Human evolution

[Moderator Warning]

mla1, you have previously received a warning for insults in General Questions, and are aware of that they are not permitted. This is another official warning. As I said before, if you continues this behavior you will soon find yourself banned from this site.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

link1 article one
link 2 article 2 NYtime

Go google number of people people eyes decreasing you will be amazed by the number of people that support my claim

The number of people who HAVE blue eyes is decreasing. The number of people of who have the GENE for blue eyes is NOT.

Or rather, the number of people with the gene for blue eyes is not decreasing because the gene is RECESSIVE. If it’s decreasing at all it’s because the fastest population growth right now is occurring in parts of the world where genes for blue eyes are rare.

I have a Ph.D. in biology and 38 years experience in the field. Part of my job is to read and review the scientific literature in the field.

I am not disputing that Neanderthals interbred with early modern humans, or that some genes in non-African populations are of Neanderthal origin.

But what you said was:

I have bolded the parts of your statement that are nonsense. This is pure fabrication on your part; there is no evidence that Neanderthal genetic material preferentially includes “bad genes” (whatever that may mean), or that Neanderthal genetic material preferentially mutates to “cause problems.”

In fact, what the Time article says is:

This in fact implies exactly the opposite of what you said: that it’s mutations in the genes for cognitive development from modern humans that contribute to mental problems. However, even this is speculative and is not supported by current evidence.

do you no what recessive means? it means decreasing gene. The number of people with blue eyes is x in 100 years it will be less than x in 10000 years time it will be 0. the gene or genes as some one pointed out will no longer exist.

The number of people with blue eyes is decreasing because the gene is research it on google please i feel like i’m talking to a brick wall.

[Moderator Instructions]

OK, mla1, I think we’ve seen enough of this kind of posting. I’m instructing you to stop posting off the top of your head; to provide authentic cites for your statements; and to stop simply restating propositions that have been indicated to be false without providing evidence. As you have been told already, this is not the definition of “recessive”; nor does the fact that a gene is recessive have anything to do with whether it will decrease in the future. To keep reiterating this just indicates a lack of even the most basic knowledge in genetics.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

Nevermind - I see this was already covered by Colibri

OK, I’m going to get personal here.

My mother’s mother (Grandma G) had blue eyes. So she had two blue eyed genes. My mother’s father (Grandpa G) had brown eyes, but one of his parents had blue eyes, and the other had brown eyes. So he had one blue eyed gene, and one brown eyed gene. Since the brown eyed gene will express itself over the blue eyed gene, Grandpa G had brown eyes. They had three daughters. Two of the daughters had blue eyes, and one, my mother, had brown eyes. ALL THREE OF THESE DAUGHTERS CARRY A BLUE EYED GENE, though. Even my mother carries a blue eyed gene. My mother had four children, and all four of us have or had (one of my sisters died) brown eyes. This is because my father carries two brown eyed genes, as he’s a swarthy Sicilian. My sister, at least, carries a blue eyed gene, as her sons are blue eyed. She married a Germanic type with blonde hair and blue eyes. My own daughter has brown eyes. My eyes, as I said, are brown, almost black. My husband’s eyes are a rather dark hazel, and his mother’s eyes were dark brown. So, I don’t know whether I carry the blue eyed gene or not. My brother doesn’t have any kids.

In short, the blue eyed gene hasn’t disappeared, it just hides behind the brown eyed gene. It’s not regressive at all. The brown eyed gene just asserts itself when both the brown eyed and blue eyed gene are present in one person.

I know others have said this, but I can’t resist.

No it does not. It means a gene whose expression is masked. The gene itself doesn’t decrease or go away.

but a gene that’s inactive is as good as gone anyway

No it’s not. It’s not inactive, and it doesn’t go away just because it doesn’t do what you think it does. Shut up if you don’t know what you’re talking about.

sorry for thinking that a person with brown eyes didn’t need the blue eye gene.

Wrong. It just needs to pair up with another recessive gene to express itself. It does not go away, and it’s not as good as gone. How many times do you have to be corrected?

sorry for not knowing every fucking gene. if you so brigh what is the cause of downsyndrome

[Moderating Warning]

Ok, this is just being jerkish. This is another Official Warning. I am further instructing you to stop posting in this thread, since you can’t seem to make a positive contribution. If you continue, your posting privileges will be under discussion.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

An extra bit of Chromosome 21 (beyond the usual 2 copies) causes DS. It’s called Trisomy 21, for obvious reasons. Generally, depending on how much extra bits you have, the worse the effects.

Do I get a cookie?

PS.

[Moderating]

I think it’s unnecessary to further address mla1’s statements, at least directly, since I’ve instructed him not to respond. The rest of the discussion may continue.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

Yep. See my example upthread. My grandmother’s blue eyed gene skipped my mother and my sister, and expressed itself in my sister’s sons. It didn’t disappear, it was just hidden for a couple of generations.

Pretty much the same in my family for the same reason.