Is size a dominant or recessive trait?
- Thread starter LemacST
- Start date
Lordpendragon
Experimental Member
This should make it clearer, Lemac :biggrin1:
In genetics, dominant trait refers to a genetic feature that hides the recessive trait in the phenotype of an individual. A dominant trait causes the phenotype that is seen in a heterozygous (Aa) genotype. Many traits are determined by pairs of complementary genes, each inherited from a single parent. Often when these are paired and compared, one gene (the dominant) will be found to effectively shut out the instructions from the other, recessive gene. For example, if a person has one gene for blue eyes and one for brown, that person will always have brown eyes because they are the dominant trait. For a person to have blue eyes, both their genes must be blue (recessive). When a person has two dominant alleles, they are referred to as homozygous dominant. If they have one dominant allele and one recessive allele, they are referred to as heterozygous.
A dominant trait when written in a genotype is always written before the recessive gene in a heterozygous pair. A heterozygous genotype is written Aa, not aA.
Usually, this masking effect is done by virtue of the fact that the recessive gene has a loss of some function that the dominant gene has. For example, in the case of ABO blood types, the O type is recessive because it does not produce any antigens or antibodies, whereas A and B types (which are codominant) do. Or, in the above case dealing with eye color, there is a complete loss of pigment in blue-eyed people, therefore to express the phenotype, both copies of the gene (after all, humans are diploid) must have that same loss of function.
Dominance/recessiveness refers to phenotype, not genotype.
In genetics, dominant trait refers to a genetic feature that hides the recessive trait in the phenotype of an individual. A dominant trait causes the phenotype that is seen in a heterozygous (Aa) genotype. Many traits are determined by pairs of complementary genes, each inherited from a single parent. Often when these are paired and compared, one gene (the dominant) will be found to effectively shut out the instructions from the other, recessive gene. For example, if a person has one gene for blue eyes and one for brown, that person will always have brown eyes because they are the dominant trait. For a person to have blue eyes, both their genes must be blue (recessive). When a person has two dominant alleles, they are referred to as homozygous dominant. If they have one dominant allele and one recessive allele, they are referred to as heterozygous.
A dominant trait when written in a genotype is always written before the recessive gene in a heterozygous pair. A heterozygous genotype is written Aa, not aA.
Usually, this masking effect is done by virtue of the fact that the recessive gene has a loss of some function that the dominant gene has. For example, in the case of ABO blood types, the O type is recessive because it does not produce any antigens or antibodies, whereas A and B types (which are codominant) do. Or, in the above case dealing with eye color, there is a complete loss of pigment in blue-eyed people, therefore to express the phenotype, both copies of the gene (after all, humans are diploid) must have that same loss of function.
Dominance/recessiveness refers to phenotype, not genotype.
All the evidence I have seen regarding penis size and genetics is anecdotal. I'm not convinced that there is any genetic determinant for penis size.
It would be close to impossible to do a well-conducted, controlled study. For any research in that area to have any validity at all, the researcher would have to keep records on every male in a family (including both the maternal and paternal branches) for several generations, and with a broad sample of families. Keeping a record of all penises in 100 families over 4 generations would be a daunting task - and even at that, 100 families is a fairly small sample.
It would be close to impossible to do a well-conducted, controlled study. For any research in that area to have any validity at all, the researcher would have to keep records on every male in a family (including both the maternal and paternal branches) for several generations, and with a broad sample of families. Keeping a record of all penises in 100 families over 4 generations would be a daunting task - and even at that, 100 families is a fairly small sample.
D_Gunther Snotpole
Account Disabled
All surely true, DC, but why would one doubt that there's something genetic involved, tough though it might be to actually tease out how the genetics work?
Lordpendragon
Experimental Member
Some of the anecdotal evidence I mentioned before is self-reporting by identical twins. Some have very similar cocks; others have very different cocks. If it were genetic, identical twins would always have identical cocks.
Genetics has to determine penis size, all areas of your body are constructed by your DNA. However environmental factors like diet and exercise may well have an effect on things like development while growing up which could explain why identical twins could have different penis sizes.
In answer to the original question though, I doubt if the trait could possibly be dominant or recessive like eye colours; penises are far more varied and a bit more of a lottery
In answer to the original question though, I doubt if the trait could possibly be dominant or recessive like eye colours; penises are far more varied and a bit more of a lottery
