Quote:
Originally Posted by kagato3
Just a nitpick but i think you might have a misunderstanding of dominant/ recessive genes. A recessive gene is no more likely to be bad/harmful then a dominant gene and just as many gentic disorders are cause by bad Dominant genes, it's just the ones that are detramental to the point of not being able to reproduce get weeded out of the gene pool fairly quickly. And no matter how advantagous a gene is a recessive gene will never become a dominant gene. It may become a common gene in a population if the dominant gene causes too big of a disadvanage to breeding.
|
The idea is that if a gene is dominant, it will be expressed more. Hence there are very few disadvantageous dominant genes
simply because a disadvantageous gene will inevitably affect reproductive fitness in comparison to organisms without it. Maybe not in a few generations, since the environment plays a large part, but definitely over this amount of time.
Which is why most disadvantageous are recessive, because statstically speaking since heterozygotes show no/lesser symptoms there will be fewer offspring with the disadvantageous phenotype than if the trait was dominant. Which is also why incest tends to bring out recessives, because said genes are generally pretty spread out so if your family happens to have copies of them then it's more likely your siblings will also have said gene than someone random off the street. Statistically. I'm pretty sure you know the mechanics. The point being that more recessives are disadvantageous than advantageous because if they were bad they'd get lost and if they were good they'd confer advantage and gradually become dominant. We won't go into heterozygote advantage or anything that complicates things..
Wait. I'm meant to be supporting Her Highness here. Yeah. So just because it's recessive doesn't mean it's bad. Wait. That was your position.
......ah, screw science. MIYUKI o>