this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
182 points (96.9% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35876 readers
1087 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Just to be well and truly fuckin clear. I am not now nor have I ever been nor will I ever be contemplating shagging a family member.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 135 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (8 children)

Human genes only really "work as intended" when they are combined from very different sets.

So-called "recessive" genes are overruled by your partner's different pile of genes. They are usually shit traits like soggy bones or hair growing backwards, but since they never dominate, they haven't been naturally selected away. They're just harmless baggage.

You can still get them because it's all random, but the likelihood is generally low.

If you don't have that difference in mating genes, more of these recessive genes get to have a say in building the human. This severely increases the likelihood of birth defects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

Fun fact: This is one of the reasons why - when we start colonies on the Moon or Mars or wherever - it's important that we send a fuck ton of people.

[–] dcoe@lemmy.world 81 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Well, there’s a new insult: “You soggy-bones looking mother fucker.”

[–] VampyreOfNazareth@lemm.ee 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] alphacyberranger@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] VampyreOfNazareth@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Can't wait for next season

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 9 points 9 months ago

That just reminded me of the only community I really miss from reddit, r/neverbrokeabone. Lemmy just doesn't have the number of users to support such a niche community.

But yeah, there were all sorts of good insults there for when people broke a bone. "Soggy-bones mother fucker" would have fit right in.

[–] DharmaCurious@startrek.website 33 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's 4 in the morning and I'm sick, got them albuterol inhaler shakes, and "soggy bones" made me laugh so hard I went into a coughing fit.

[–] sangriaferret@sh.itjust.works 9 points 9 months ago

It was backwards hair that did it for me.

[–] Outsider9042@aussie.zone 16 points 9 months ago (8 children)

Or a fuck ton of, samples.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] where_am_i@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Ok, but why are recessive genes necessarily bad?

Or, they probably aren't, but it turns out when you activate them you get more bads than the goods. Why is that?

[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Good question!

They aren't necessarily bad as such, just "random and unfiltered".

Dominant genes get "battle tested" all the time, by definition. The harmful ones are likely to result in a human that can't survive or have children, while the good ones remain.

[–] wieson@feddit.de 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Recessive isn't always bad. In fact, many (maybe all) genetic traits have a dominant and a recessive information.

For example peas. Let's say there is a gene for colour. The dominant variation of the colour gene carries the information "green". Let's call this gene c for colour. Then there is a recessive variation with the information yellow.

We'll write the dominant information as capital C and the recessive as lowercase c.

Now there is a pea with the genetic information CC (one from each parent). That's a green pea.

Then there is one with Cc (father green, mother yellow). But you see the pea and it looks just like a green pea. Because the green gene C is dominant and the yellow c is recessive. You don't know, that this is a mixed variety.

If two seemingly green peas pollinate each other, but under the hood, they are Cc, then they might produce a cc yellow pea.

For a lot of genetic information that's not a problem, they are just different characteristics and not harmful.

But if you have B = your blood coagulates normally, and b = your blood doesn't thicken, you just bleed out and die when you have a paper cut...

Then inheriting b from both of your parents is a terrible fate.

~~This happened in the House of Saxe-Cobourg and other nobility in the 19th century.~~

Edit: the last part is actually a bit more complicated, but the explanation of dominant and recessive still works.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] weew@lemmy.ca 94 points 9 months ago

Many birth defects are rare, and require 2 copies of a defective gene to show up. Most "normal" people will be carrying a few defective genes (out of thousands of pairs), but are fine because they have a good copy still working.

Family members tend to have similar genes.

The chances of you and a family member having the SAME defective gene are massively greater than you and some random stranger.

Thus any child would also have a massively greater chance of inheriting 2 identical copies of the defect.

[–] Nemo@midwest.social 82 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Say you're doing homework and you want to compare answers with a friend. But you didn't do your own homework, you copied most of it off Dave. So you compare with Sara, and if there's any errors that Dave made or Sara made you have a chance to catch and fix them. But if Sara also copied off Dave, you're not gonna catch those mistakes.

Similarly, you have two sets of chromosomes, and for each "gene" (homework problem) you have genes (answers) that are more or less dominant. Bad genes that kill or impair you tend to be recessive, because if they are dominant the carrier doesn't survive. So it's all right if you have one copy, because it's not expressed. But if you have two copies...

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 27 points 9 months ago

Slightly more correct to say alleles are the "answers"

A gene is a spot where the DNA usually codes for something, where an allele is the particular version of a gene carried by an individual.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TheBananaKing@lemmy.world 73 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Swiss cheese theory.

Genes code for all the differnet protein molecules in your body; if any of them are damaged, they don't produce that particular protein and your body is all messed up.

