Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rystil Arden" data-source="post: 3488810" data-attributes="member: 29014">[SBLOCK=Fenris]Hah, a geneticist <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />  Remind me not to get into a discussion about the genetics of Scandaj or the Praetorians then--they're even more complicated than for Rowaini (as you might imagine based on the fact that Nibelan and Tralg sire Nibelan and Tralg sons just fine on Narlsewomen or the fact that the genetically-different Archons have recently changed the entire Praetorian society).  Myself, I'm working on my PhD in AI, but I know a smattering of other stuff.  I did indeed mean direct carryover with no crossing over when I referenced the mitochondrial DNA.I was actually considering the same sex-biased X-chromosome inactivation you mentioned (and yep, I definitely included the whole killing thing partly because it made sense culturally and partly so I could explain biologically why beauty was such a compelling fitness adaptation), and it was definitely going to be polygenic in my mind (I never go for one gene--one gene is just so boring and simplistic, like high school bio tries to convince people genetics works, though I usually don't mention the polygeny offhandedly because it hurts most people's heads to think of it that way), though I've kept it a bit more nebulous than your examples--I never picked an exact number like 4 or anything.  The reason I mentioned none of this before is that I generally consider going heavily into science terms without testing the water first to be a bad idea--I put out mitochondrial DNA in the last post for just that purpose <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  More people would be confused by this terminology than enlightened, I think.As to the "fluke", I do intend for it to be well-night impossible--I picked a fluke that was incredibly incredibly unlikely (say 1 in 1,000,000,000) to represent the extreme perturbation of our population by an incredibly beneficial and coincidental mutation (or the act of an Angel or Saint, since we have divine intervention in the game, unlike in real genetics).  And even despite such a perturbation, the genetically-biased social order remains fairly solid and normalises after only a few generations.  Yay genetics![/SBLOCK]</blockquote>

Verification