Скажи НЕТ оффтопу!

[Мелэйн]

Довольно интересная, но сложная теория. С сайта http://www.tarvalon.net Они там такое любят ((( Переведём?

Genetics Theory
Eilidh Arimath

Channeling Genetics

Ok, I am a biology major (just letting you guys know) and the thing I really dig is genetics (which is what we have recently been studying in biology). Well, doing punnet squares and multi-hybrid crosses got me thinking and what not in the wee hours this morning. What's up with the channeling trait??

In the Big White Book Jordan mentions that channeling is a recessive, genetic trait. That means lots of people could carry the gene to channel, but it is masked by the gene to NOT channel. It's like eye colour. Dark (brown, black, hazel) is dominant over light (blue, green, gray). If people with dark eyes can CARRY the trait for light eyes, then the light eyes trait may pop up in a child or grandchild. Yes, I have a point, I'll come back to it in a bit.

Ok, so you've got Randland, and people that "have the spark" and those who can learn, and those who wouldn't recognise channeling it if bit them on the nose. I have several thoughts on channeling genetics:

1. Channeling could be a sex-linked trait, like colour-blindness. In sex-linked traits, certain traits are carried on the X and Y chromosomes. However, the Y is really a X that is missing a leg, and therefore missing information (explains a lot, doesn't it, ladies?) So, if the mother is carrying the recessive trait for colour blindness or channeling or whatever it is, and the father donates his Y chromosome, the recessive trait shows up. However, if the same parents had a daughter, and the mother gave the recessive trait, the father would ALSO have to give the recessive trait for the trait to be manifested. Otherwise, that daughter would just be a trait carrier, because the dominate gene her father gave her would cover the recessive her mother gave her.

2. Channeling is a regular (autosomal) recessive trait. This is where the eye colour comparison comes into play. As I said before, eye colour is recessive. Now, if you have a man and a woman BOTH with light eyes, the only gene type they can give is a recessive gene, or light eyes. If these two had a child with dark eyes, someone was unfaithful. Now, to compare it to channeling: if Rand and Elayne or Rand and Aviendha had children, and since both (or all 3 or however you want to look at it) can channel, ALL of their children should be able to channel. As for Rand and Min, perhaps only half of their children should be able to channel...it depends on Min's ability. Look at the Sea Folk... Channeling keeps following generations...

3. However, there is also the possibility of channeling being a dominant autosomal trait. There is a trait for 5 digits per hand/foot (which is recessive) and the trait for more than 5 digits per hand/foot (which is actually dominate, just very spread out over the population....or so it was told to us in Biology) Now, with channeling being a dominant trait, you would only need one of the dominant genes to allow for channeling. Thus, in the Rand - Elayne - Aviendha match up, if all had the one dominant gene for channeling, and one recessive for NOT channeling, they COULD have mixture of children who can channel, or cannot channel. As for Rand and Min, it would really just depend on Min's ability, as Rand may only be able to give one channeling gene.

4. (Last one, I'm pretty sure!) Ok, I think this is the theory I like best: channeling isn't really EXACTLY dominant or recessive...it's a mix of genetics. Like skin colour or height: if your parents are tall, then you are going to be tall; if they are fair skinned, then you will be too; if they are dark, you will be dark. However, this is just generalization. Tall parents can have short and medium height children. As for skin colour, since it depends on several different chromosomes, two parents with a "good mix" on genes there could have children with skin colour ranging from very light to very dark. I want to compare that with channeling. If one has more of the dominant (or recessive as the case may be) coding for the "channeling genes" then they are "sparked" or they can touch it, and will touch it, no matter what. If the genes are mixed, some dominant, some recessive, then they may be taught. The amount they have for channeling can also determine the strength of the channeler. Of course, the complete opposite is true as well: if a person has no genes for channeling, then they won't even be able to sense the Source, or see it being worked.

You can comment, or you can say "I don't care about genetics, so, that's great Eili" but hey, this is the two cents of a sleep deprived girl!!
Revised Genetics Theory
Arythan Nieninqe

Youngling project, december 2004

This work is a review from Eilidh Arimath's Channeling Genetics Theory. It's clear that Channeling is a inheritable trait, being the main reason of the decreased number of Channelers in Randland the high ratio of non-reproductive male-channelers. So, by one of the principles underlying Genetics, a trait whose expression is not statistically independent from the parental lineage, it is an inheritable trait. This way, we've got the words of RJ that Channeling is a recessive trait locus which would explain that 3-type model reported by Eilidh. Eilidh reported the existence of mainly three types of people: the wild-type(WT), who has the 2 dominant non-channeling alleles, without the ability of channel, the heterozygous type (HT), who has one channeling allele, and one non-channeling allele, who would be able to learn to channel, the homozygous type (hT), who has the two recessive alleles, who will channel whatever he/she wants or not.

This model is a case of Advanced Mendelian Inheritance, because instead of 3 genotypes for 2 phenotypes, we have got 3 genotypes for 3 genotypes, being capable to determine the genotype with the phenotype. Being more accurate, we could point to the possibility Eilidh reported, that the locus is placed in the X-chromosome, what we call a sex-linked trait. This would explain the no existence of the second class male channelers at the moment. In the same way as diseases as hemophilia, the woman,as she has two X chromosomes, can have one channeling allele, being carrier, and two recessives, being channeler. The man, as he has only one X-chromosome, only can be channeler or non-channeler.

