(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.
size traits