This is bad. Luckily, you have two strands of DNA, one from either parent - and a copy of each gene on either strand. If the copy of the gene you need on strand A is broken, no problem, you just use the copy from strand B (or vice-versa).

However, this relies on both strands having all their broken bits in different places.

Think of a slice of swiss cheese - if you need 100% cheese cover on your sandwich, and you have two randomly-selected pieces of swiss cheese, all the holes are going to be in different places, and you'll probably be fine. Maybe there'll be a couple of tiny gaps, but you'll probably get by.

However, if both slices come from right next to each other n the same block, then most if not all the holes are going to line up with each other, and you are fucked.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 4 points 9 months ago (4 children)

If you had to repopulate the earth from a mass population decline... Would cloning better or inbreeding?

Cloning would avoid swiss cheese problems?

[–] RogueGallifreyan@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Cloning would be worse!

Cloning creates identical people with identical DNA. Identical DNA, identical defects, repeated over and over through the colony of twins, triplets, etc…

But it’s a small margin of improvement. Both cases, if the population pool is too small, you’ll eventually end up with sterility, severe mutations, and very early deaths, end of colony within a few generations.

[–] DrQuint@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If we had a massive population decline, yet, we did not have a global infrastructure collapse (so, magic instant death) then I believe some of the survivors would pretty quickly realize they need yo go find the cold storage of tons of semen samples.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Ah yes, mad max but not fighting over oil.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If the total population of a species falls below a certain threshold, that species is doomed due to low genetic diversity.

One last-ditch attempt would be to interbreed with a closely-related species, so the best (as in, has a .001% chance of working) option in this case might be to locate a willing chimp.

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Tiny chance of working, plus even if it did the offspring may be sterile. So people would just be out there fucking chimps for no reason.

[–] shani66@ani.social 4 points 9 months ago

Don't crush their dreams, man

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheSlad@sh.itjust.works 62 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I am a carrier of CFTR mutations. If I knock up a random woman theres a 1 in 80000 chance of the child having cystic fibrosis. If I knock up my sister theres a 1 in 16 chance instead.

[–] Peps@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I'm being pedantic, but if you know you're a carrier (and don't know the carrier status of your sister) then it is 1 in 8

[–] TheSlad@sh.itjust.works 16 points 9 months ago

You are correct, and i did realize this some time after posting I'm just too lazy to edit it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] flicker@lemmy.world 36 points 9 months ago

I have a disease that is autosomal dominant (and absolutely sucks.) That means only one gene (the one I got from Dad) was needed to give me the disease.

Now I have 2 of these genes. Everybody does. You get one from your mother and one from your father. So I got the bad one from Dad, and a good one from my mother.

It's a super rare disease! If I nail somebody at random in the population, they have 2 good genes they can contribute. My one bad one and one good one flip a coin; our kids could have a bad one from me (and die young) or a good one from me (and be fine!)

But if I nail a brother who had the bad gene, there's a coin flip for both of us. Even if I give a good gene, he might give a bad one! Way more likely the bad thing happens.

(So, so grateful none of my brothers have it so I don't have to get all squicked imagining that but it makes my point.)

Not all bad things are as easy to see as my disease. Lots of them "hide" until you get two bad things. But it's more likely two siblings have similar hidden bad things, which makes it more likely the bad things will show up in their child.

[–] Th4tGuyII@kbin.social 35 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

I'll try to keep it relatively simple - your cells contain chromosomes that contain your genes. You usually* have two sets of every chromosome.

These genes come in different variations/mutant forms called alleles. Most alleles function more or less the same, but some malfunctions result in deformities.

If a malfunctioning allele results in errant gene inactivation, it is known as recessive, which means as long as your other copy works, you're all good.

If a malfunctioning allele results in an errant gene activation, it is known as dominant, which means if you have the allele you get the deformity regardless of if your other copy works or not.

Fortunately for life, most malfunctioning alleles are recessive, so as long as you've got high genetic variance (a lot of alleles) in a population, the chance of two people meeting with the same recessive malfunction is low.

Incest can result in a drastic decrease in genetic variation, which can result in malfunctioning alleles becoming much more prevalent than they usually would be, resulting in many more cases of recessive deformities than in the wider population.


*For males this is not true of their sex chromosomes. Many genes present on the X chromosome are missing on the Y chromosome, which can lead to sex exclusive traits and diseases.

For example, it is the reason why there are almost no calico/tri-colour male cats, as the genes for it are in X but not Y chromosomes.

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

For example, it is the reason why there are almost no calico/tri-colour male cats, as the genes for it are in X but not Y chromosomes

And the male calicos that exist actually have Klinefelter syndrome, where they wound up with an extra X chromosome, making them XXY instead of XY.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 16 points 9 months ago

Genes mutate.

