Talk:Heterosis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Genetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this page, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating. |
For the person who wanted to delete the heterotic string: I am sorry, but if you look at the history of this page, you will see that this page was established because of string theory - and it is genetic which is secondary. The picture of the dog is nice, but eliminating references to string theory is vandalism because the heterotic string is quite certainly more important than some dogs of an uncertain pedigree. --Lumidek 16:38, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't "vandalize" the page by commenting out the reference to string theory. I came to a page that had a bizarre, unmotivated reference to string theory; not knowing the details of string theory, I represent a typical, lay Wikipedia user. Rather than removing the link entirely, I commented out the link and requested justification to a reference to string theory. You have provided that justification. If I had never commented out the link, you wouldn't have explained why string theory should be referenced and we'd be left with a shoddy, bizarre connection between genetics and string theory. Together, we have have improved Wikipedia. --WpZurp 22:27, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Can someone cite sources for the section on "reverse hybrid vigor"? The only Google results I find for this term are for Wikipedia and its mirrors. Aero34 05:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Regarding the addition of 'some stinky dogs'
I don't know how many of the uninitiated would understand the reference to heterotic string; I'm guessing it wouldn't be many. However, the words "hybrid vigour" incite passionate debate in the various animal fancy groups. "Heterosis" just happens to be the proper term for this phenomenon. I'm sure no disrespect was meant to string theory, but believe me it's more than just a question of a few stinking dogs, or cats, or horses, or cows, or....Thanks for the chuckle! Quill 04:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Importance/expansion
Personally I think the concept of heterosis is extremely important from a biological and evolutionary point of view- I'd love to see someone expand this with some hard science, casting a bigger net than is cast now.
[edit] Racist?
This article is kind of racist, and is based on vauge and arbitrary definitions of "better" that have been tied to evolution through lay-person gossip for years. I have a mind to take out everything that I can't find a credible source for.
- Hey, thanks for your improvements to the article. If your comment is referring to the heterosis studies in humans, the science and its presentation here are limited to dealing with higher and lower scores for said measurement. The section's references appear to be in order. I have though, added a note to "see race and intelligence" for appropriate caveats.--Nectar T 23:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Spock
I am taking out the spock bit and I do not believe it to be vandalism to do so. I know I'm going to be the biggest trekkie for knowing this, but the character doesn't see himself as a superior hybrid, nor does the show see it that way- he's superior in many ways to humans because he was raised among the technologically advanced and all over controlled Vulcans. But I'm not the crazy trekkie in this situation, I'm making the deduction anyone would make, the off, overthought and under represented in the show opinion is that spock is supposed to be better from being not-inbred. It's about an interracial family, a man constantly proving himself to be logical despite his humanity- it's not a story about evolution in a truly scientific sense.
Also, I think it's worth mentioning and scientific to say that for heterosis in humans, humans don't have a diverse enough genepool for hybrid vigor to matter. This explanation could help people understand the concept of heterosis in general. 66.41.66.213 15:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)lotusduck
- I reinserted fictional Mr Spock because regardless of how the character sees himself, he does inherit Vulcan mental powers from his father that have frequently saved the starship and its otherwise human crew. IMO there is no good reason to comment on possible speculative interpretations of Spock in terms of human races or evolution.Cuddlyable3 14:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- To claim that "humans don't have a diverse enough genepool for hybrid vigor to matter" would need sources for verification that I don't think can be found, plus a clarification of what "matters".Cuddlyable3 14:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Removed Spock reference. It's just silly and the ST canon does not support this statement.
- Which statement do you claim is unsupported? Please sign your posts.Cuddlyable3 15:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Heterosis in humans
removed:
- Heterosis in humans must be interpreted differently than heterosis in other organisms, because the entire human population already has a very limited gene pool. Heterosis functions as the opposite of inbreeding, and in this way we know limited heterosis in humans to exist; humans who have offspring with close relatives have unfit offspring, so the children of unrelated pairs by comparison are an example of hybrid vigor. However, because of the limited gene pool in humans, the mating of one human from one race and another human of a historically isolated race is analagous to one chimpanzee mating with a cousin.
