r/interestingasfuck • u/XyRow666 • Jul 21 '21

Chicken with genetic defect /r/ALL

https://i.redd.it/98g39eh4pjc71.jpg
53k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '21 edited Aug 10 '21

[deleted]

2

u/99999999999999999989 Jul 21 '21

The trait needs to be dominant. If it is a recessive trait it will never appear again unless both parents have the gene for it.

Dominant does not refer to the chicken's behavior or pecking order.

6

u/Jayer244 Jul 21 '21

aa + AA = Aa Aa Aa Aa

Aa + Aa = AA Aa aa

The gene would appear in the 3rd generation, considering two chickens of the first generation would breed again. The trait would definetly spread a lot slower and, depending on the other chickens behaviour, would depend on incest to spread, but it would survive.

4

u/99999999999999999989 Jul 21 '21

The gene would appear in the 3rd generation

This is absolutely not guaranteed. Each offspring is its own random result. Just because you can write it down in no way proves what will actually occur in reality.

2

u/Antiornot Jul 21 '21

I guess it could appear then?

2

u/99999999999999999989 Jul 21 '21

The whole thrust of the comments was to ensure we could breed lots of these. In order for that to happen, the trait would need to be dominant.

4

u/OsmerusMordax Jul 21 '21

That’s not how genetics works. Those punett squares are vastly oversimplifying the concept of genetics.

And, besides, each individual offspring would have a separate ‘dice roll’.

But using the punett squares: for Aa + Aa,

each chick would have a 50% chance of Aa, a 25% chance of AA and a 25% chance of aa. But only if both parents atleast carry the recessive gene, otherwise it’ll never be expressed.

2

u/Jayer244 Jul 21 '21

Of course that's oversimplifying it and I would never use something like that with experts.

But this is Reddit and there are more layman here that want to understand the argument. Therefore it is useful to oversimplify things