Chat in China's biggest English language forum.
Receive our weekly
newsletter.
Find an apartment or rent
yours out.

Join the Shanghai Expat Community!

*   *   *  
*   *  captcha
refresh
  Receive our weekly newsletter.   I agree with the Shanghai Expat Terms of Service.  
Register   or   Sign in
CLOSE X
Email or username:
Password: Forgot your password?

What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whites?

What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whites?

Postby Guru Pitka » Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:23 pm

I have a number of co-workers (white males, for the most part) with Chinese wives and children. All the kids are fair skinned, with brown Asian eyes and brown or black hair and are taller than average Chinese kids of the same age (or so the parents tell me). Some of the kids have thicker, darker eyebrows and only one has a butterball face while the others have longer, Caucasian-style faces. (All are very cute :D )

I'm wondering if anyone knows if certain genes appear to be more dominant than others? I find it interesting that none of these kids seem to have Caucasian-style eyes yet all of these kids ended up white-skinned. I have a Japanese mate in the UK whose wife is Caucasian and their son is 100% Asian looking. Perhaps there is some dominance among the father's genes?
User avatar
Guru Pitka
PopStar
PopStar
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 3:57 pm
Location: Puxi, unfortunately

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby anter » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:03 pm

My sister in law's mother is half Chinese and looks very much as you describe the mixed race children but more Chinese than white. My sister-in-law has a white father and she appears to have no Chinese features and has lue eyes, red hair and freckles. Her son to my caucasian brother looks a little bit Asian.

I have a friend with a Chinese father and white mother and she looks Chinese but with very fair skin and her body shape is more caucasian. Her sisters also look very similar.

Another friend thought she was 100% Chinese but her children to her Danish husband all have blond hair, blue eyes, fair skin and look caucasian. She now thinks she had a white ancester but cannot identify who it was. From family photos her grandmother looks a little bit caucasian.

I've not answered the question in you OP but I'm interested to read what others say.
User avatar
anter
Board Lord
Board Lord
 
Posts: 5611
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:46 am
Location: Shanghai

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby Guru Pitka » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:26 pm

^Wow, very interesting some blue eyes came out in those mixes (I bet those children are stunning :) ). I've personally never seen and Asian/white mix that turns out with blue eyes.

I've come across surveys done of mixed race parents asked to classify their children as looking 1 - white, 2 - Asian, 3 - mixed but mostly white or 4 - mixed but mostly Asian. Most parents rank their kids as looking more white than Asian and more mixed but mostly white than mixed but mostly Asian.
User avatar
Guru Pitka
PopStar
PopStar
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 3:57 pm
Location: Puxi, unfortunately

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby Andreas » Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:13 pm

Actually the question should have been "Which human genes are dominant/recessive?' in general. Because it is not limited between Asians and Caucasians. Like the gene set for the eye colour. Brown is always dominant. Which usually means that the kids of parents of which one has brown eyes, have brown eyes too. However if the parent with the brown eye carries the recessive gene as well, there is a good chance for some of the kids to have blue eyes. Also eye colour is not determined by one single gene.
‘How inappropriate to call this planet Earth when it is quite clearly Ocean.’
- Sir Arthur C. Clarke
User avatar
Andreas
Shanghai Royalty
Shanghai Royalty
 
Posts: 8474
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:46 pm
Location: The Land that Time forgot.

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby Snuden » Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:55 pm

My first daughter had blue eyes for about 6 months, now they are just as brown as her (Japanese) mothers eyes.

Both my children seems to be a bit taller than other kids their age.
#batardism
User avatar
Snuden
Shanghai Royalty
Shanghai Royalty
 
Posts: 8374
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:55 pm
Location: Yomamas bed.

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby Guru Pitka » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:12 am

Snuden, would you say your kids look more Asian/Caucasian?
User avatar
Guru Pitka
PopStar
PopStar
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 3:57 pm
Location: Puxi, unfortunately

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby Snuden » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:17 am

Asian, but with bigger eyes.
They visited me in Shanghai last year and some people spoke Chinese to them.
#batardism
User avatar
Snuden
Shanghai Royalty
Shanghai Royalty
 
Posts: 8374
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:55 pm
Location: Yomamas bed.

