genes

They didn't use stats to identify genes because the genes were already well known and sequenced.

The ideas of the extended phenotype work inward also: the genes that do reproduce are the genes that codify reproduction.

It is full of genes that modify genes that modify genes that secrete hormones that modify pathways and brain patterns and so on.

Far behind those three would be being mixed race, but mostly caucasian (I got enough Anglo-Saxon genes to dominate the South American genes).

Passing genes from one thing into another can very easily have unintended consequences as they do in nature.

My appendix could do me in tomorrow and the genes that express for it will likely go on.

Take your resulting p-values and perform an FDR correction to account for testing thousands of genes within the genome.

After that it was just a matter of putting the genes in front of a high output promoter and thats that.

But plenty of disease involves the interactions of thousands of genes, like cancer, and for those it's really just as meaningless.

This is usually followed by some first-pass selection scans to identify genes of interest.

Antigen genes are rapidly evolving to evade host defence and maintain ability for invasion.

It's not nature (genes), it's not nurture (family), and it's not class (inherited wealth).

Whiteness of teeth and eyes are biological markers of being a good potential mate with [currently] good health and [presumably] strong immune system (evolutionary "hints" of having "good genes"), an analogy of peacock's tail.

"Further, at this moment at least, the genes that are being transferred artificially are in general not genes that would cause havoc if they somehow became mobilized from the species into which they were introduced" You are assuming that we have sufficient comprehension of these genes and their effects to make such claims definitively.