(09-19-2012 08:40 PM)Callie Cline Wrote: [ -> ]what if the kitty was SO big, like the size of a sim... you could build a city on it and everyone would live on the kitty... then sometimes it would GET UP and walk and you hope it doesn't rollover... cuz maybe you'd all get smushed!
DinoKitty???? 
OOOh, make it have an "Island" mode! then people would think it was an island ......
..... until it was too late and they were faced with the Maw of Cuteness!
A bone-spitting-out animation would also be cool.
(and yes, leaf, I can totally sense Callie face-palming.
)
I'm beginning to become convinced that toy/teacup ARE genetic and not random. I have gotten a toy and a teacup from the same toy kitten and mate, and looked at the pedigree and there is toy and teacup all over. Attached image
(09-30-2012 04:24 PM)Trystan Parx Wrote: [ -> ]I'm beginning to become convinced that toy/teacup ARE genetic and not random. I have gotten a toy and a teacup from the same toy kitten and mate, and looked at the pedigree and there is toy and teacup all over. Attached image
I have the same belief for a while but I'm not sure at all. It is very hard to keep track of the grandparents to see if they had the size.
(09-30-2012 04:29 PM)Sara Franco Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 04:24 PM)Trystan Parx Wrote: [ -> ]I'm beginning to become convinced that toy/teacup ARE genetic and not random. I have gotten a toy and a teacup from the same toy kitten and mate, and looked at the pedigree and there is toy and teacup all over. Attached image
I have the same belief for a while but I'm not sure at all. It is very hard to keep track of the grandparents to see if they had the size.
It would be easy enough to prove, put two teacups together, if its genetic, and teacup is the most recessive, then you're gonna get teacups every time. It appears to me from my admittedly limited experimenting that the Dominance would go Normal>toy>teacup
(09-30-2012 05:03 PM)Trystan Parx Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 04:29 PM)Sara Franco Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 04:24 PM)Trystan Parx Wrote: [ -> ]I'm beginning to become convinced that toy/teacup ARE genetic and not random. I have gotten a toy and a teacup from the same toy kitten and mate, and looked at the pedigree and there is toy and teacup all over. Attached image
I have the same belief for a while but I'm not sure at all. It is very hard to keep track of the grandparents to see if they had the size.
It would be easy enough to prove, put two teacups together, if its genetic, and teacup is the most recessive, then you're gonna get teacups every time. It appears to me from my admittedly limited experimenting that the Dominance would go Normal>toy>teacup
yes but I was thinking they are not random but maybe following different genetic rules. My flower bun who is always a toy gave me Normal, toy and teacup offsrpings, that could work with the same order you mentioned too though but we would see them more often if they followed normal rules I guess.
I never mated 2 teacups or 2 toys anyway, I don't have enough of them to test.
(09-30-2012 05:18 PM)Sara Franco Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 05:03 PM)Trystan Parx Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 04:29 PM)Sara Franco Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 04:24 PM)Trystan Parx Wrote: [ -> ]I'm beginning to become convinced that toy/teacup ARE genetic and not random. I have gotten a toy and a teacup from the same toy kitten and mate, and looked at the pedigree and there is toy and teacup all over. Attached image
I have the same belief for a while but I'm not sure at all. It is very hard to keep track of the grandparents to see if they had the size.
It would be easy enough to prove, put two teacups together, if its genetic, and teacup is the most recessive, then you're gonna get teacups every time. It appears to me from my admittedly limited experimenting that the Dominance would go Normal>toy>teacup
yes but I was thinking they are not random but maybe following different genetic rules. My flower bun who is always a toy gave me Normal, toy and teacup offsrpings, that could work with the same order you mentioned too though but we would see them more often if they followed normal rules I guess.
I never mated 2 teacups or 2 toys anyway, I don't have enough of them to test.
Well, it caught my attention when the first two possibilities, my toy threw a teacup the a toy, same mate for both. That made me look at the BG for the toy and WOW its Mom is a teacup, its mom's mom is a teacup, and its dad's mom is a toy. seems too big to be coincidental to me
If size is genetic:
First, if it's random, we can NEVER prove that. So what we have to do is design tests for non-random systems. If it fails all of them, we've NOT proven it's random, but we HAVE proven it's none of the systems we can think of.