If you have one copy of a mutated gene, it could be bad. However, one mutated gene is usually recessive or will be co-dominant with the other gene so it isn't that bad. If you have two copies of that gene, it can be a lot worse.

Two close family members are more likely to have the same mutated gene, so the odds of getting that same mutated gene twice are a lot higher.

[–] GreenAppleTree@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

It's mostly a game of chance.

Grossly oversimplified: Say you have black eyes, but carry a blue-eye gene (which doesn't show because black is dominant). There's a very good chance your sibling carries the same gene. If the two of you have a child together, there's a higher chance that the kid will carry double blue genes and has blue eyes.

Had you had the kid with another black eyed person that's not a sibling, there's a higher chance that they may carry different genres (black, grey, brown, green eyes). So much lower chance of having a blue-eyed kid.

Imagine the same but with all sorts of physical and mental defects. They may not show in you, but if you carry the genes, there's a good chance your sibling does too. Hence the higher chance of it showing up in your kids.

Even if the trait doesn't show in your kids, over generations of inbreeding practice (common in old royal families) the bad genes would be so concentrated in the pool that so many defects will start showing up.

[–] sosodev@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Many families have recessive fucked alleles that cause all kinds of problems. An allele is a variant of a gene. You need two copies of a recessive allele for that gene to be expressed (do something).

Every fucked allele the parents share has a 25% chance of being expressed in the child. The more DNA the parents share the more fucked alleles they share. Usually… sometimes the opposite happens and the number of bad alleles is reduced in the child. Inbreeding can lead to fucked animals and “perfect” ones. Weird stuff.

Now you might be thinking “why do families have so many fucked alleles?”

That’s a good question. The thing about carrying a single recessive, fucked allele is that it doesn’t do anything to you. Mutations happen all the time and so these alleles are floating around and multiplying constantly.

It’s only a problem on the odd chance that they get expressed which is most often when family members produce offspring.

So it’s worth noting that this is the type of thing that we can check for these days. In some cultures it’s acceptable to marry a cousin and I’ve heard that they check for any genetic issues before proceeding when they live in a first world country.

[–] Nibodhika@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

First you need to understand the difference between a dominant and a recessive gene. Dominant genes manifest if they're present, recessive genes manifest only if there are no dominant genes present. A quick example is blood types, 0 is recessive, both A and B are dominant, you have two genes that specify your blood type, if both of them are 0 you are type 0, any other combination with 0 you're not 0, i.e. 0A or A0 are A, while 0B or B0 are B. This means that a person with blood AB can't have a son with blood 0, because his son will either have one A or one B inherited from that person.

Genetic diseases that happen because dominant genes are hard to miss, if you have the gene you have the disease, however genetic diseases that need recessive genes can be carried for generations without anyone manifesting symptoms. But of two persons have the same recessive gene it's quite possible that their children will have both of the genes be that one and manifest the illness. The chances of two random people having the same recessive genes are quite slim, but the closer people are genetically the higher the chances that they have the same recessive genes. Using blood type as an example, if a parent is AB and the other is B0 their children have 0% chance of being 00, but they have a 25% chance of being A0 and 25% chance of being B0 (the other 25% being AB and BB). Now if their children A0 and B0 have a child of their own that child has a 25% chance of being born 00, whereas if any of them had a kid with a AB, AA or BB the chances would be 0%.

[–] Naich@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Does this mean that blood type O will become rarer over time and eventually disappear? Does it also imply that someone, like me, who is O- has a family tree with fewer branches on it than most people?

[–] gaiussabinus@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

It is possible, but genetics is far more complicated than this. There are also the epigenetic factors for gene expression that is a field of ongoing research. Nothing is ever actually as simple as the example but it is a good example for illustration of the concept.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BlueEther@no.lastname.nz 3 points 9 months ago

Resistive genes play a huge part, plus any transcription errors the are passed down don’t have a chance to get skipped with inbreeding

I manage a small closed queen breeding program and we have to try very hard to keep as much variation as possible

[–] nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 9 months ago

Humans are diploid. We have 2 independent copies of every chromosome in each cell, one from each parent. They function as "backup" copies. If an error is on one, as long as the other one has a good copy of the effected gene, nothing happens. However, if parents are related, it becomes possible to receive two identical (or nearly identical) copies, and lose that backup. In that case, any error/mutations will cause problems.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Interestingly, some species (naked mole rats for one,) are fairly immune to the problem.

[–] AmidFuror@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago

If you selectively inbreed for long enough, the deleterious alleles are weeded out by selection. This is true for strains of laboratory mice, but not for any royal families that I know about.

load more comments
view more: next ›