Let me ask you few problems about Gene frequency.?
969016
I believe that these questions  relate to the "Hardy-Weinberg equalibrium" for population genetics.\nP(purple/dominant)=700 or .7\nq(White/recess.)=300 or .3\nP+q= 100% or 1.00\nPlug these numbers into the quadratic equation:\nP squared + 2Pq + q squared  = 1.00\nnote: the 2Pq represents the hybrib condition\n\n#1 P=.7 , q =.3      Ans.  B\n#2  2(.7)(.3) = .42        Ans. ????\n#3      Ans. A ??\n#4  q = .0001 Ans. A\n#5 2(.9999)(.0001) = .00019   Ans.A
659869
http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=multiple+genes&btnG=Search&meta=\n\nhttp://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99889.htm\n\nhttp://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/full/173/11/6501
910758
sorry im a high schooler who doesnt know exactly how to do it but i think to approach it:\n1) find genotype thats just a little bit of guess and check although you know which ones are dominate since they give capital letters and you know they're heterozygous\n2) order youll have to find again with logic and guess and check\n3) genetic distance will be the times that it screws up from what would theoretically happen. Each gene locus in distance is about 1% so the number of percents that accidently cross will be your distance of alleles in map units\n4) this sounds like you would have to do this inorder to get #3... I really dont know too much about this but thats my stab at process of how to solve\nIf there is a pro here, I'd like to know how to do this too
20815
You've probably heard the fact that our DNA is 98% the same as that of a monkey, what many people don't know is that our DNA is also about 80% the same as that of a fruit fly. Dog DNA probably comes in somewhere in between. I don't think anyone has ever done a study on that though.
202199
Each nucleotide contains roughly 13 atoms. There are two nucleotides per base pair. There are roughly 10,000 - 100,000 base pairs in an average gene. That's 260,000 - 2,600,000 atoms in each gene. Assuming no gene duplications, there are 2 copies of a given gene in each cell. Since atoms behave in a probabilistic manner, it is a given that DNA replication will not occur with 100% fidelity; errors (or, as we call them, mutations) occur.\n\nEvery modern organism we've observed has sophisticated methods to minimize the errors, reducing the background rate of mutation to about 1 per 1,000,000,000 base pairs.\nOf course, even simple bacteria have genomes of several million base pairs, and humans have 6,000,000,000 base pairs per cell (meaning that, on average, every cell in your body has ~6 mutations).\nVarious other factors, known as mutagens, can increase this background rate, and many of these are found in nature.\n\nAs for why genes should be variable, that is not a very precise question. Genes are observed to be variable. Variability in genes is a good thing for organisms, too. If every organism had the exact same genes, (well, first of all, there would only be one type of organism on Earth, but, more relevantly...) every organism of a species would have the exact same weaknesses. Anything that could wipe out one could wipe out all of them. Not a very good survival strategy; indeed, it would be the proverbial "placing all your eggs in one basket".\n\nOh, and one other thing. Gene variability is NOT essential for Darwinism. At the time Darwin formulated his concept of evolution (not the modern concept of evolution, of which genetic variability IS an essential component), genes were not yet known* (nor was DNA). However, Darwin predicted that, whatever the mechanism of heredity was, it would have variability in it. Further, many properties of genes (and, later, DNA) were predicted by Darwinian evolution**.\n\n\n*On the Origin of Species was published in 1859. Gregor Mendel was still conducting his experiments on pea plants, which lasted through 1863, and published nothing until 1866. It was forgotten about shortly thereafter, and not rediscovered for over 30 years, in 1900. This is when the terms "gene", "allele", and "genetics" originated.\n\n\n** Darwin called his model of heredity "pangenesis", and it was published in the late 1860's. It turned out to be incorrect, but the fundamental ideas of transmission and development of inheritable/inherited characteristics were so useful that they were incorporated, along with mendelian genetics, into the modern synthesis.