First, assume it is genetic. Next, assume it is simple dominance like all other traits.
Find two normals which gave a teacup. Then, find two teacups which give a normal. If you can find both you've proven the relationship between them is NOT simple dominance. Repeat for normal/toy and toy/teacup. I believe (I'd have to look) that I've seen all and so believe it's provable that, if it's genetic, it's not simple dominance like all other kittycats traits.
Assume it's not simple dominance, but is co-dominance (like human blood type). In this case, since there are only three values, there are only a few possibilities. One case would be Normal is dominant, toy and teacup are co-dominant. In this case, toys and teacups cannot produce normal; so look for toys and teacups which do. Repeat for all three possible forms of co-dominance. Again, I believe you'll find cases which disprove all three and be forced to conclude size is not co-dominant.
Check for poly-genetics. To disprove this, all one needs to do is find two different values for each trait type appearing with each size. For example find one of each size appearing with a Genesis fur and also with a non-genesis fur: this disproves it's an alternate expression for fur. Repeat for eyes, eye shape, etc. I believe you'll find cases disproving all traits, so size is not poly-genetic (on a visible trait .. can't speak to trait types we've never seen).
Next to test would be genetic linkage. Here, what you're looking for is the size usually follows one trait (gender, fur, whatever). Every now and them at a rate less than 50%, probably far less, size will start following another trait. It will stick to that trait until, again, at low odds, it jumps to follow another. This will take a huge amount of data. It's where I'd hide it, if I wanted to make it genetic but appear random. But, then, if KR was going to go to that much work, why do it only for Size?
At the end of the day, I believe you'll find that Size is, in fact, apparently random.
As a mathematician, if I were going to do it, though, I'd go straight for the huge data set needed for the last phase. But, instead of testing that phase, I'd do some tests from Information Theory which would prove, if present, that there is "Information" in the system. Finding it would prove there is a "system" (what we call determinism .. meaning it's not *fully* random). Failing to find it would *indicate* (never prove) that it's random and not deterministic. I believe, from limited tests of this type, performed last year, that Size is non-deterministic and, therefore, probably random.
But, as I said, I can never prove it. All I can do is design tests which will disprove those deterministic systems such as the more common genetic systems given above.
(09-30-2012 08:17 PM)Tad Carlucci Wrote: [ -> ]If size is genetic:
First, if it's random, we can NEVER prove that. So what we have to do is design tests for non-random systems. If it fails all of them, we've NOT proven it's random, but we HAVE proven it's none of the systems we can think of.
First, assume it is genetic. Next, assume it is simple dominance like all other traits.
Find two normals which gave a teacup. Then, find two teacups which give a normal. If you can find both you've proven the relationship between them is NOT simple dominance. Repeat for normal/toy and toy/teacup. I believe (I'd have to look) that I've seen all and so believe it's provable that, if it's genetic, it's not simple dominance like all other kittycats traits.
Assume it's not simple dominance, but is co-dominance (like human blood type). In this case, since there are only three values, there are only a few possibilities. One case would be Normal is dominant, toy and teacup are co-dominant. In this case, toys and teacups cannot produce normal; so look for toys and teacups which do. Repeat for all three possible forms of co-dominance. Again, I believe you'll find cases which disprove all three and be forced to conclude size is not co-dominant.
Check for poly-genetics. To disprove this, all one needs to do is find two different values for each trait type appearing with each size. For example find one of each size appearing with a Genesis fur and also with a non-genesis fur: this disproves it's an alternate expression for fur. Repeat for eyes, eye shape, etc. I believe you'll find cases disproving all traits, so size is not poly-genetic (on a visible trait .. can't speak to trait types we've never seen).
Next to test would be genetic linkage. Here, what you're looking for is the size usually follows one trait (gender, fur, whatever). Every now and them at a rate less than 50%, probably far less, size will start following another trait. It will stick to that trait until, again, at low odds, it jumps to follow another. This will take a huge amount of data. It's where I'd hide it, if I wanted to make it genetic but appear random. But, then, if KR was going to go to that much work, why do it only for Size?