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby disconbobulated » Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:49 am

Levis......
User avatar
disconbobulated
PopStar
PopStar
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:29 pm

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby coxaca » Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:52 am

Mostly what Andreas has written is correct. However, blue eyes are, I believe, due to a single recessive gene which first appeared in Eastern Europe some 10,000-odd years ago and, due to its recent origin, is still geographically very localised.

Virtually nobody of non-Caucasian descent will carry even a single copy of this gene. However, if both parents are Caucasian/Asian with their Caucasian parent having blue eyes, there should be a 25% chance that their child will have blue eyes. If that child looks predominantly Asian apart from eye colour, that would indeed be a startling and probably very attractive "look".

Hair colour and straightness is also strongly dominant (but spread across more than one gene locus). Straightness is determined by the cross-sectional shape of the hair shaft - Asian hair has a round cross-section, African hair is very elliptical, hence the curl.

Height is of course also partially genetically determined. But has anyone noticed the increasing numbers of very tall young Chinese? This is due to better nutrition. My guess is that mixed couples are likely to be substantially financially better-off than the average in China, and this may in fact be a more important factor in their children's height than genetics.
The bottom line here is we must lower our cost base to make room for a lower margin product mix world and to grow our earnings going forward.
User avatar
coxaca
Post Roaster
Post Roaster
 
Posts: 4003
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 10:26 am

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby superkim » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:50 am

^ Interesting stuff, coxaca. I almost read it all. But what we all want to know is why black men have such enormous schlongs. Care to elaborate?
User avatar
superkim
Fire-eater
Fire-eater
 
Posts: 2644
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:04 am

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby AD » Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:18 am

My Shanghai wife is 1.73m I am European 1.84m Blue eyes, we are at least hoping for a tall child of 'tidy' Asian appearance.
I have an uneducated theory that the better looking genes seem to be dominant in the mixed kids I know.
There are a lot of my family members with Red hair, but not myself, I don't think that is going to suit an asian appearance, but Red hair gene seems to weak.

This was an interesting intelligent thread until the porn-retard arrived, hope you medical guys can keep it going.
User avatar
AD
Seeker
Seeker
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 10:37 am

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby Guru Pitka » Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:39 am

^AD, I think 'better looking genes' are just 'healthier genes'. Health and beauty typically go hand in hand and when you have two parents with such a wide range of genes for the new baby's developing body to choose from, it's no surprise many mixes come out good looking.
User avatar
Guru Pitka
PopStar
PopStar
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 3:57 pm
Location: Puxi, unfortunately

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby johnny_tropicana » Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:33 am

Damn, I hope my new babies look more like mama and a whole lot less like me....
Although Xia wants our daughters to have my gray eyes. (I think she is right, that would be
somewhat striking) I have the black hair down, and I suspect that we will both be dwarfed
by our children. Here's to trying.
We were meant to live for so much more
Have we lost ourselves?
User avatar
johnny_tropicana
Veejay
Veejay
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:11 am
Location: Shanghai, Kalamay, Beijing, Chicago...What day is this?

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby Andreas » Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:12 pm

coxaca wrote:Mostly what Andreas has written is correct. However, blue eyes are, I believe, due to a single recessive gene which first appeared in Eastern Europe some 10,000-odd years ago and, due to its recent origin, is still geographically very localised.

Virtually nobody of non-Caucasian descent will carry even a single copy of this gene. However, if both parents are Caucasian/Asian with their Caucasian parent having blue eyes, there should be a 25% chance that their child will have blue eyes. If that child looks predominantly Asian apart from eye colour, that would indeed be a startling and probably very attractive "look".

Hair colour and straightness is also strongly dominant (but spread across more than one gene locus). Straightness is determined by the cross-sectional shape of the hair shaft - Asian hair has a round cross-section, African hair is very elliptical, hence the curl.

Height is of course also partially genetically determined. But has anyone noticed the increasing numbers of very tall young Chinese? This is due to better nutrition. My guess is that mixed couples are likely to be substantially financially better-off than the average in China, and this may in fact be a more important factor in their children's height than genetics.


Yeah, the blue eye colour is relatively young if you look at the evolution of humans.

