aairfccha wrote:quite possibly a cat wrote:Locking a gene shouldn't be all that hard. You can probably just tack it onto the end of a chromosome. Maybe 14 or something. Nothing for it to be exchanged with.
Without special tricks, that modification still has to pass the stochastic remixing of chromosomes at play during sexual reproduction to make it into the next generation.
Sorry, I should have said "locking genes together" or maybe "keeping genes together".
Brigade XO wrote:Locking the modifications in, such as described for the Meyerdal mods implies that EVERYTHING in the gene mix for the indivudal traits is going to be both passed down to the suceeding generations AND will be dominant (requiring only one of the gene pair grouping for that specific mod) reguardless of what each suceeding generationg gets for genes from indivicuals who do not have the Meyerdal mods.
You can just use a nice gene drive.
All or nothing inheritance easy. Actually we see it with the Y-chromosome. As long the DNA you want together is always a) all grouped together and b) setting it up so you won't get any recombination in that area. This is why I suggested the end of a chromosome. Nothing to swap with.JohnRoth wrote:This isn't quite right. The real issue is to make sure the modification gets inherited in an all-or-nothing fashion when mated to a baseline.
I wonder if the Scrags used a gene drive? I would assume so. Which would either mean the scrag package did a number on their evolutionary fitness, or Earth has an awful lot of scrags!