Poison ivy proves grandfather not biological grandfather

[d***@yahoo.com]

For her whole life my mother has suspected that her father is not her
biological father. After a search of genetic traits we think we now
have proof. Both her mother and father were alergic to poison ivy yet
she is not. Immunity from poison ivy is dominant which means to get
poison ivy requires two recessive genes. Since both her mother and
father were allergic, neither of them had the dominant gene for
immunity to poison ivy to give to her. Since she is not allergic to
poison ivy and it is known that her mother is, her father MUST be
immune to its effects and MUST have "donated" a dominant immunity gene
during conception. The person who she grew up knowing as her father
was allergic too, however, which means he is not really her biological
father because in that case, both parents only had the recessive gene
to offer.

Does anyone see any flaw in this logic, or is this hard proof?

Thanks,
JD

[f/fgeorge]

Post by d***@yahoo.com
For her whole life my mother has suspected that her father is not her
biological father. After a search of genetic traits we think we now
have proof. Both her mother and father were alergic to poison ivy yet
she is not. Immunity from poison ivy is dominant which means to get
poison ivy requires two recessive genes. Since both her mother and
father were allergic, neither of them had the dominant gene for
immunity to poison ivy to give to her. Since she is not allergic to
poison ivy and it is known that her mother is, her father MUST be
immune to its effects and MUST have "donated" a dominant immunity gene
during conception. The person who she grew up knowing as her father
was allergic too, however, which means he is not really her biological
father because in that case, both parents only had the recessive gene
to offer.
Does anyone see any flaw in this logic, or is this hard proof?
Thanks,
JD

YES!!!!! Shortness is a "dominant" gene, a tall person and a short
person have kids...the kids will be short. My cousins parents were
BOTH over 6 foot, my cousin is over 6 foot, her brother,also my
cousin, is 7 feet tall! My cousin married a short man, less than 5
foot 6, their daughter, is OVER 6 feet tall!!!!
How did my cousins mom AND uncle BOTH get to be OVER 6 foot tall?
Their parents, my grandparents, were BOTH around 5 foot 6! NO WAY they
should have been able to produce one 6 footer, LET ALONE TWO of
them!!! My mom, the only other sibling in that family, is about 5 feet
6 tall! The two over 6 foot tall siblings are DEFINATELY their parents
kids, you can hold up a picture and not be able to tell the parents
and kids apart except for the height and the age, they look
IDENTICAL!!!

[Dave Hinz]

Post by d***@yahoo.com
Does anyone see any flaw in this logic, or is this hard proof?

Well, if that gene acts as you describe, it originated somehow; possibly
by mutation. Mutations happen at a statistically known rate that can be
googled. So, no, it's not 100% proof of anything.

Maybe you could, you know, ask mom?

[Sharon]

Most people would opt for a standard paternity test
instead of a poison ivy test.

Sharon

Post by d***@yahoo.com
For her whole life my mother has suspected that her
father is not her
biological father. After a search of genetic traits
we think we now
have proof. Both her mother and father were alergic
to poison ivy yet
she is not. Immunity from poison ivy is dominant
which means to get
poison ivy requires two recessive genes. Since both
her mother and
father were allergic, neither of them had the
dominant gene for
immunity to poison ivy to give to her. Since she is
not allergic to
poison ivy and it is known that her mother is, her
father MUST be
immune to its effects and MUST have "donated" a
dominant immunity gene
during conception. The person who she grew up
knowing as her father
was allergic too, however, which means he is not
really her biological
father because in that case, both parents only had
the recessive gene
to offer.
Does anyone see any flaw in this logic, or is this
hard proof?
Thanks,
JD

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[CWatters]

Post by d***@yahoo.com
For her whole life my mother has suspected that her father is not her
biological father. After a search of genetic traits we think we now
have proof. Both her mother and father were alergic to poison ivy yet
she is not.