And very true what you mention about height. Every trait we see in a species (the phenotype) is a result of both the genotype and the environment.
‘How inappropriate to call this planet Earth when it is quite clearly Ocean.’
- Sir Arthur C. Clarke
User avatar
Andreas
Shanghai Royalty
Shanghai Royalty
 
Posts: 8474
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:46 pm
Location: The Land that Time forgot.

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby superkim » Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:33 pm

coxaca wrote:Height is of course also partially genetically determined. But has anyone noticed the increasing numbers of very tall young Chinese? This is due to better nutrition.

Could be due to hormones lurking inside the milk, meat etc they consume.
User avatar
superkim
Fire-eater
Fire-eater
 
Posts: 2644
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:04 am

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby Michael » Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:36 pm

We have two handsome boys and we believe they are the best of both us..definitely will be better looking than either of us. :lol: It mostly follows what the OP concluded.. dark hair, lighter skin, brown eyes, mix of features from both of us.
Attachments
aidan-face.JPG
aidan-face.JPG (4.63 KiB) Viewed 41464 times
If you need a decent v-p-en, pm me for one that works well.
User avatar
Michael
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4396
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2002 9:34 am

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby Andreas » Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:47 pm

Guru Pitka wrote:^AD, I think 'better looking genes' are just 'healthier genes'. Health and beauty typically go hand in hand and when you have two parents with such a wide range of genes for the new baby's developing body to choose from, it's no surprise many mixes come out good looking.


There is actually a genetical term for this; F1 (for Filial 1) hybrid boost. In simple terms it means that there is a fair chance when the parent's genotypes are quite different, the first generation (F1) will show an enhancement of some of the phenotypical traits of the parents.
‘How inappropriate to call this planet Earth when it is quite clearly Ocean.’
- Sir Arthur C. Clarke
User avatar
Andreas
Shanghai Royalty
Shanghai Royalty
 
Posts: 8474
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:46 pm
Location: The Land that Time forgot.

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby Gay_Chevara » Fri Feb 11, 2011 1:23 pm

coxaca wrote:Height is of course also partially genetically determined. But has anyone noticed the increasing numbers of very tall young Chinese? This is due to better nutrition.


So because Chinese people have been eating more healthily in the last - oh I don't know - 20 years, all of a sudden it's like Land of the Giants?

I used to believe that 'better nutrition' stuff but I find it a bit difficult to believe now. Surely a recent change in diet (and it is very recent) would not affect immediate generations so much?
To Live and Die in Xujiahui
User avatar
Gay_Chevara
LaoLoser
 
Posts: 13524
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:38 am

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby phiota » Fri Feb 11, 2011 1:40 pm

It may not affect the genes rather it affects the potential growth height of every person. Say if a person has the genes to grow to 6 feet tall if he does not get enough nutrition while growing up he might only grow to 5 feet 9 while if he did get enough nutrition he will grow to the full potential of 6 feet.
phiota
PopStar
PopStar
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:56 am

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby edbreejen » Fri Feb 11, 2011 1:53 pm

China is not the first country to experience a huge change in average height in only 1-2 generations. The Dutch were seen as small in the 1930's. Then came WW2 which didn't help either, so until the 1950 they remained relatively small. But then in the 1960's-1970's, average height went up quite a lot and in the 90's the became the (on average) tallest people in the world (continuing up till now, average height of 18 year old boys in the north of The Netherlands is now 1.95m).

Coincidentally, in this period dairy consumption also went up a lot. Just like in Chinese cities in the last 15-20 years (ever mentioned that most young tall Chinese people are from the cities, hardly any from the countryside).
edbreejen
Raver
Raver
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 5:20 pm
Location: Shanghai

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby Handoogies2.0 » Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:28 pm

Keanu Reeves is 50/50, i believe.
User avatar
Handoogies2.0
Veejay
Veejay
 
Posts: 2000
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:19 pm
Location: Nirvana

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby woaishanghai07 » Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:30 pm

I'm not a creationist, I do trust the theory of evolution but there was always something that kinda puzzled me. Sometimes evolution just seems to perfect to be an "accident". With regards accident, I mean genetic mutations that happen just by chance. I mean, take for example butterflies whose wing pattern is exactly the same as the shading, colour and patterns etc. found on the trees that they land on. Basically any creatue that is able to so perfectly blend into their surroundings, and I mean perfectly, makes me wonder if evolution really is all just a series of accidents. And there do seem to be a lot of creatures who blend in perfectly to their surroundings. I mean sure, after thousands of generations you would expect to get pretty damn well perfect, but still, not that perfect surely?

