3 ms·

I agree with you about the "noble" lies. You wrote something else that I have never seen before and that seems quite interesting: > When DNA recombines at con

I agree with you about the "noble" lies. You wrote something else that I have never seen before and that seems quite interesting: > When DNA recombines at conception, it only snips and stitches in a fairly limited number of places. It doesn't 'mix' finely like paint. I had always assumed that clearly recognizable traits that children inherit from parents are simply based on the large influence of certain small pieces of DNA. Do you know a good text that discusses that?

Udik 6y ago
> I had always assumed that clearly recognizable traits that children inherit from parents are simply based on the large influence of certain small pieces of DNA I never understood this position from the logical point of view. Say that you were put in front of two pictures that are entirely covered except for a small visible part each. The two visible parts of the pictures are different. Would you ever assume the parts that you can't see to be identical, or would you assume they differ from each other as much as the visible parts do?
- jacobush 6y ago
  It's because DNA is not a one-to-one encoding from code to visible expression. Some very small genes have very large visible expression. Some large chunks of DNA have very little.
  - Udik 6y ago
    > Some very small genes have very large visible expression Let me change your italics: Some very small genes have very large visible expression So small parts of the DNA code for changes that we can visually appreciate. This doesn't mean that the rest of the DNA contains no variations, but just that we cannot see them. But it would be wrong to assume that the only parts that are actually different are those which encode for visible characteristics.
Complexicate 6y ago
A 2011 study identified 13 DNA variations across 11 different genes that could be used to predict hair color. This seems like a clearly recognizable inherited trait, based on a large influence of certain small pieces of DNA. The abstract mentions eye color as well. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057002/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057002/

Udik 6y ago

> I had always assumed that clearly recognizable traits that children inherit from parents are simply based on the large influence of certain small pieces of DNA I never understood this position from the logical point of view. Say that you were put in front of two pictures that are entirely covered except for a small visible part each. The two visible parts of the pictures are different. Would you ever assume the parts that you can't see to be identical, or would you assume they differ from each other as much as the visible parts do?

jacobush 6y ago
It's because DNA is not a one-to-one encoding from code to visible expression. Some very small genes have very large visible expression. Some large chunks of DNA have very little.
- Udik 6y ago
  > Some very small genes have very large visible expression Let me change your italics: Some very small genes have very large visible expression So small parts of the DNA code for changes that we can visually appreciate. This doesn't mean that the rest of the DNA contains no variations, but just that we cannot see them. But it would be wrong to assume that the only parts that are actually different are those which encode for visible characteristics.

Complexicate 6y ago

A 2011 study identified 13 DNA variations across 11 different genes that could be used to predict hair color. This seems like a clearly recognizable inherited trait, based on a large influence of certain small pieces of DNA. The abstract mentions eye color as well. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057002/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057002/