At the end of the day, I believe you'll find that Size is, in fact, apparently random.
As a mathematician, if I were going to do it, though, I'd go straight for the huge data set needed for the last phase. But, instead of testing that phase, I'd do some tests from Information Theory which would prove, if present, that there is "Information" in the system. Finding it would prove there is a "system" (what we call determinism .. meaning it's not *fully* random). Failing to find it would *indicate* (never prove) that it's random and not deterministic. I believe, from limited tests of this type, performed last year, that Size is non-deterministic and, therefore, probably random.
But, as I said, I can never prove it. All I can do is design tests which will disprove those deterministic systems such as the more common genetic systems given above.
I have no disagreement with anything you've said, But in regards to testing done last year, I'd present this to you: What if the "gene" has been there all the time, in some way inactive, while at the same time there was a randomizer popping toys/teacups, and the gene was recently activated (such as during the last update) and is only recently acting as a "true" trait would. Or, also as you said about co-dominance, what if it uses the model of human eye color? In attached chart, substitute Normal for brown eyes, Toy for green, and Teacup for blue. Part of my reasoning, is that at the last Q&A, there was some hinting around about possible new traits, and size was kind of skirted around and mildly hinted. Then again, this group of toys/teacups in my kittens background could be totally coincidental.
They've hinted at Size becoming a breedable trait for some time now, if I recall. The issue would be how to fairly convert from the present random Size to a genetically-based Size. As to other new traits .. there's been a number such suggested on these forums. And they've gone through adding traits, already (Whiskers and Whisker Shape). Don't know if it went as they intended, initially, but it seems to be running fine now.
When looking at truly random systems, one needs to beware of the pitfalls. First, given enough samples, there SHOULD be various-length runs which SHOULD appear deterministic. For example, there is most likely someone out there who has Bengal Snows which always give Males, or Russian Whites which only give Toys. That person might think, correctly, looking at their limited data, that masculinity and snowiness are somehow linked; but they'd be wrong. The other issue is that, being humans, we're predisposed to seeing patterns where none exist. We'll ignore inconvenient data, even when it's quite common, if that's what we need to do to see our patterns.
If I were implementing Size, I'd use a poly-genetic system. Size, in real life, is not one gene. It's a whole pile of genes which control various parts (think: head size, vertebra size, thigh length, etc) and which, when added up, produce "size". This produces a range of sizes which will tend to be distributed on a Bell Curve.
Human Eye color is much the same, where some alleles control cornea shape, viscosity, melanin levels, etc. I've seen the Human Eye Color chart you posted. I've also seen examples it can't explain, and I've seen other almost-working models. None that I've seen, however, do more than cover sub-sets of Human populations. My personal feeling is Human Eye Color is a combination of poly-genetic alleles combined with co-dominants, with a good deal of linkage thrown in.
The most common example of co-dominance is Human Blood Type: A B AB and O. It's small, simple, well understood, and easy to learn.
BTW. Eye color is not a color. The only color in Human eyes is Brown (melanin) ranging in darkness. The "color" you see is light refracting through the cornea and fluid, and back-scatter from the melanin in the fluid. Brown eyes people have have low (or high, I forget which) melanin .. there is little refraction or back-scatter so what you're seeing is actually the brown color all Human iris have.
(09-30-2012 05:03 PM)Trystan Parx Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 04:29 PM)Sara Franco Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2012 04:24 PM)Trystan Parx Wrote: [ -> ]I'm beginning to become convinced that toy/teacup ARE genetic and not random. I have gotten a toy and a teacup from the same toy kitten and mate, and looked at the pedigree and there is toy and teacup all over. Attached image
I have the same belief for a while but I'm not sure at all. It is very hard to keep track of the grandparents to see if they had the size.
It would be easy enough to prove, put two teacups together, if its genetic, and teacup is the most recessive, then you're gonna get teacups every time. It appears to me from my admittedly limited experimenting that the Dominance would go Normal>toy>teacup
I have mated two teacups and gotten a normal sized box, so it's not a directly passable trait. I have always noticed, however, they tend to run in certain lines, kind of like twins run in certain families in real life.