Interestingly I did read an article a while ago about a bunch of scientists who'd found some proof that genetic mutations do have something to do with the way, and environment in which an individual lived. If for example a person needed a longer neck to survive during their lifetime, then their concentrated efforts on constantly trying to stick their neck out or whatever would somehow end up in their genes, resulting in their offspring having a long neck. Perhaps a bit far fetched, but to me it would make sense if genetic mutations were not "accidental".

By the way, Michael your son is really cute. He looks Asian, but then you kinda take a step back and he doesn't! Mixed children are definitely interesting to look at.
User avatar
woaishanghai07
LoopKicker
LoopKicker
 
Posts: 897
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:17 pm

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby Gay_Chevara » Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:31 pm

Nah, he's definitely 100% homo.
To Live and Die in Xujiahui
User avatar
Gay_Chevara
LaoLoser
 
Posts: 13524
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:38 am

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby Andreas » Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:39 pm

phiota wrote:It may not affect the genes rather it affects the potential growth height of every person. Say if a person has the genes to grow to 6 feet tall if he does not get enough nutrition while growing up he might only grow to 5 feet 9 while if he did get enough nutrition he will grow to the full potential of 6 feet.


It will never affect the genes. But together with the genotype the environmental factors determine the final traits summarized as the phenotype. And as you correctly state, the environmental factors like nutrition determine if an individual grows to its genetically determined potential.
‘How inappropriate to call this planet Earth when it is quite clearly Ocean.’
- Sir Arthur C. Clarke
User avatar
Andreas
Shanghai Royalty
Shanghai Royalty
 
Posts: 8474
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:46 pm
Location: The Land that Time forgot.

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby Andreas » Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:43 pm

woaishanghai07 wrote:I'm not a creationist, I do trust the theory of evolution but there was always something that kinda puzzled me. Sometimes evolution just seems to perfect to be an "accident". With regards accident, I mean genetic mutations that happen just by chance. I mean, take for example butterflies whose wing pattern is exactly the same as the shading, colour and patterns etc. found on the trees that they land on. Basically any creatue that is able to so perfectly blend into their surroundings, and I mean perfectly, makes me wonder if evolution really is all just a series of accidents. And there do seem to be a lot of creatures who blend in perfectly to their surroundings. I mean sure, after thousands of generations you would expect to get pretty damn well perfect, but still, not that perfect surely?

Interestingly I did read an article a while ago about a bunch of scientists who'd found some proof that genetic mutations do have something to do with the way, and environment in which an individual lived. If for example a person needed a longer neck to survive during their lifetime, then their concentrated efforts on constantly trying to stick their neck out or whatever would somehow end up in their genes, resulting in their offspring having a long neck. Perhaps a bit far fetched, but to me it would make sense if genetic mutations were not "accidental".


It's not an accidental thing. Mutations happen all the time, and totally at random, and most are negative for the survival of the species, and we never see them. But if the mutation increases the chance of survival, the odds for that mutation to sustain in the population, and spread its genotype, increase dramatically as well.

Mutations do not change a species. But the natural selection drives a species to a higher degree of adaptation, and capacity to survive, by favouring those mutations that 'improve' a species in it's present environment.
‘How inappropriate to call this planet Earth when it is quite clearly Ocean.’
- Sir Arthur C. Clarke
User avatar
Andreas
Shanghai Royalty
Shanghai Royalty
 
Posts: 8474
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:46 pm
Location: The Land that Time forgot.

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby emerson » Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:10 pm

Gay_Chevara wrote:
coxaca wrote:Height is of course also partially genetically determined. But has anyone noticed the increasing numbers of very tall young Chinese? This is due to better nutrition.


So because Chinese people have been eating more healthily in the last - oh I don't know - 20 years, all of a sudden it's like Land of the Giants?

I used to believe that 'better nutrition' stuff but I find it a bit difficult to believe now. Surely a recent change in diet (and it is very recent) would not affect immediate generations so much?


