Re: Probability Of A Blue Spiny

"Probability Of A Blue Spiny"

I love this shirt but I wish it had a different background color <3

Nonetheless +1

Re: Probability Of A Blue Spiny

i am all about punnett squares. however, i guess i'm a minority in not being a fan of mario. best of luck, anyhow.

Re: Probability Of A Blue Spiny

We sat staring at the picture for a while.
Wife: "I think I like the pirate one the best."
Me: "I was trying to determine whether the heterozygous S has a distinct phenotype."
Wife: "You're very cute."

Re: Probability Of A Blue Spiny

I've decided that I need this shirt to pass my AP Biology exam.

anjulka wrote:We sat staring at the picture for a while.
Wife: "I think I like the pirate one the best."
Me: "I was trying to determine whether the heterozygous S has a distinct phenotype."
Wife: "You're very cute."

It appears that the Ss heterozygoes have the dominant phenotype. I think the costume differences are a result of how each turtle was raised.

Re: Probability Of A Blue Spiny

This is too awesome for words.

Re: Probability Of A Blue Spiny

love this!!

Re: Probability Of A Blue Spiny

3rd row, first column should be RrSS, but it is listed as RrSs. Which is also the same the one to its right. Still an awesome design though, +1 for you anyway.

iamanidiot240 wrote:3rd row, first column should be RrSS, but it is listed as RrSs. Which is also the same the one to its right. Still an awesome design though, +1 for you anyway.

Ah poo. Thanks for picking up on that. Easy fix in the print file, should it go that far.

Thanks for the support so far, everyone!

@laughalot - Yeah I was looking at a nature vs nurture thing. Some turtles grow up to be pirates. Some grow up to be ninjas. :D

Re: Probability Of A Blue Spiny

Mario = nature?

Re: Probability Of A Blue Spiny

excellent! +1

kylemittskus wrote:Mario = nature?

Mario meets genetics, genetics = math + nature.

Re: Probability Of A Blue Spiny

wow i cant believe this is in the fog.

i guess you reference a video game or some other pop culture thing and you shoot to the top. B^(

Re: Probability Of A Blue Spiny

As someone who works in a genetics lab, I need this.

Re: Probability Of A Blue Spiny

Alright, so:

R = Dominant trait - Red Shell*
r = Recessive trait - Blue Shell*

S = Dominant trait - Not Spiny
s = Recessive Trait - Spiny

*Red gene + Blue gene = Green. Do not ask.




Want.

Re: Probability Of A Blue Spiny

Next task: calculate the probability of a winged blue shell.

(Actually that's too easy. 100% when you're about to cross the line in Mario Kart Wii :p)

bbbrob wrote:Alright, so:

R = Dominant trait - Red Shell*
r = Recessive trait - Blue Shell*

S = Dominant trait - Not Spiny
s = Recessive Trait - Spiny

*Red gene + Blue gene = Green. Do not ask.




Want.

I'm a little confused, if R is a dominant trait, shouldn't any cross in the first two columns be Red? not just the RR crosses, pretty sure the R would thus be dominant over the r and express red.

So it would be the none of them green, thus, when it came down to the rr crosses it would make sense when there are blue turtles, because then there would be no Rr = green confusion.

Doesn't make sense to me and it loses my vote unless someone can explain it to me

DantesHavok wrote:I'm a little confused, if R is a dominant trait, shouldn't any cross in the first two columns be Red? not just the RR crosses, pretty sure the R would thus be dominant over the r and express red.

So it would be the none of them green, thus, when it came down to the rr crosses it would make sense when there are blue turtles, because then there would be no Rr = green confusion.

Doesn't make sense to me and it loses my vote unless someone can explain it to me

Somehow I do believe the R gene is showing incomplete dominance. This is the same Punnet Square you learned about in school where white and red flowers=pink heterozygous flowers.

Here the incomplete dominance ended up with green for a heterozygous Rr.

Hope that helped.

atomicpeaches wrote:Somehow I do believe the R gene is showing incomplete dominance. This is the same Punnet Square you learned about in school where white and red flowers=pink heterozygous flowers.

Here the incomplete dominance ended up with green for a heterozygous Rr.

Hope that helped.

But there the incomplete dominance is at the pigment level where two alleles create the pigments for red and white creating a diluted colour red, or pink. Here I can't see the RGB system, oh well. Voted anyway

DantesHavok wrote:I'm a little confused, if R is a dominant trait, shouldn't any cross in the first two columns be Red? not just the RR crosses, pretty sure the R would thus be dominant over the r and express red.

So it would be the none of them green, thus, when it came down to the rr crosses it would make sense when there are blue turtles, because then there would be no Rr = green confusion.

Doesn't make sense to me and it loses my vote unless someone can explain it to me

all I can think of is that their are two ways to look at primary colors light is red, blue, green. pigments is red, yellow, blue.

teacookie wrote:all I can think of is that their are two ways to look at primary colors light is red, blue, green. pigments is red, yellow, blue.

Green is the result of codominance. Not entirely sure how it works out to be green, as it involves the expression of both phenotypes, but whatever, that's what I assume the guy is going for. Either way, voted for it, will totally wear it to my Mol.Gen. final if it wins.

Example all of you will suddenly remember from high school biology: Tulips. Red + white tulips (red being dominant and white being recessive) result in pink tulips in heterozygous combinations.

tigerraptor wrote:Green is the result of codominance. Not entirely sure how it works out to be green, as it involves the expression of both phenotypes, but whatever, that's what I assume the guy is going for. Either way, voted for it, will totally wear it to my Mol.Gen. final if it wins.

