tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post7035100257259531990..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: Causal complexity in lifeAnne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-40918254017727849842016-11-22T14:00:20.939-05:002016-11-22T14:00:20.939-05:00I would say clearly, yes.I would say clearly, yes.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-77769340263288454192016-11-22T13:45:50.637-05:002016-11-22T13:45:50.637-05:00Just as faces and fingerprints are phenotypic and ...Just as faces and fingerprints are phenotypic and unique to an individual, might not an individual's conglomerate of particular biologic pathways (biology in toto) be a unique phenotype as well? (assuming it can be described)Alcinoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18226446736913905114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-1555183854416207472016-11-03T11:41:56.907-04:002016-11-03T11:41:56.907-04:00Thanks, Jim. You might find a paper by John Edward...Thanks, Jim. You might find a paper by John Edwards from the 1960s interesting: 'The Simulation of Mendelism'. If you can't find it, I can send you a reprint. Falconer, in the 1960's edition of his book on quantitative genetics (or somewhere) has a figure making a similar point (I can send that, too if you want): parent offspring correlations can lead a qualitative trait, that's the result of an underlying quantitative phenotype, appear 'Mendelian'Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-29984647693990121032016-11-03T11:35:36.325-04:002016-11-03T11:35:36.325-04:00Ken, the Mississippi river drainage metaphor is e...Ken, the Mississippi river drainage metaphor is excellent. It helps me get closer to wrapping my brain around the challenges of extending genomic testing into "healthy" populations; my current concern with "extended" gene panels on wanna be parents to weed out bad eggs and sperm or, when applied prenatally, to guide termination of pregnancies that are otherwise healthy. I've tried to simulate (modeling) the rate of false positives in contrast to true positives, but have failed to understand to assign plausible numbers to the various nodes in the model. Your explanation helps me understand, i think, why this is so difficult.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14388170589661505821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-31791888362597065422016-11-01T20:30:18.842-04:002016-11-01T20:30:18.842-04:00Nice pieceNice pieceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-34368488840592587362016-10-28T10:37:31.210-04:002016-10-28T10:37:31.210-04:00I realize that in writing this post, I had neglect...I realize that in writing this post, I had neglected to thank Mike Joyner for pointing out the bird adaptation story (and noting the similarity to my Mississippi map analogy).Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.com