Re: I know one when I see one

From: John Wilkins (wilkins@wehi.edu.au)
Date: Thu 31 Oct 2002 - 02:19:50 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: Standard definition"

    On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 01:06 PM, Scott Chase wrote:
    >> From: John Wilkins <wilkins@wehi.edu.au>
    >> Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >> Subject: Re: I know one when I see one
    >> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:31:01 +1100
    >>
    >> On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 02:16 PM, Grant Callaghan wrote:
    >>
    >>>> > >
    >>>> > >Do the genes for blood type replicate themselves? If so, how?
    >>>> > >
    >>>> > Aren't the characteristics of blood type passed from father or
    >>>> mother
    >>>> > to son? I understand that paternity can be proven or denied on
    >>>> that
    >>>> > basis. Or does some outside force cause these characteristics to
    >>>> be
    >>>> > lodged in the child? There's also the fact that the information
    >>>> > contained in the DNA creates the protines and other factors that
    >>>> the
    >>>> > blood type expresses. So if the genes don't do the replicating,
    >>>> what
    >>>> > does?
    >>>> Here we are dealing with multiple dominant and recessive traits; A,
    >>>> B,
    >>>> AB or O, RH factor + or -.
    >>>> >
    >>> Aren't these inherited characteristics encoded in the DNA of the
    >>> parents?
    >>>
    >> 100% genetically determined - there's a chart in a recent New
    >> Scientist with some %ages of genetic determinations based on twin
    >> studies.
    >>
    > What would you think if someone carried A and/or B alleles yet
    > expressed as type O?

    Depends on whether being type O is 100% genetically determined or not. Are you saying that if you are heterozygous for A or B alleles, that this can result in type O blood, or that you can carry the alleles but they are recessive to O alleles? If the latter, then there is no problem. If the former, then it would not be true that blood type is 100% genetically determined.
    >>
    >> It seem Larsen cartoon appreciation is 0% genetically determined,
    >> which strikes me as odd, given the similarities of personality of
    >> those who do appreciate The Master.
    >>
    > Indeed.
    >
    Of course, this begs an evolutionary psychological explanation, but I worry about what sorts of Pleistocene conditions would select in favour of Larsen appreciation... 

    -- 
John S Wilkins
Head, Communication Services
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Parkville, Victoria, Australia
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 31 Oct 2002 - 02:24:01 GMT