But this two models have got several problems;

First of all, in the X-linked hypothesis, the fact that there is nearly no one male channeler in the Randland is followed by the need of that the man give a channeling allele so as to his daughter was channeler. If the channeling ability is sex-linked, there would be no one channeling at this time.

Maybe the 3-model can adjust the qualitative features of channelers, but through the books we have discovered the channeling ability more than a trait who is or not is, as a long scale of values in which are so much difference between one another (at least, once you can channel). The One Power is, like the height, the hairiness and a lot of othe traits, a trait that is, instead of qualitative, quantitative; we don't have a gene for "tall", and another for "small", there is not a clear division among them, but although this, the height is an inheritable trait.

In order to manage this kind of inheritance, it was developed the Quantitative Genetics; in a few words, these traits are directed by multiple genes, that follow the Mendelian Laws (dominant and recessive), but each gene has got a very little effect in the final phenotype; it means, if an allele A gives 4 cm of height, and B only 1 cm, it depends on the ratio A/B in the genome to determine the height of the individual. This provides us of a wide range of phenotypes, and this model fits better into the wide range of channelers we have.

The theory I propose, maybe there is a biological switch of the channeling, of the ability to channel or not, ruled by an autosomal recessive locus, and once you've got this ability, the strength of this trait is ruled by quantitative loci, showing the wide range of phenotypes that appear.

A last thought; why didn't Aginor manipulate or create a line of uber-channelers to work for the Dark One? Maybe his research gives us the gholams...

[Lanfear]

Если и будем переводить, то давайте заявку! Но не так!

[Grey]

Что же это за уникальная вещь, стасис-накопитель, если в нем не чувствуешь потребности ни в пище ни в питье? ИМХО - это особенность голама, обходиться без еды. Когда есть возможность - он попьет кровушки. Но зазря никого убивать не будет. И отнюдь не из пацифизма. 

Даже название СТАТИС накопитель. Там всё в статисе. Может это что-то типа вакуоли?

[Корлан Дашива]

Даже название СТАТИС накопитель. Там всё в статисе. Может это что-то типа вакуоли?

Может и так... Опять же, джумары там жили долго...

[Grey]

Может и так... Опять же, джумары там жили долго...

Вот я про тоже. интересно, как они были сделаны. Врятле это просто холодильники. и как туда засунули голама!? Вот что меня интересует ))

[Корлан Дашива]

Вот я про тоже. интересно, как они были сделаны. Врятле это просто холодильники. и как туда засунули голама!? Вот что меня интересует ))

Избранные - его хозяева, в конце-концов) Агинор, например сказал:
- Залезай по-хорошему)) Голам и залез.

[Grey]

Избранные - его хозяева, в конце-концов) Агинор, например сказал:
- Залезай по-хорошему))

А голам ответил: "Да насяльника!" Не знаю, не знаю. Возможно только с помощью ИС

[Корлан Дашива]

А голам ответил: "Да насяльника!" Не знаю, не знаю. Возможно только с помощью ИС

Напоминаю - Агинор - создатель голама))) Его бы он послушался.

[Grey]

Напоминаю - Агинор - создатель голама))) Его бы он послушался.

Вспомним истории Франкенштейна ))

[Дамер]

Не думаю, что печати вообще могут сами распадаться. Надо разбивать их...

они ж квейндияровые.разве что с помощью ИС их разобьешь..

[Grey]

Не думаю, что печати вообще могут сами распадаться. Надо разбивать их...

Откуда такая уверенность? Не логично. Тёмный искал печати много лет и не нашёл (или нашёл одну). Как бы он их смог разбить если бы они ослабли? Никак. Значит надо сделать так, чтобы развалились сами. Вроде и в книге момент такой был. Но уже не помню точно.

[Spirit]

Может это следствие того, что какая-та печать уже распалась сама.

Не думаю, что печати вообще могут сами распадаться. Надо разбивать их...

они ж квейндияровые.разве что с помощью ИС их разобьешь..

Ну, так под влиянием темного они ослабели... теперь их молоточком или об пол кинуть...

[Spirit]

Не сами по себе! Они были слабые... но они держались... если хочешь развалить - нужно применить силу... печать была цела, а разломалась или от удара или еще чего-нить

[Grey]

Не сами по себе! Они были слабые... но они держались... если хочешь развалить - нужно применить силу... печать была цела, а разломалась или от удара или еще чего-нить

А если печать лежит в крепком сундучке в сокровещнице города, давн погребённого под землёй?

[Spirit]

По-моему не логично- спасать мир ради того, что бы Шончан уничтожили все твои начинания.

А причем тут ? Пока нету проблемы зачем за неё беспокоится ? Прям под носом ТГ, а он будет думать о войне которая МОЖЕТ БЫТЬ начнется если он победит в ПБ...

«Перемирие», - прервал он. - «И перемирие с Возрожденным Драконом будет длиться покуда Дракон жив. Когда я умру, все будут свободны, если захотят, начать войну с Шончан заново».

Он оставляет выбор самим людям