A while back, I made a post comparing people who solicit for designer donor eggs to Nazis. As always, art and humor can never find ways to be as awful as real life. Lookie what we have here from Sunday.
What sort of genetics are you working with? I'm not aware that they even know the full extent of the genes involved in determining eye color, let alone some study that indicated children look like their father rather than their mother.
If you mean that if the father and mother are homogenous there will still be a 50% influence, Caucasian is an exceptionally broad racial classification, and can very much include individuals whose genetics, even when mixed with the father, would produce children quite obviously not from the mother.
I'm not aware that they even know the full extent of the genes involved in determining eye color
You must have skipped High School Biology that day. It's more complicated than sex determination, but pretty well known.
Suppose there's a young, thin, attractive, white, blond haired, blue eyed, straightedge, 5'2" physically active woman who was born into poverty, raised herself up by her bootstraps and went to college, is now in the process of financially conquering sub-Saharan Africa, and is too busy to have children on her own. Don't you think it's a little bit dumb that this couple outright rejects her eggs?
I have no problem with a couple that takes all the applications and picks the photo that looks like the prospective mom's sister. But when you outright reject everyone who fails to meet an arbitrary set of criteria (the fact that they list both "some form of college education" and "some form of post HS education" should raise a flag here), you've left ordinary tribalism behind and wandered into something ill-advised, if not downright unsavory.
Not that it is the repository of all knowledge, but I went to Wikipedia after your statement, and the editors there are pretty convinced the full extent of the genes responsible for eye color are not yet known. And no mention at all of the father's genes dominating the result. In fact the only mention of genes dominating was the reference to the recessive nature of blue eyes.
I do think arbitrary cut-offs can filter out people who should be very desirable, but it's not so much unsavory as a little foolish and fussy. One would think for a decision of this magnitude that spending some time reading through applications wouldn't be a problem. Of course maybe 5'3" is already of the short side of things (if she's 5'10") and they're already going to be confronted with the choice between the smarter 5'3" woman and the 5'9" lookalike.
I did find the duplication of education requirements rather amusing, especially since they were education requirements.
I said pretty well known. Brown is dominant, blue is recessive, hazel and other common varieties do follow family lines but are less obvious, and truly multicolored eyes only happens in cats. It's not 100% known how people who are XXY manage to survive pregnancy, but most people would say sex determination is "pretty well known".
And no mention at all of the father's genes dominating the result.
Yeah, I was gonna let that slip of yours slide, but since you insist: I didn't say that the father's genes would dominate. I said that since it's pretty obvious these people are already pretty homogenous, it isn't necessary to double up on the desired traits.
I read into that possibility with the discussion concerning a baby from a mixture of Caucasians being quite likely to be obviously not from a homogeneous couple.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
If you mean that if the father and mother are homogenous there will still be a 50% influence, Caucasian is an exceptionally broad racial classification, and can very much include individuals whose genetics, even when mixed with the father, would produce children quite obviously not from the mother.
no subject
You must have skipped High School Biology that day. It's more complicated than sex determination, but pretty well known.
Suppose there's a young, thin, attractive, white, blond haired, blue eyed, straightedge, 5'2" physically active woman who was born into poverty, raised herself up by her bootstraps and went to college, is now in the process of financially conquering sub-Saharan Africa, and is too busy to have children on her own. Don't you think it's a little bit dumb that this couple outright rejects her eggs?
I have no problem with a couple that takes all the applications and picks the photo that looks like the prospective mom's sister. But when you outright reject everyone who fails to meet an arbitrary set of criteria (the fact that they list both "some form of college education" and "some form of post HS education" should raise a flag here), you've left ordinary tribalism behind and wandered into something ill-advised, if not downright unsavory.
no subject
I do think arbitrary cut-offs can filter out people who should be very desirable, but it's not so much unsavory as a little foolish and fussy. One would think for a decision of this magnitude that spending some time reading through applications wouldn't be a problem. Of course maybe 5'3" is already of the short side of things (if she's 5'10") and they're already going to be confronted with the choice between the smarter 5'3" woman and the 5'9" lookalike.
I did find the duplication of education requirements rather amusing, especially since they were education requirements.
no subject
And no mention at all of the father's genes dominating the result.
Yeah, I was gonna let that slip of yours slide, but since you insist: I didn't say that the father's genes would dominate. I said that since it's pretty obvious these people are already pretty homogenous, it isn't necessary to double up on the desired traits.
no subject