I think this discussion or whatever you want to call it is pretty simple, there is one person who thinks they know everything and just states its so, and says it cant be questioned, while there is another who very carefully chooses his words, backs his statements up with examples and knowledge. I for one am on the side of pied being incomplete dominant. It fits, it makes the most sense, and if you want people to think that its recessive just saying so and just because someone said it is does not make it so. Where is a well thought out well backed up reasoning for it being recessive. I see the other side, makes sense, wheres yours? And just because the homozygous phenotype does not look like the heterozygous phenotype does not make it recessive. Just because you cannot differentiate it from a wild type does not mean its not phenotypically different from a wild type.
What im getting at is where is the proof for the recessive argument?
Reply With Quote