Real talk, how do genes work...

Real talk, how do genes work? Why is it that every time someone says blonde and white genes are recessive some leftist says "you don't know how genetics work" without explaining further?

Could someone explain this shit to me?

Other urls found in this thread:

udel.edu/~mcdonald/mythredhair.html
quora.com/How-is-skin-color-determined-in-babies
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color#Genetic_determination
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Hair is slightly more complex than just a recessive/dominant thing, gene expression is complicated to explain in a few minutes, and even something that's recessive/dominant can surface if the gene comes from both sides of the family. It's very possible for a mulatto kid to be blond, for example, if the darker parent has the gene too.

>It's very possible for a mulatto kid to be blond, for example, if the darker parent has the gene too.
Except that's extremely rare, because again, blonde genes are recessive.

That's the standard response I always get by the way.

The idea that there is a single gene that has a recessive blonde/red allele ignores the reality that there is a complex assortment of genes that determine hair color that sometimes work in counter-intuitive ways.

udel.edu/~mcdonald/mythredhair.html

Assuming by "white genes" you mean melanin content in the skin - skin color is similarly polygenic and is determined by many genes with very subtle differences. It is a myth that half-white children will always have a skin tone closer to the non-white parent, and the link here shows some photograph examples of people who have one dark skinned parent and one light skinned parent yet still turn out light skinned.

quora.com/How-is-skin-color-determined-in-babies

Think of it this way: if being there were merely just a "blonde" recessive gene, every pairing of two blonde parents would always be expected to have blonde children. This is obviously not true, because there is more to it than that and hair color is determined by many genes.

Interesting link although shit like this kinda gets to me

>First of all, there is a problem of terminology. "Black" and "white" are virtually meaningless descriptors in biology and genetics, because they are social constructs.

We dont understand how genetics work 100%

well genetics is just a proxy for biology which is much more complicated.

say you have two water bottles, one is filled to 100 ml, and the other is 50 ml and you need to have exactly 100ml. if your mom gives you 50ml and your dad gives you 50ml, you'll have it.

pretend you have 100ml and 50ml, and one kid gets 50ml and another 100ml. one will get the right amount, other won't.

Why? I find most people who are bothered by this don't understand what the term "social construct" means. They interpret to mean that there are no visible differences in people, which is not true, and nobody believes that. All it means is that human genetic variation doesn't necessarily correspond to how we socially classify humans all the time. The definition of "black" and "white" have changed over time as well in society in ways that do not really reflect genetics. (For example why are Slavs "white" now but some people think Turks are not? Why is a person with majority black ancestors and some white ancestors considered just black, but a person with majority white ancestors and some black ancestors is rarely seen as just white? Why is "black" considered a "race" when there's more genetic distance between Nigerians and Ethiopians than there is between any non-African group?)

We assign meaning to "black" and "white" that isn't necessarily meaningful in genetics. There are some traits that are common in say, Greeks and Nigerians, but not in English and Russians. Because the variation isn't happening based on race.

It's not extremely rare but it's not super common. On a purely genetic level I would be unlikely to be blonde, yet I am because my brunette, mixed parents' moms are both blondes.

A gene mutation is limited to a tribe we call ''Huforizah''.
This tribe splits and merges with other tribes.
One part in France, the other in China.
Now we got the mutation in France the other in China.

The differences in genetics is what people claim to base their biologically racial views on, but that's not true, people classify in races who are socially bound together due to geographic accessibility. Obviously it has a biologically detectable impact.

its pretty hard to even differentiate races based on actual races.

for example a swedish and japanese person share a lot more genes in common than do an african from ghana and one from south africa because there were a lot more humans in africa than left it 50k years ago.

If you're already 8/10 why taint your genes with any other human's at all

human cloning fucking WHEN

i don't mean genes in the biological sense of genes.

i meant recent ancestry ie markers which show who your most recent ancestors in common where.

90% of the time, darker genes win
t. knower

More like t. blower haha

probability
you lessen the probability of specific traits showing in offspring when you mix the genotypes of two parents who have distinctively different phenotypes. it has everything to do with probability and nothing to do with anything else. read something about mendelian genetics. it isn't anything hard to grasp

>Could someone explain this shit to me?

Genetics doesn't follow strict rules. Random shit can happen when people mix.

Your parents have 2 alleles they inherited from their 2 parents.

Here both father and mother carry the allele
brown and blue
brown is dominant and blue recessive
So both of them have brown eyes

But they also carry a blue allele

The child inherited of the recessive blue allele from his father and recessive blue allele from his mother

His 2 alleles are blue
So his eyes are blue

Eyes are actually not dominant/recessive at all

Where's the "random shit" there. That kid looks like an average mulatto.

That's elementary school bullshit you believed and it's false.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color#Genetic_determination

>Eye color is an inherited trait influenced by more than one gene

You have genes that are recessive/dominant, and ones that are equal. The outcome will be roughly equal to (A+B)/2

Genetics do follow strict rules on macro-level, one of which is that light phenotypes are always overshadowed by darker ones.

Not true here

...

>shows some photograph examples of people who have one dark skinned parent and one light skinned parent yet still turn out light skinned.

It probably helps that they're all quarter-black at most

Finland is the blondest country in the world and many of them are mixed.

Darker people become rarer and rarer in Northern Europe after Ice Age.

Why nobody explain that?

Can someone explain why I got a small penis did my dad pass it on?

Actually Finland is one of the least mixed nations in the world, which is why our genes are used for pinpointing hereditary diseases etc.

very rare for fairer features to develop after mixing, thats why you see the mullatos with light eyes and light hair becoming models
>blue eyed mulatto
nice ''black''

>Except that's extremely rare, because again, blonde genes are recessive.

Serious, you are retard it's relative common as fuck here in childs. They are just no more commom because the most mixed regions have PORTUGUESE ancestry

people who say "you don't know how gentics work" without explaining usually know less about genetics than you do.

>very rare for fairer features to develop after mixing

LeL? It's not that uncommon mixed people woth light eyes. Also, the vast majority of quadroons have fine nose, not potato noses. Mulatto Brazilians are looking like Morroccans more and more each new generation.

Because turks are brown and slavs are white

Not rare at all

>Also, the vast majority of quadroons have fine nose, not potato noses

Agreed. White noses and white mouths are dominant to black noses ans black mouths. This is clearly.

red hair is strange though
its as if it can be both dominant and recessive

Do you even know what recessive means?