Re: mitochondria and ID
- From: John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:56:45 GMT
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2005 09:10:24 -0700, in talk.origins , hersheyh@xxxxxxxxxxx
> in <1127837424.154760.159510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>I know that it is common to think of an allele as being inately
>>"dominant" or "recessive", just as it is common to think of an allele
>>being inately "beneficial" or "detrimental". Both are false ideas.
>>Alleles are dominant or recessive only with respect to the specified
>>alternate allele in a diploid. There are many examples of alleles with
>>different dominance/recessiveness to different alleles. But it also is
>>often, but not necessarily, true that any allele with a
>>"loss-of-function" mutation is often recessive to the w.t. functioning
>>allele.
>
>
> For any allele pair, however, one "runs" and the other doesn't, right?
Nope. Consider the ABO blood antigen system. What's type AB?
Perhaps you were thinking of Barr bodies; but that's only the X chromosome.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: mitochondria and ID
- From: Matt Silberstein
- Re: mitochondria and ID
- References:
- Re: mitochondria and ID
- From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith
- Re: mitochondria and ID
- From: John Harshman
- Re: mitochondria and ID
- From: hersheyh
- Re: mitochondria and ID
- From: Matt Silberstein
- Re: mitochondria and ID
- Prev by Date: Dover: Defense: It isn't about religion
- Next by Date: Re: Dover: Defense: It isn't about religion
- Previous by thread: Re: mitochondria and ID
- Next by thread: Re: mitochondria and ID
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|