Sure?
http://www.nbc11.com/health/4674571/detail.html?ontheside=story

[DWW]

I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Poison ivy allergy sometimes takes many many
exposures before it shows up, kind of like the beekeeper that dies on the
1000th sting. It's not even clear if there is such a thing as genetic
immunity from poison ivy. I read an estimate that 90% of people are
susceptible to poison ivy, so that doesn't sound like much of a dominant
trait, if there is one.

Post by d***@yahoo.com
For her whole life my mother has suspected that her father is not her
biological father. After a search of genetic traits we think we now
have proof. Both her mother and father were alergic to poison ivy yet
she is not. Immunity from poison ivy is dominant which means to get
poison ivy requires two recessive genes. Since both her mother and
father were allergic, neither of them had the dominant gene for
immunity to poison ivy to give to her. Since she is not allergic to
poison ivy and it is known that her mother is, her father MUST be
immune to its effects and MUST have "donated" a dominant immunity gene
during conception. The person who she grew up knowing as her father
was allergic too, however, which means he is not really her biological
father because in that case, both parents only had the recessive gene
to offer.
Does anyone see any flaw in this logic, or is this hard proof?
Thanks,
JD

[singhals]

Post by d***@yahoo.com
Does anyone see any flaw in this logic,

Yes.

Cheryl

[d***@yahoo.com]

First, asking mom is out. My grandmother is a compulsive liar and I
think in her own mind has vowed never to tell the truth about the real
father. For all I know, she is not even sure. At 89 years old, she's
not so much "there" in the head any more anyway. All I know is that my
mom's "father" told her to never call her dad and that there was
another man who was in the picture at the time who always told her she
was like a daughter to him. My mothers dad died in 1992 and just about
everyone else who might have known the true story is also dead.

When my mom was young, she used to "tease" other kids by playing in
poison ivy. She'd actually roll in it for fun. To this day, she still
pulls it up out of the ground with her bare hands and never gets it.
We all come from the country and are not city slickers who don't know
poison ivy from some 5 leaf vine. It's VERY easy to spot poison ivy if
you've grown up knowing what it is... especially if you are allergic to
it.

JD

[John Nichols]

Everyone has an inherent sensitivity to poison ivy. If you're exposed often
enough, then you will be afflicted. Some people are more sensitive and
develop a reaction quicker, but that's about it.

Post by d***@yahoo.com
For her whole life my mother has suspected that her father is not her
biological father. After a search of genetic traits we think we now
have proof. Both her mother and father were alergic to poison ivy yet
she is not. Immunity from poison ivy is dominant which means to get
poison ivy requires two recessive genes. Since both her mother and
father were allergic, neither of them had the dominant gene for
immunity to poison ivy to give to her. Since she is not allergic to
poison ivy and it is known that her mother is, her father MUST be
immune to its effects and MUST have "donated" a dominant immunity gene
during conception. The person who she grew up knowing as her father
was allergic too, however, which means he is not really her biological
father because in that case, both parents only had the recessive gene
to offer.
Does anyone see any flaw in this logic, or is this hard proof?
Thanks,
JD

[Christopher Jahn]

Post by d***@yahoo.com
For her whole life my mother has suspected that her father is not her
biological father. After a search of genetic traits we think we now
have proof. Both her mother and father were alergic to poison ivy yet
she is not. Immunity from poison ivy is dominant which means to get
poison ivy requires two recessive genes. Since both her mother and
father were allergic, neither of them had the dominant gene for
immunity to poison ivy to give to her. Since she is not allergic to
poison ivy and it is known that her mother is, her father MUST be
immune to its effects and MUST have "donated" a dominant immunity gene
during conception. The person who she grew up knowing as her father
was allergic too, however, which means he is not really her biological
father because in that case, both parents only had the recessive gene
to offer.
Does anyone see any flaw in this logic, or is this hard proof?

