long as that prediction is more accurate than a random guess, the prediction has value.
- beambot 7y agoIf you drop an apple & observe that it falls, you get some predictive value about the nature of gravity. But that's a far cry from computing the orbital dynamics of a spacecraft. Parent's comment on "transparency" in the mapping from genotype to phenotype was more akin to the latter -- and their point stands.
- danharaj 7y agoYou can read their comment history to contextualize their angle.
- rdlecler1 7y agoWe sent astronauts to the moon with Newtonian physics. No need for relativity. This is more akin to relativity in that it expands our domain knowledge and explanatory power but the old model already does most of the work.
- ddiq 7y agoDo you not think studying gravity lead to predictive value before we reached a point of being able to compute orbital dynamics of a spacecraft?