Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!bu.edu!bu-cs!bu-pub!hoppie From: hoppie@bu-pub.bu.edu (Thomas I Hopkins) Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Re: So TEK, is tad still not making any sense? Message-ID: Date: 20 Jan 90 11:35:32 GMT References: <11032@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <7888@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu Organization: Boston University College of Engineering Lines: 13 In-reply-to: tcmaint@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM's message of 18 Jan 90 06:44:07 GMT >>>>> On 18 Jan 90 06:44:07 GMT, tcmaint@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Thomas A. Dowe) said: T^d> ...it is true that female genetic contributions T^d> are a "thousand times more pertinent" in determining inheritance... Just out of curiosity, is this true? I knew that color blindness and other sex-linked traits in male offspring were determined solely by female inheritance, but I thought this was a special case because of the chromosome involved. Isn't the genetic contribution to a person's inheritance equal in the case of the other genes? Just asking, Tom Hopkins -"A waist is a terrible thing to mind"