No, it's flawed; having the gene does not guarantee immunity, only that
you are less likely to be allergic. Her father may not have had BOTH
genes for immunity, which would mean that he was allergic but still had
the dominant gene to pass on.

[HMH]

Post by Christopher Jahn
No, it's flawed; having the gene does not guarantee immunity, only that
you are less likely to be allergic. Her father may not have had BOTH
genes for immunity, which would mean that he was allergic but still had
the dominant gene to pass on.

If a gene is dominant, it means that the other allele is not getting
expressed.

therefore, an individual with a dominant gene and a recessive gene would
phenotypicaly be expressing the dominant gene.

[Christopher Jahn]

Post by HMH

Post by Christopher Jahn
No, it's flawed; having the gene does not guarantee immunity, only
that you are less likely to be allergic. Her father may not have had
BOTH genes for immunity, which would mean that he was allergic but
still had the dominant gene to pass on.

If a gene is dominant, it means that the other allele is not getting
expressed.
therefore, an individual with a dominant gene and a recessive gene
would phenotypicaly be expressing the dominant gene.

..except when it doesn't. BTW, As far as I know, they haven't identified
a "poison ivy" gene to date, so I'd be surprised to find that they can
say what is or isn't dominant or not.

[James A. Doemer]

Post by d***@yahoo.com
For her whole life my mother has suspected that her father is not her
biological father. After a search of genetic traits we think we now
have proof. Both her mother and father were alergic to poison ivy yet
she is not. Immunity from poison ivy is dominant which means to get
poison ivy requires two recessive genes. Since both her mother and
father were allergic, neither of them had the dominant gene for
immunity to poison ivy to give to her. Since she is not allergic to
poison ivy and it is known that her mother is, her father MUST be
immune to its effects and MUST have "donated" a dominant immunity gene
during conception. The person who she grew up knowing as her father
was allergic too, however, which means he is not really her biological
father because in that case, both parents only had the recessive gene
to offer.
Does anyone see any flaw in this logic, or is this hard proof?
Thanks,
JD

That is a bit tricky. Both my parents have allergic reactions to Poison
Ivy, now. My father was immune to Poison Ivy when he was a child through
young adult. My mother was allergic all her life. My uncle was allergic
as a child, but grew less susceptible to it's effects as he grew older. I
have never had a case of Poison Ivy, although I spend large blocks of time
in the woods and fields around my home hiking through it. I am now in my
early 60's. What you are looking at here is an enzyme of some sort that
some people's bodies produce that counteract the poison. Some people
produce it, some people don't, some people start out producing it, and then
lose the ability later in life. Some people start out without it, then gain
the enzyme later. While it is quite obvious that the propensity to produce
this enzyme is genetic in nature, I don't see that it can be easily
categorized and fit neatly into one box or another. At least not in my
family, whom I suspect are Martians anyway. :c)

[D. Stussy]

Post by d***@yahoo.com
For her whole life my mother has suspected that her father is not her
biological father. After a search of genetic traits we think we now
have proof. Both her mother and father were alergic to poison ivy yet
she is not. Immunity from poison ivy is dominant which means to get
poison ivy requires two recessive genes. Since both her mother and
father were allergic, neither of them had the dominant gene for
immunity to poison ivy to give to her. Since she is not allergic to
poison ivy and it is known that her mother is, her father MUST be
immune to its effects and MUST have "donated" a dominant immunity gene
during conception. The person who she grew up knowing as her father
was allergic too, however, which means he is not really her biological
father because in that case, both parents only had the recessive gene
to offer.
Does anyone see any flaw in this logic, or is this hard proof?

One flaw: Genetic mutation. Although they do happen rarely, they do happen
occasionally. It's always possible that one of the pair of defective genes
just so happened to mutate back to a working one - and that such happened with
your mother's generation.

This may be unlikely - but it is possible. One gene isn't generally enough to
disprove a biological relationship. You should have a complete DNA comparison
done (if possible).