851956
First, kudos to you for being so open minded.\n\nI haven't read the Nat'l Geo article yet ... but I have it, and am anxious to read it.  Say what you will, the photos are breathtaking (but that's nothing new with Nat'l Geo).  And I have read several Dawkins books, but not that one. \n\nBut without hearing your specific counter-arguments, I don't know how to address them, or why you find the evidence to be "not of such high quality."  The evidence is actually *exceedingly* strong ... and most scientists accept it.\n\nI highly recommend two books in the "Beginners" series.  Specifically, "DNA for Beginners" and "Darwin for Beginners".   Don't be fooled by the cartoon format of these books ... they are excellent introductions to the science.\n\nBut if I can try and guess your point ... if the evidence of genetic linkage with *prehistoric* species is not of "high quality", it's because the DNA molecule (the source of all genetic material for all life on this planet) breaks down rather quickly.  Even a few hundred years is enough to start breaking down the DNA in the remains of animals.  And fossils rarely contain any genetic material.  However, this is not always true.  Occasionally, bone tissue can remain in fossils, and some DNA can be extracted (as we have done with Neanderthal, for example).  But overall, recovering genetic material from prehistoric animals is difficult.\n\nHowever, the genetic links can be reconstructed quite well by examining genetic similarities between living descendants of that prehistoric species.  If living species A, B, and C all have specific genes in common (code for the same protein, same location in the chromosomes, almost identical amino-acid structure), then this tells us that their common ancestor X had these genes.  If there is a fouth species D that has some, but not all the genes shared by A, B, and C ... then this indicates that there is a common ancestor Y that is further back that is the ancestor of all four living species.\n\nFuthermore, there is the concept of the 'molecular clock'.  This is the known rate at which transcription errors (basically 'typos') occur in DNA as it gets passed from generation to generation.  So the number of minor 'typos' found in the DNA of A, B, and C gives us a strong indication of how long ago their common ancestor X lived.  (For more info. see source.)\n\nI hope that helps.  It's hard to be more specific without knowing what your specific objections are.
1001272
no becuase the combinations of the genes
251702
Genetics. And Darwins theory.
438716
I'd say no. Location has nothing to do w/ genes UNLESS you isolate the people in each city so the people inside them cannot reproduce with other people from different cities. Over time you MIGHT be able to see little distinctions because the dominant traits will have been passed around to everyone and then they will express it.
457126
it depends on your genes
96823
1. Changes in allelic frequencies over time\n2. Change in a lineage of populations between generations
100049
Okay i never heard of the law of DNA but to answer the question.  If the condition of hair, straght or curly, is defined by a single gene, than there are two types.  The is a straight gene and a curly gene.  So everyone has two copies of the gene.  One from mom and one from dad.  So if mom gives a curly gene, and dad gives straight, which one will it be?  Well that is described by the law of domninance.  One gene will be stronger than the other.  One allele will out shine the other.  So you need to find out, which gene is dominant and which is recessive.  thats your answer
1112767
If I'm reading you right . . . no, it's not genetic, but it CAN  be hereditary.  People can't teach their kids what they themselves don't know.  So it is a cycle.
477782
Genetics and evolution.
773863
Your question is incomplete, but I'll answer it as it relates to me.\nThree of my four grandparents were dead before I was born, so I have no idea whether I represent the F1 or F2 generation.\nAnd, by the way, isn't your question better suited for a genetics category!
809789
Go to www.genesreunited.com
909716
Mother's genotype is X*X and dad's genotype is XY.\nX*X -------> 1/2 X* & 1/2 X\nXY --------> 1/2 X & 1/2 Y\n\nKids genotype will be: 1/4X*X, 1/4XX, 1/4X*Y, 1/4XY\nTherefore, there is a 25% chance of having a daughter who is a carrier, 25% chance of having a daughter who is not a carrier, 25% chance of having a hemophilic son and 25% chance of having a healthy son.