Definitely evident in Taiwan--at least in Taipei.
emerson
LoopKicker
LoopKicker
 
Posts: 863
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:43 pm

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby woaishanghai07 » Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:32 pm

Andreas wrote:
woaishanghai07 wrote:I'm not a creationist, I do trust the theory of evolution but there was always something that kinda puzzled me. Sometimes evolution just seems to perfect to be an "accident". With regards accident, I mean genetic mutations that happen just by chance. I mean, take for example butterflies whose wing pattern is exactly the same as the shading, colour and patterns etc. found on the trees that they land on. Basically any creatue that is able to so perfectly blend into their surroundings, and I mean perfectly, makes me wonder if evolution really is all just a series of accidents. And there do seem to be a lot of creatures who blend in perfectly to their surroundings. I mean sure, after thousands of generations you would expect to get pretty damn well perfect, but still, not that perfect surely?

Interestingly I did read an article a while ago about a bunch of scientists who'd found some proof that genetic mutations do have something to do with the way, and environment in which an individual lived. If for example a person needed a longer neck to survive during their lifetime, then their concentrated efforts on constantly trying to stick their neck out or whatever would somehow end up in their genes, resulting in their offspring having a long neck. Perhaps a bit far fetched, but to me it would make sense if genetic mutations were not "accidental".


It's not an accidental thing. Mutations happen all the time, and totally at random, and most are negative for the survival of the species, and we never see them. But if the mutation increases the chance of survival, the odds for that mutation to sustain in the population, and spread its genotype, increase dramatically as well.

Mutations do not change a species. But the natural selection drives a species to a higher degree of adaptation, and capacity to survive, by favouring those mutations that 'improve' a species in it's present environment.


I do hear you, but I still think it all seems far too perfect to be random, there must be some controlling factor in there. How do you end up with a butterfly whose wings look exactly the same as the bark it lands on through a series of random mutations? I could understand it if the wings looked roughly the same, as in were the same colour, the same shade etc., but when patterns start to match perfectly as well that's when it starts to baffle me.

Check out the picture of this dead leaf butterfly. That looks exactly the same as a dead leaf. Just being the same colour as its background would be enough for survival, but to actually resemble a dead leaf seems to go beyond survival and into imitation. Imitation can't possibly be random can it?
Attachments
leaf-butterfly[1].jpg
leaf-butterfly[1].jpg (45.21 KiB) Viewed 40860 times
User avatar
woaishanghai07
LoopKicker
LoopKicker
 
Posts: 897
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:17 pm

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby ProcrastiNation » Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:47 pm

@ woaishanghai07

I think one point that you're forgetting is that the predators that hunt that butterfly also evolve and adapt. Therefore simply having a certain colouring may be enough to survive for a period of time until the predator also evolves, and the cycle continues.
ProcrastiNation
Ranter
Ranter
 
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:17 pm

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby Andreas » Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:55 pm

woaishanghai07 wrote:
Andreas wrote:
woaishanghai07 wrote:I'm not a creationist, I do trust the theory of evolution but there was always something that kinda puzzled me. Sometimes evolution just seems to perfect to be an "accident". With regards accident, I mean genetic mutations that happen just by chance. I mean, take for example butterflies whose wing pattern is exactly the same as the shading, colour and patterns etc. found on the trees that they land on. Basically any creatue that is able to so perfectly blend into their surroundings, and I mean perfectly, makes me wonder if evolution really is all just a series of accidents. And there do seem to be a lot of creatures who blend in perfectly to their surroundings. I mean sure, after thousands of generations you would expect to get pretty damn well perfect, but still, not that perfect surely?

Interestingly I did read an article a while ago about a bunch of scientists who'd found some proof that genetic mutations do have something to do with the way, and environment in which an individual lived. If for example a person needed a longer neck to survive during their lifetime, then their concentrated efforts on constantly trying to stick their neck out or whatever would somehow end up in their genes, resulting in their offspring having a long neck. Perhaps a bit far fetched, but to me it would make sense if genetic mutations were not "accidental".


The controlling factor is called (natural) selection. Natural selection favours those mutations out of the randomness that are best adapted to survive (and thus pass their genotype on) in their present environment. Genes are 'stupid', they do not 'see' the environment. They just mutate at a given rate.

