Why Are They Not Hairless?

How does curing a disease have anything to do with understanding genetic causes for things? There are plenty of genetic problems which we understand, but cannot cure. Simple.
But there are also genetic problems that we've found, and FIXED, or at least explained through genetic science.

And do you not understand how that happens?
Those are called recessive genes.

Breeding an albino rat, with an agouti rat (assuming they both carry nothing else) will produce 100% agouti rats.
Breeding an agouti rat from that litter, to an albino rat, will produce albinos and agoutis.
Breeding an albino from that litter, to an albino rat, and you will have 100% albinos.

Albino, is recessive.
You cannot breed an albino rat to an albino rat and get a rat that isn't albino.
An albino rat is genetically c/c, meaning that it is heterozygous albino.

Breeding a c/c to a c/c will only produce more c/c.
If you know what a punnet square is (something you learn in middle school biology) you would be able to calculate the probability of getting albino by breeding c/c to c/c, and it's 100%. How much more exact do we need to get?

You can breed two coloured rats, and get albino, IF both rats are carrying the recessive albino gene. Meaning that a rat which is a/a C/c would be black, carrying the albino gene. and if you bred it to another rat that is a/a C/c then you would get 25% albinos, and the rest would be black.

It's possible that you crossed two rats with incompatible hairless types.
That would produce babies that are normal furred (assuming both hairless types are recessive, and neither are double rex) but are carrying both types of hairless. If I were you, I'd try crossing a female baby, back to it's hairless father. If that doesn't produce hairless for you, then we'll have to try again! :P

Quote:

---

if it were that simple they could eliminate diseases, deformaties etc.

---

I wasn't going to really get into this until i saw this statement.

You think pinning down the science of genetics will allow us to cure all diseases and deformaties? Not everything is genetic. I am a biology major in college and have considered genetics as my graduate study, and my dad works with some of the top people in the biochemistry field within the study of the epigenome.

Genetics is not the key to elimnating diseases. Did you know the evolution of cancer was most likely caused by the evolution of humans? Some of the traits you carry will most likely be "stolen" by cancer and invade your body with ease. Such as the angiogeneis properties of a placenta, or the large amount of Fatty Acid Synthetase used to create fatty acid for the membranes of neurons, which makes out brains larger than other species.

Genetics is not the answer. No one science is the answer. It is a constant collaboration. We will never elimate disease. The viruses that kill us are in many ways much more evolved than you or I. Disease is a part of life. We need to die. You may think curing the disease and deformaties is simply fixed by genetics, but they are not.

Genetics is not just matching up an albino to an albino. It involves the entire genome of the organism. Its an extremely complex science, and to try and argue about it is pointless. One because few people on here have a solid and deep understanding of the science of genetics, and two, because there is so much too it, it can not be discussed on an online forum.

Sorry, yes. I seemed to be focusing on just the colour aspect of it, because it was a simple place to start, and it related to the topic at hand.

Thanks for that post Red. :gj:

Genetics is NOT an exact science.

Mutations are the proof that genetics is not an exact science LOL.

Oh, and for the record...some recessive traits are more recessive than others LOL.

I don't know why you produced no hairless babies.

If one of the animals was a recessive hairless and the other was a double rex hairless then most of the babies, if not all of the babies, should have been rex het for recessive hairless.

If they all have normal coats then I don't know what to tell you except...get ready...

genetics is not always exact LOL

Give me an example of genetics not being exact in the terms of rats, and mice.
Mutations are not proof that it's not exact. Mutations are well mapped, and understood in genetic terms, especially when it comes to the coat and colour of rats and mice.


What happened here is that he probably has 2 different types of recessive hairless, that do not produce hairless hen combined. Maybe one is hr/hr and the other is my/my (for mystery) so when you put them together, they make a litter that are all Hr/hr My/my meaning they carry both recessive types of hairless, but have a normal coat.

Genetics is very exact. There is an explanation for this situation, and we're trying to figure it out. If you guys are going to keep saying that it's just chance, and it's not exact science, then move along, because you're not helping solve the problem that the poster is asking about. :P

Almost everything that has been said by everyone has been right.

Genetics is exact in that the mutation can be explained by shifts, deletions, additions, etc. On the other hand genetics is not exact in that mutations do happen. There is never a perfect organism that doesnt experience mutations. We all have mutations, thankfully many of them are in parts of the genome that do not severly affect us. Or the mutation codes for the same amino acid.

Neither side is going to prove one way or the other since there is no one answer.

The mutations don't make it a non-exact science though. The mutations are just new information, and are usually quickly explained.
We understand about mutations, and what causes them, and how to create them.

We can CREATE new mutations. Satin mice, for instance, were created in labs using radiation. :P

But mutations cannot always be predicted. That is what makes it inexact.