Example all of you will suddenly remember from high school biology: Tulips. Red + white tulips (red being dominant and white being recessive) result in pink tulips in heterozygous combinations.

Honestly though, it's irrelevant to ask "why do blue and red genes together make green?" Genetic inheritance is incredibly complicated topic, and the simple answer of "combining two colors makes a combination of those two colors" is clearly overly simplistic in the case of Mario Kart shells.

We could be seeing a case of incomplete dominance (rather than codominance), where certain aspects of each shell color carry through when the two are combined, but not the colors as a whole (only the hues necessary to create green).

It could be environmental factors at work, think in terms of a phenotype rather than a genotype. Perhaps the green shells were a healthy purple at birth, but something to do with the pigment as it interacts with the race tracks turns them into a shade of green later in life.

Perhaps even we are seeing a polygenic trait here, such as eye color, which is dramatically effected by outside genes as well (though if this is the case the Punnett Square is woefully incomplete).

Regardless, simply because the gene inheritance seems illogical to the lay observer does not mean it lacks an underlying rationale.

Oh, and GMV.

Re: Probability Of A Blue Spiny

This is Fantastic!!

Spiritgreen wrote:
(Actually that's too easy. 100% when you're about to cross the line in Mario Kart Wii :p)

Or any Mario Kart with Blue Shells really.

bbbrob wrote:Alright, so:

R = Dominant trait - Red Shell*
r = Recessive trait - Blue Shell*

S = Dominant trait - Not Spiny
s = Recessive Trait - Spiny

*Red gene + Blue gene = Green. Do not ask.




Want.

Actually, the "R" gene exhibits what is called incomplete dominance. It would not be correct to say that R is the "dominant" trait or that r is the "recessive trait" for a red shell phenotype, otherwise the Rr genotype would also give a red shell phenotype. With incomplete dominance, one gene of each type gives a third phenotype.

Now the only thing you have to accept is that mixing red paint and blue paint will give you green, not purple. :D

novastarj wrote:Honestly though, it's irrelevant to ask "why do blue and red genes together make green?" Genetic inheritance is incredibly complicated topic, and the simple answer of "combining two colors makes a combination of those two colors" is clearly overly simplistic in the case of Mario Kart shells.

We could be seeing a case of incomplete dominance (rather than codominance), where certain aspects of each shell color carry through when the two are combined, but not the colors as a whole (only the hues necessary to create green).

It could be environmental factors at work, think in terms of a phenotype rather than a genotype. Perhaps the green shells were a healthy purple at birth, but something to do with the pigment as it interacts with the race tracks turns them into a shade of green later in life.

Perhaps even we are seeing a polygenic trait here, such as eye color, which is dramatically effected by outside genes as well (though if this is the case the Punnett Square is woefully incomplete).

Regardless, simply because the gene inheritance seems illogical to the lay observer does not mean it lacks an underlying rationale.

Oh, and GMV.

What this guy said.

rockefoe wrote:Actually, the "R" gene exhibits what is called incomplete dominance. It would not be correct to say that R is the "dominant" trait or that r is the "recessive trait" for a red shell phenotype, otherwise the Rr genotype would also give a red shell phenotype. With incomplete dominance, one gene of each type gives a third phenotype.

Now the only thing you have to accept is that mixing red paint and blue paint will give you green, not purple. :D

I've got it! When you take fire in a (relatively) cool form, it's red (as opposed to blue or white). So, the red represents fire. Now, when you combine certain chemicals (and chemicals are always blue vials. It is physically impossible for a chemical to be anything other than a blue vial) and light them, you get green fire. Ergo, fire + chemicals = green fire (read: red + blue = green). And how does fire tie into a Mario reference? Well, that should be obvious.

bbbrob wrote:I've got it! When you take fire in a (relatively) cool form, it's red (as opposed to blue or white). So, the red represents fire. Now, when you combine certain chemicals (and chemicals are always blue vials. It is physically impossible for a chemical to be anything other than a blue vial) and light them, you get green fire. Ergo, fire + chemicals = green fire (read: red + blue = green). And how does fire tie into a Mario reference? Well, that should be obvious.

Fire is not green!! >:O

interesting derby idea.

Also, Boric Acid makes fire burn green. That's where the "combine certain chemicals" comes in.

TobiasAmaranth wrote:Fire is not green!! >:O

It can be - many componds produce a green or greenish colored flame - look up the results of a good old-fashioned flame test

grahamcrackercoyote wrote:It can be - many componds produce a green or greenish colored flame - look up the results of a good old-fashioned flame test

It was an inside joke. See my signature. ;)

Re: Probability Of A Blue Spiny

AMAZING!

I just wish the overall design was a little smaller. I find the Woot shirts with a long design tend to fit differently and don't hold up as well :c

still got my +1 (which I find amusing in a math derby)

Re: Probability Of A Blue Spiny

This design is sure to win this week's "Genetics in Video Games" derby.

Re: Probability Of A Blue Spiny

Sure a winner! This is awesome!

Re: Probability Of A Blue Spiny

NOOOOO THIS SHIRT WAS SOOO GOOOD.

cding wrote:NOOOOO THIS SHIRT WAS SOOO GOOOD.

You are so right; this is one math guy who is quite sad.