These statements would need citation.--Nectar T 01:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
has only intelligence ever been tested wrt heterosis in humans? That would seem rather stupid, seeing the fabulous obstacles connected with any measurement of intelligence. Has nobody measured much more straightforward traits, such as physical strength, immune reaction, reflexes, etc. ? Also, just studies on plants... and humans? Nothing on animals? 83.76.222.64 14:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need half this article to be about skin whiteners? 68.189.104.46 01:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Genetic basis of heterosis
I think it is important to mention the genetic basis of heterosis. It is what is at the base of this phenomenom. I tried to explain it at best I could and provide a figure (which I admit, could be of better quality. Suggestions?). Any comments, remarks about it? It will also need references. Seb951 16:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)seb951
[edit] better!
I'd like to issue a public thank you to the Wikipedia community for their attention to this area. This article has defiantly shown an improvement and is closer to scientifically accurate after my posts. It is a big responsibility that Wikipedia has, and that responsibility should be free of cultural bias, even if it may seem to go against what we have been led to believe by American media and culture.
When I first started looking into this topic, the articles I found were woefully inaccurate and defiantly biased. I still feel that objectively, the definition should clearly state that most cross-breeds lead to a reduction in fitness. Heterosis can be induced through breeding stragity such as line-breeding but it is a wasteful effort. Random mixing of genes is similar to random mutation, most of which is deadly and not beneficial to the gene pool. 99% of mutations are deleterious.
Respect of natural selection should be the default position. There are quantifiable difference between the races which were developed over hundreds of generations and whatever diversity we have managed to achieve should be cherished, what makes us different is what makes us special. By mixing the races, in one or two generations we can undo the work of hundreds or thousands of years of evolution.
only deviant humans race mix anyway so dont worry i tink. most people stick whit thier own kind.
- What the hell is this ridiculous garbage?204.97.106.20 21:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fiction = trivia?
The "heterosis in fiction" section reads a lot like a trivia section to me. Although I personally found it interesting, I question whether it is encyclopedic.204.97.106.20 21:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This section should be removed or moved to its own page in the Literature section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.5.236.254 (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No transcluding
Please note you should not transclude other articles into here. See Talk:Eurasian hybrid vigor#Removing my OR Nil Einne 08:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Conflicting subordinate clauses
The clauses in this sentence cannot each be subordinate to the other:
"Although it is believed that heterosis is the action of many genes of small effect, whereas inbreeding depression is the action of a few genes of large effect."
Either the "although" or the "whereas" has to go. D021317c 09:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Superior, better, fit
I have no objection to incorporating information about heterosis in humans, but whenever superiority or fitness are mentioned, whether in connection with humans or other organisms, it should be perfectly clear how an organism is "superior" or what it is more "fit" to achieve. There should never be a suggestion that one individual or lineage is categorically "better" than another, only that it may be better in a certain way, that is, at doing a certain thing. Otherwise, controversial value judgments (of Mr Spock, for example) may seem to be implied. D021317c 10:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- When Mr Spock (your example D0231317c) saves the starship and its crew from that TV episode's perilous situation by exercising his unique Vulcan mind merge ability it is "perfectly clear" to every trekie that he is the individual who is best at doing that thing. This is an example of fiction and is not a "controversial value judgement" that needs a finger-wagging warning to keep us politically correct. BTW whether you permit such a suggestion or not, evolution seems to have left a fossil trail of organisms (including some proto-humans) who were found "categorically" unfit to perpetuate their species. Cuddlyable3 20:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] outbreeding depression
"It may also happen that a hybrid inherits such different traits from their parents that make them unfit for survival. This is known as outbreeding depression, typical examples of which are crosses between wild and hatchery fish that have incompatible adaptations."
It should be clarified that:
a) Outbreeding depression only occurs between populations that have diverged significantly i.e. Different species.
b) There are two kinds of outbreeding depression. One, because the hybrid isn't equally adapted to the parental environment. The other because of the breaking down of co-adapted gene complexes, especially in F2, F3 generations (e.g Bos Taurus x Bos Indicus).
[edit] Needs reconsideration
I removed this text:
-
- Heterosis can be classified into mid-parent heterosis, in which the hybrid shows increased strength which is greater than the average of both parents, and best-parent heterosis, in which the hybrid's increased strength is greater than that of the strongest parent. Mid-parent heterosis is more common in nature, and it is easier to explain (by mechanism of gene dominance; see below).
The main objection is to the formulation the average of both parents. If that has any precise meaning(?) then by natural variation every offspring is very likely to have a strength that is above or below it. An anecdote that comes to mind is that President Eisenhower allegedly expressed outrage on hearing that 50% of american children have below-average IQ.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
