Quote:
Originally Posted by concretegurl  LOL! I wasn't talking about In utero! I was talking about recessive genes...if you look at the cause effect of the genetics that cause a vestigial tail then ye it's an off the wall reference but the residual continual growth of it instead of the "reabsobtion" you'd see the similar correlation in example...both are the result of a recessive genes...well gene gene polymorphism-an abnormal structuralism of the genes (which is recessive)...you could stretch it to compare both to an anomaly. I'm sorry you didn't understand that. |
You write "LOL" -- seriously????
I was so hoping this could be an intelligent discussion. I put some time into making an appropriate response to you. I do not think I am the one having a problem understanding. You may not be THINKING you are talking about "in utero" but that is where the tails are normally absorbed by autoimmune factors and that is where a difference occurs when it does not. There is no recessive gene that causes "residual continual growth of it." That is not even remotely correct. You may be talking about recessive genes but your examples make no sense and you have wrong information in your posts. You are not even using terms correctly. Some do not have anything to do with the subject at hand.
No -- vestigial tails are not the result of recessive genes. It is an entirely DIFFERENT concept! Do you have a genetics book handy? Did you even read what I wrote to you. It might not be written in scientific-ese but it is correct.
You can't pick a couple of technical-sounding words and throw them into a post and make them fit a situation that they don't have any correlation with. For instance -- you write "both are the result of a recessive genes...well gene
gene polymorphism-an abnormal structuralism of the genes (which is recessive)..." I am not sure at all what you mean by that but a vesitigial tail as I said is not the result of recessive genes and it is a very rare variation and rare variations ARE NOT polymorphisms. (Ref: "Rare variations are not classified as polymorphisms; and mutations by themselves do not constitute polymorphisms. " ) and "[B]an abnormal structuralism?" I don't know where you are going with that one either.....but I do understand structuralism as basically being the concept that biological laws dealing with change require a change in one part of an organism take into account the inter-connections of the organism as a whole. (In other words -- some characteristics are connected -- eye shine is a good example. Green eye shine, inter-connected with silky hair) So what you mean by that is pretty unclear too! What inter-connected traits are
you getting at?
Now -- this is enough time spent trying to figure what sort of "baffling with BS" is going on. I am not stupid enough to fall for an argument that has no substance, contains some $2 words that do NOT have anything to do with the topic at hand or demeaning "lol" and "Sorry you didn't understand" comments. Enough is enough. If you have nothing of value to add to the thread, why mess it up for others? There are some excellent posts here -- on both sides of an interesting question. Trying to "fake it" just clogs the effective flow of information.