It's not an accidental thing. Mutations happen all the time, and totally at random, and most are negative for the survival of the species, and we never see them. But if the mutation increases the chance of survival, the odds for that mutation to sustain in the population, and spread its genotype, increase dramatically as well.

Mutations do not change a species. But the natural selection drives a species to a higher degree of adaptation, and capacity to survive, by favouring those mutations that 'improve' a species in it's present environment.


I do hear you, but I still think it all seems far too perfect to be random, there must be some controlling factor in there. How do you end up with a butterfly whose wings look exactly the same as the bark it lands on through a series of random mutations? I could understand it if the wings looked roughly the same, as in were the same colour, the same shade etc., but when patterns start to match perfectly as well that's when it starts to baffle me.

Check out the picture of this dead leaf butterfly. That looks exactly the same as a dead leaf. Just being the same colour as its background would be enough for survival, but to actually resemble a dead leaf seems to go beyond survival and into imitation. Imitation can't possibly be random can it?
‘How inappropriate to call this planet Earth when it is quite clearly Ocean.’
- Sir Arthur C. Clarke
User avatar
Andreas
Shanghai Royalty
Shanghai Royalty
 
Posts: 8474
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:46 pm
Location: The Land that Time forgot.

Re: What genes are dominant/recessive between Asians and whi

Postby ramsey » Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:30 pm

Andreas wrote:
Mutations do not change a species. But the natural selection drives a species to a higher degree of adaptation, and capacity to survive, by favouring those mutations that 'improve' a species in it's present environment.


Holy crap! Someone here actually understands evolution! Andreas, you are the first person I've met on a non-science forum who has used the term "natural selection" correctly. Congratulations. I'm always amazed at the sheer quantity of people who claim to ascribe to the principles of Charles Darwin's research but who have never actually read it.

Even so, I can't say I blame the general populace- Darwin was second only to James Joyce in his abuse of run-on sentences:

If during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organisation, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometrical powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each being's own welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection.

Yep, that's Darwin's one sentence summary of his early work. Even so, natural selection and evolution are theories that developed independently and prior to the science of genetics, so I'm not sure why they were even mentioned on this thread. That hypothesis that someone brought up a few posts back about organisms developing new genes out of necessity (IE: longer necks) That's a load of garbage. It's 19th century speculation called "transmutation", not "evolution", and certainly not founded on real science which requires empirical evidence.

Handoogies2.0 wrote:Keanu Reeves is 50/50, i believe.


The 158th greatest actor of our time is indeed part Chinese, but much less than 50%.

Another famous mixed race actor that a lot of people are not aware of: Bruce Lee- ethnically he's 75% Chinese, 25% German. His mother Grace was half Chinese, half German. But considering he was born in San Francisco, my mother would have just called him a Yankee Doodle (Yep, she's that old. Do people still say that in England?)

Back to the original question: The vast majority of mixed race 50/50 Asian-Caucasian people I've met have looked very Asian to me. Which makes perfect sense, since most of the predominantly "Asian" characteristics are the result of dominant genes (brown eyes, dark hair, etc...) Whereas a lot of the more characteristic "Caucasian" genes are recessive (IE: blue eyes, etc...)

It's entirely possible to mathematically determine what your children will look like if you understand the gene traits you are looking for. the problem is, most "looks" are based on multiple gene traits. Fortunately, eye color is simple.

(B= brown, b= blue)
1. BB + bb = Bb (child has brown eyes but carries both alleles)
2. BB + BB = BB (Child has brown eyes and 2 brown alleles)
3. Bb + bb = Bb or bb (Child may have blue or brown eyes, but all children will carry the "b" allele)
2. Bb + Bb = BB, Bb, bb. (All results are possible, BB or Bb are most likely)

Unfortunately, it's sometimes difficult to determine the real eye color a baby- since some BB or Bb kids are born with eyes that look blue, which later turn brown.

Same with hair. You just can't tell how it will turn out in the long run. I was born with bright blond hair. It turned dark brown. And then it all fell out.
Live simply. Give much. Expect little.
User avatar
ramsey
PopStar
PopStar
 
Posts: 1279
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:59 pm

Next

Return to Shanghai Open Chat

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron

In Your Mailbox, Every Tuesday!