Talk:PIP/Shunned

I'm still working on the family dynamic. Let me know what you think, and feel free to make suggestions. --Elerneron (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Kind of an off-topic comment, but I figured out the odds of one of the kids having "blue" eyes. (50%)

• Dad- bb (recessive blue)
• Mom- Bb (brown eyes with recessive blue)

Bb, Bb, bb, bb

If 1 parent has 2 dominant alleles, then the child will always have dark eyes

If a person has a dominant and a recessive, they'll have brown eyes, but their children can have blue eyes

2 recessive alleles create blue eyes (if both parents have blue eyes, the children will always have blue eyes.

At birth, everyone has blue eyes. As we grow older, melanin is put in the eyes, creating a darker eye color. Those with "blue" eyes either lack that Gene, or the gene is "defective". It all started with one person in the world having blue eyes and now every person with blue eyes has a common ancestor.

It's the same with Lectin. Breast milk (and cow milk) contains Lectin (lactose). Everyone can consume breast milk until around age 5. A majority of the global populace are "lactose intolerant" and only a small portion can actually still properly process Lectin.

--MrPib (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the only pigment in eyes is melanin. Melanin only comes in brown or black. All other colors are created by the structural coloring. Blue eyes in babies that darken is mainly associated with European ancestry as blue eyes are an evolutionary recent mutation that occurred in the European branch of the species. Babies of African, Asian, Native American, and Middle Eastern ancestry are much less likely to have blue eyes as a child. Statistically, across the world more babies are born with brown eyes. I really enjoy genetic inheritance as well.

With my recent addition of Noah, another blue-eyed child, it stretches the law of averages a bit (as each child only has a 25% chance of having blue eyes) . . . and his light hair is still darkening as he ages; and will likely end up darker brown. Still within the realm of possibility, but unusual to have two of four children with blue eyes. --Elerneron (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I noticed the younger siblings all have an age separation of approximately 4 years. In general, this age separation usually occurs with low-income women who are using their kids to get public assistance. Someone who is attempting to get the best for their children (and is educated) will aim for an age gap of exactly 1 year and 9 months. That strikes the perfect balance between the health of the baby (having them too close together risks the health of mother and baby alike due to neutrient depletion) and the social relationship between the siblings (the smaller the age gap, the better the sibling relationship.) 1 year is the exact recovery time the mother's body needs between pregnancies to assure the health of herself and the baby, so you can't have children faster than that, but any slower threatens the relationship between the siblings. A 4 year gap though is exactly what will keep you on public welfare to help with your children in a low-income family. (This would also suggest the mother ought to be pregnant with a 5th child right now if that pattern and justification holds.) Jemini (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2020 (CET)