| Author |
Message
|
| VitalOne |
 Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:48 pm Post subject: Which traits are purely non-genetic? |
 |
|
Banned (Trolling)
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 133
Location: US
|
I'm wondering which traits are not genetic, not in DNA at all, but the only thing I could think of so far is left-handedness or right-handedness. We know this because of identical twins.
Are there any other traits that are non-existent in DNA? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| TheBiologista |
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 2053
|
Sort of depends what you mean by "traits"... there's some obvious things like scarring and injury which aren't strictly genetics- though their prevalence in the phenotype could be said to be related to genetic traits. If a tendency to take risks and/or an inability to identify threats have a genetic basis for example. That said, those would probably be the result of a mixture of genetics and cultural inheritance. What I suppose I'm saying is that genetics have an influence far beyond their immediate traits, albeit an influence modulated by environment.
_________________
http://thebiologista.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tridimity |
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Posts: 99
|
I am tempted to think that ALL phenotypes are influenced by genetics, to some extent or other.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| TheBiologista |
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 2053
|
| tridimity wrote: |
| I am tempted to think that ALL phenotypes are influenced by genetics, to some extent or other. |
All phenotypes would have to be, by definition. Phenotype is defined as the combination of genetics and environment. But that's not quite the same thing as saying that all traits of that phenotype are influenced by genetics.
_________________
http://thebiologista.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| VitalOne |
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Banned (Trolling)
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 133
Location: US
|
| TheBiologista wrote: |
| Sort of depends what you mean by "traits"... there's some obvious things like scarring and injury which aren't strictly genetics- though their prevalence in the phenotype could be said to be related to genetic traits. If a tendency to take risks and/or an inability to identify threats have a genetic basis for example. That said, those would probably be the result of a mixture of genetics and cultural inheritance. What I suppose I'm saying is that genetics have an influence far beyond their immediate traits, albeit an influence modulated by environment. |
So are you basically saying that everything is in our DNA? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| TheBiologista |
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 2053
|
| VitalOne wrote: |
| TheBiologista wrote: |
| Sort of depends what you mean by "traits"... there's some obvious things like scarring and injury which aren't strictly genetics- though their prevalence in the phenotype could be said to be related to genetic traits. If a tendency to take risks and/or an inability to identify threats have a genetic basis for example. That said, those would probably be the result of a mixture of genetics and cultural inheritance. What I suppose I'm saying is that genetics have an influence far beyond their immediate traits, albeit an influence modulated by environment. |
So are you basically saying that everything is in our DNA? |
No, I'm saying that probably everything about your phenotype is influenced by our DNA, which is not the same thing at all. Take my scarring example- your DNA might, conceivably, influence the frequency and rough distribution of the scars and injuries you pick up during your life, the extend to which they will heal, the extent to which they threaten your life and so forth. That influence will very much be indirect. Your DNA won't control or determine these things, and certainly wont influence these things by itself. Make sense?
Even with some genetic traits, the control exerted by our genes is more stochastic than deterministic- defining broad parameters to which we adhere during development.
_________________
http://thebiologista.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| skeptic |
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 1110
|
| Anything you learn is not in your DNA, though your capacity for learning is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| neird |
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
Posts: 24
Location: Germany
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SkinWalker |
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 2246
Location: Grand Prairie, TX
|
| VitalOne wrote: |
| TheBiologista wrote: |
| Sort of depends what you mean by "traits"... there's some obvious things like scarring and injury which aren't strictly genetics- though their prevalence in the phenotype could be said to be related to genetic traits. If a tendency to take risks and/or an inability to identify threats have a genetic basis for example. That said, those would probably be the result of a mixture of genetics and cultural inheritance. What I suppose I'm saying is that genetics have an influence far beyond their immediate traits, albeit an influence modulated by environment. |
So are you basically saying that everything is in our DNA? |
Did you even read his post? That's nothing like what he said.
Please define what you mean by "trait" such that a discussion may truly ensue.
_________________
A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| free radical |
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: Which traits are purely non-genetic? |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 1089
|
| VitalOne wrote: |
I'm wondering which traits are not genetic, not in DNA at all, but the only thing I could think of so far is left-handedness or right-handedness. We know this because of identical twins.
Are there any other traits that are non-existent in DNA? |
Tattoos and piercings immediately come to mind, bound feet and all manners of phenotypes that we impose upon our bodies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SkinWalker |
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 2246
Location: Grand Prairie, TX
|
I'm still not sure what he means by "trait," the term is vague. If he's referring to genetic trait, then obviously there are no traits that aren't genetic.
Given this obvious argument, I think we can assume his definition of "trait" is more loose. But even if he refers to only those traits that are biological in their manifestation, then the answer is decidedly yes, there exist traits that are not genetic in origin.
Their origins are cultural.
An example, in addition to the one's already mentioned, would be artificial cranial modification, where entire cultures of people find a need to shape the cranial vaults of their toddlers such that an aesthetic result is achieved in adulthood, much the same way bonsai trees are cultivated.
Other traits would be hairstyles, clothing, diet, and dental modifications -each having a biological result in many cases (bald heads tan, some clothing choices also affect melanin).
_________________
A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 4180
|
I wonder if genes tip the the odds of getting an "innie" or "outie" belly-button?
_________________
A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| VitalOne |
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Banned (Trolling)
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 133
Location: US
|
| SkinWalker wrote: |
| VitalOne wrote: |
| TheBiologista wrote: |
| Sort of depends what you mean by "traits"... there's some obvious things like scarring and injury which aren't strictly genetics- though their prevalence in the phenotype could be said to be related to genetic traits. If a tendency to take risks and/or an inability to identify threats have a genetic basis for example. That said, those would probably be the result of a mixture of genetics and cultural inheritance. What I suppose I'm saying is that genetics have an influence far beyond their immediate traits, albeit an influence modulated by environment. |
So are you basically saying that everything is in our DNA? |
Did you even read his post? That's nothing like what he said.
Please define what you mean by "trait" such that a discussion may truly ensue. |
A trait meaning an inborn attribute, like left-handedness or eye color
Thanks this is very interesting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Chenzah |
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 30
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
I'd say all 'inborn atributes' are influenced by your DNA. There are some enviromental factors that could cause, in essence, mutations, that wouldn't be inherited. I'm thinking thalidomide and such.
Also, where are you getting this idea of handedness not being genetically based? It quit obviously is, theres a fair bit of research done into maping the genes that determin it as well. Same for eye colour, how could that possibly not be an inherited trait? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 4180
|
Conditions around pre and neo natal development draw maternal genetics as environment.
_________________
A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
