IMAX Volcano movie pulled, fear of creationist backlash!

[Az]

Not really. Biology doesn't say that successful genes are good. Good and bad are concepts that we can impose on human genetics arbitrarily.

||
V

In the context of biology, saying "good genes" generally isn't interpreted as a normative statement but as referring to the survival value of the gene.

That's why I said "biologically".

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Poor genes that get passed on aren't poor genes.

The quality of a gene is relative to the environment.

Not necessarily. There are recessive genes.

[Kuciwalker]

Doesn't matter.

[Odin]

In Biology, "good" genes are ones that are the alleles good at getting themselves passed on to the next generation, they give thier organism good Darwinian "fitness." "bad" genes are just the opposite. Also, as Kuci said, an allele that is harmful in one enviroment may be helpful in another enviroment.

BTW, I am in the "Selfish Gene" school of thought.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Doesn't matter.

Recessive genes are "bad" genes get passed.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Recessive genes are "bad" genes

Not really. You are assuming that because most well known genetic diseases are caused by recessive alleles, recessive alleles must be bad. Are blue eyes bad? is blond or red hair bad? Is type O blood bad? Most genetic disorders are caused by recessive genes because recessive genes take longer too weed out by natural selection, but that doesn't mean most, or even the majority, of recessive alleles are bad. "dominant" and "recessive" represent how active an allele is compared other alleles of the same gene. The hair color genes of a person with black hair are more active than a person with blond hair. many genetic diseases are caused by a subtype of recessive allele where the gene itself is non-funtional (Type O blood is an example of a harmless allele in the catagory).