Talk:Outcrossing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Stub	rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

There is substancial information that may well be good, but is unsourced. Additionally, much information appears to be POV. This should describe what Outcrossing is not how it should best be done be done.--Counsel 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If one uses Mendelian formulas, using the standard charts for the crossing of an individual homozygous for the deleterious trait, placed up against an "outcross" that is homozygous, not carrying the deleterious trait, an increase of the number of individuals either expressing or carrying the deleterious trait is an ubiquitous result. For example, With TT representing the lack of the trait, and tt representing the diseased homozygous individual, the Mendelian formulas would be as follows:

ttxTT = 100% Tt, all offspring carrying...

the number of individuals present in the gene pool would then be 1+all offspring produced, or at least 2 individuals would at least have or carry the gene.Therefore there is an increase of at least one with the use of outcrossing.

Furthermore, if the trait is a dominant one, outcrossing does nothing to remove the trait. In fact it increases the number of individuals who are disease ridden.

YYxyy= 100% Yy, all offspring diseased...along with the homozygous
parent

The previous version was demonstrating a POV supporting outcrossing as The only "natural" form of breeding. This was unsupported by any proper form of documentation or supported argumentation. In practice, nature allows for both in breeding and outcrossing through selection either by natural causes, or by assortative breeding. --Kerheals 09:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)