Frog-
Unfortunately there are ten times as many parts as previously thought.
There are, in fact, about 3X FEWER parts than previously predicted. Prior to the completion of the HGP, there was an estimated 100,000 genes in the human genome. It turns out there are only about 30,000.
The reason that we can't seem to find the causal elements that result in specific traits is that we are limiting our review to the 'parts' that we have on our list.
Stop the presses! Do you mean to suggest, that YOU know (understand) the REASON we are having a harder time than predicted correlating specific genetic variants to specific disease. Please, by all means, tell us! You owe it to the rest of humanity to put us on the right track. (At least give us a hint where to look).
I try to discuss, "the relationship between gene variants and traits", you argue the difference between "inheritance and disease" as though those topics are not direct subsets of "variants and traits".
Cute Frog, but my distinction was in response to your inability to differentiate between inheritance and disease in the context of Mendel. Next time, copy the reference so that I don't need to go round-and-round with you. Here it is: Mendel's work was motivated by the desire to understand the mechanism of inheritance, not disease.
Sciguy, I'm sorry but you seem intent on trying to hide behind words when we are trying to discuss concepts.
On the contrary, I am trying to focus the discussion. You have a tendency to pick nits (your words from a previous post). It is essential to understand, define and differentiate the terms we are attempting to discuss, something that you try very hard to manipulate to create an "advantage" or a level of understanding, which does not exist.
Thanks for the reference. I'll read it and explain it to you in a subsequent post.
Good luck.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
