From: dantonio@magick.enet.dec.com (David D'Antonio)
Subject: Re: Tactile Kinetic (Was RE: Shields)
Reply-To: dantonio@flashy.tay2.dec.com
Organization: None to speak of...
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 17:18:33 GMT


In article <Bu40v0.ICB@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) writes:
|>JBrandt@AAA.UOregon.EDU (Pegasus) writes:
|>
|>>(Posted by Jay Brandt for his Wife)
|>
|>>If as Colin states in his posting((Colin Low) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992
|>>13:18:41 
|>>GMT, Message-ID: <83950131@otter.hpl.hp.com>) R...Society for Psychical 
|>>Research did experiments on this about 100 years ago,...S R... about 10% of
|>>individuals have almost no visualisation ability, and about 10% can 
|>>visualise with visual clarity...S
|>
|>>  The reasons for asking so many questions is that If the test population 
|>>was strictly all Eurpoean Caucasians then you could make the suposition 
|>>that the ability to RseeS might be genitical linked and passed down 
|>>through the female to both men and women and must be matched with the 
|>>same gene to create the ability to Rsee.S  It could be that the reason for
|>>it 
|>>shows up only in 10% of the population tested.  If so one might beable to 
|>>put forth the thesis that the vast majority of the women who had this 
|>>gene were distroyed during the burning times, and thus limiting its spread 
|>>into the population base at large.
|>
|>First, you misread the statistics.  Colin says that 10% are really bad at
|>vis. and 10% are really good.  This means that the other 80% are somewhere
|>in the middle.  Sounds like a normal bell curve to me.  As for it being lost
|>in "the Burning Times", well, very few of the people killed in the various
|>witch hunts were probably practitioners of any type.  The women who were killed
|>(and the 10% who were men) would have represented the whole gene pool, not
|>some specific portion of it.  There were villages (in Germany, I believe) where
|>almost all of the women were killed.  This does not make genetic implications
|>likely.  Also, it cannot be passed only through the female *and* require being
|>matched *and* show up in men.  If it is only passed through women, it is on
|>the X cromosome.  If it is on the X and requires a matching gene, then only
|>women can exhibit the trait, since only women have the necessary doubling of
|>the X.

Not that it's really that important to the discussion, but this isn't
really how alot of genetics works (according to my limited knowledge,
of course :-). Traits are either dominant (dom) or recessive (rec). If
the trait is dom, it will be expressed if it (the gene for it) exists
on either chromosome (X or Y). If it is rec, it will only be expressed
if the dom trait is missing entirely.

As far as I know, there is no such thing as "matching genes".
Sex-linked traits are ones that exist only on that path of the X
chromosome that's "chopped off" in the Y.  If defective, they are most
often expressed in men, since they lack the second X which might have
a "good" copy.  Women will also express the trait if they receive 2
defective copies.  I think that red/green colourblindness is one such
as is hemophilia.  Due to the severe inbredding amongst European
royalty, this disease became rather common and was known as the
Disease of Kings.

[rest deleted]
|>                               Br'anArthur

DDA

--
dantonio@magick.tay2.dec.com -or- dantonio@sword1.enet.dec.com
  I've tried to dance with what life had to hand me
    My partner's been pleasure, my partner's been pain
				-Stevie Nicks

Newsgroups: alt.magick