It gets more plausible when there are more genes involved. LIke if the family has 60⁄80 tallness genes and ambient population has 20⁄80 genes then having a “off-beat” offspring that is only 40⁄80 of the trait genes, the trait is way more likely to “snap back” rather than solidifying out of the ambient population.
I am not sure I follow, I am confused about whether the 60⁄80 family refers to both parents, and what is meant by “off-beat” and “snap-back”, I am also confused about what the numbers mean is it 60⁄80 of the genes or 60⁄80 of the coding region (so only 40 genes)
60 trait supporting genes out of 80 locations that could support it. I am worried that the main finding is misleading because it is an improper application of spherical cow thinking to a concept that oriented to dealing with messiness.
fair point. I think my target audience is people like me who heard this saying about colorblindness (or other classical Mendelian diseases that runs in families)
It gets more plausible when there are more genes involved. LIke if the family has 60⁄80 tallness genes and ambient population has 20⁄80 genes then having a “off-beat” offspring that is only 40⁄80 of the trait genes, the trait is way more likely to “snap back” rather than solidifying out of the ambient population.
I am not sure I follow, I am confused about whether the 60⁄80 family refers to both parents, and what is meant by “off-beat” and “snap-back”, I am also confused about what the numbers mean is it 60⁄80 of the genes or 60⁄80 of the coding region (so only 40 genes)
60 trait supporting genes out of 80 locations that could support it. I am worried that the main finding is misleading because it is an improper application of spherical cow thinking to a concept that oriented to dealing with messiness.
fair point. I think my target audience is people like me who heard this saying about colorblindness (or other classical Mendelian diseases that runs in families)
I have added a disclaimer towards the end :)