2.13: "Baby Cakes", Pinkie Pie joins the Foalsitters' Club Options

[Pocket]

TODAY ON "MY LITTLE PONY":

PINKIE PIE KNOWS HOW TO MAKE CUPCAKES.

AND CORN CAKES.

AND, UM... REGULAR CAKE CAKES.

BUT NOW, SHE FACES HER TOUGHEST CAKES YET:

HER EMPLOYERS' TWIN TODDLERS.

*ominous music*

WILL SHE PULL OFF THIS BABYSITTING JOB AND BE CROWNED "ACE OF CAKES"? OR WILL SHE BE THE ONE WHO ENDS UP GETTING BURNED?

TUNE IN AT 10 AM EASTERN, 7 AM PACIFIC, AND FIND OUT!

[Dvandom]

Actually, Mendellian genetics don't quite cover it. The cited relative on Mrs. Cake's side is "twice removed" which means in-law. No direct genetic link. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/icon-hotrod.gif)

---Dave

[WorkbenchManiac]

Actually, Mendellian genetics don't quite cover it. The cited relative on Mrs. Cake's side is "twice removed" which means in-law. No direct genetic link. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/icon-hotrod.gif)

---Dave

Even with Scav´s correction regarding the "twice removed" part, Dvandom´s point still stands. Cupcake´s "great aunt´s second cousin twice removed" is not part of Pound Cake´s direct genetic ancestry, not by a long shot.

That´s not supposed to be a hint of how their genetics work though, but the setup for a great and subtle joke, and Destron already mentioned it:

"..<_<...>_>... that makes sense right?" - who are you trying to convince Mr. LOL

No, Mr Cake, I´m afraid it does not... and you damn well know it, lol

My favorite line of the episode as well.

This post has been edited by WorkbenchManiac: Jan 15 2012, 12:04 AM

[Sobana]

Even with Scav´s correction regarding the "twice removed" part, Dvandom´s point still stands. Cupcake´s "great aunt´s second cousin twice removed" is not part of Pound Cake´s direct genetic ancestry, not by a long shot.

Well, I put some thought into this, even though they are distantly related they still share a common ancestor, which might explain a lot. If we consider what the father says to be true that his great, great, great, grandfather was a pegasus that would put the new born six generations away from when Pegasus genetics was first introduced. If the mother's great aunt was born a unicorn, that would mean it was three generations away from the new born. If we follow the family tree from the second cousin twice removed, at the latest introduction of unicorn genetics would be another three generations. Meaning both pegasus and unicorn genetics were introduced into the family around the same time six generations prior to the birth.

So, the first traits of those genes didn't show up until the third generation with the great aunt and then again three generations later in Pound and Pumpkin. Meaning Earth pony genetics would be dominate to pegasus/unicorn genes to a ratio of 1:3, only occurring once every three generations if both parents has ancestry with them.

Yay for my basic understanding of biology! =D

[WorkbenchManiac]

Even with Scav´s correction regarding the "twice removed" part, Dvandom´s point still stands. Cupcake´s "great aunt´s second cousin twice removed" is not part of Pound Cake´s direct genetic ancestry, not by a long shot.

Well, I put some thought into this, even though they are distantly related they still share a common ancestor, which might explain a lot. If we consider what the father says to be true that his great, great, great, grandfather was a pegasus that would put the new born six generations away from when Pegasus genetics was first introduced. If the mother's great aunt was born a unicorn, that would mean it was three generations away from the new born. If we follow the family tree from the second cousin twice removed, at the latest introduction of unicorn genetics would be another three generations. Meaning both pegasus and unicorn genetics were introduced into the family around the same time six generations prior to the birth.

So, the first traits of those genes didn't show up until the third generation with the great aunt and then again three generations later in Pound and Pumpkin. Meaning Earth pony genetics would be dominate to pegasus/unicorn genes to a ratio of 1:3, only occurring once every three generations if both parents has ancestry with them.

Yay for my basic understanding of biology! =D

Having a common ancestor is not the same as being part of the same genetic ancestry. That´s the difference: Mr Cake actually descended from his great-great-great-grandfather, while Mrs Cake only shares a distant common ancestor with her Great-Aunt´s second cousin twice removed.

This distinction only serves as the set-up for the following double entendre: It´s a joke, nothing more.

I´m not at all interested in the actual mechanics of pony genetics and hereditary traits, and I´ll wager the writers don´t care either. It´s not like there are actual rules we could uncover...


That said, your analysis of the hereditary mechanics is completely off. Dominant-recessive heredity does not mean that phenotypical expression of genes skips a fixed ratio of generations.
Even if I were inclined to analyze pony genetics, there simply is not enough available data. So we can not even ascertain, wether such a simple hereditary mechanism is the case.

Realistically speaking, there is no way that Pegasi and earth ponies could be so closely related to be able to interbreed, let alone be two variants of the same species. A variant phenotype with another set of fully funtional, highly diversified limbs? Completely impossible, considering our understanding of real life genetics (especially relevant in this case: homeobox genes), embryology and anatomical development.
In other words: Made up Cartoon ponies are made up and their heredity is played for jokes.

Very funny jokes, too.

This post has been edited by WorkbenchManiac: Jan 15 2012, 09:21 PM

[Sobana]

That said, your analysis of the hereditary mechanics is completely off. Dominant-recessive heredity does not mean that phenotypical expression of genes skips a fixed ratio of generations.
Even if I were inclined to analyze pony genetics, there simply is not enough available data. So we can not even ascertain, wether such a simple hereditary mechanism is the case.

Realistically speaking, there is no way that Pegasi and earth ponies could be so closely related to be able to interbreed, let alone be two variants of the same species. A variant phenotype with another set of fully funtional, highly diversified limbs? Completely impossible, considering our understanding of real life genetics (especially relevant in this case: homeobox genes), embryology and anatomical development.

I are failures at science ='(

This is my entire array of emotions I felt from posting that to hearing the reply

Wait, did you take into consideration there might of been magic involved?

[WorkbenchManiac]

I are failures at science ='(

This is my entire array of emotions I felt from posting that to hearing the reply

Didn´t mean to sound harsh, but if I have an opportunity to ramble about biology, I´ll do it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/icon-fire.gif)

Wait, did you take into consideration there might of been magic involved?

If there is magic involved, real life science goes out of the window anyway. That´s the point, we have no basis to say anything about how pony genetics work, and we can´t just extrapolate from real life science.

So what can we say about pony genetics so far: only that Mr and Mrs cake had a unicorn and a pegasi foal, so crossbreeding is possible. Anything more is pure speculation.
The problem is the lack of data: Heredity is a matter of statistical analysis. If you wan to know how it works, you have to make a whole lot of observations, and look for patterns. So far we only have one such observation, and that is simply not enough to go by.

Imagine you had never seen a dog in you life. Then you come across a black dog, do you then conclude that all dogs are black? Of course not, all you can say now that at least one dog is black, it´s just too early to tell.


I for one am taking into consideration that this is a cartoon, and the writers don´t care for being constricted by real-life biology (or even made-up biology for that matter) when coming up with gags. Nor should they be. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/icon-arcee.gif)

As I said, I´m not one for in-universe explanations. I really do not care how the pony genetics work, or why Scootaloo can´t fly, or why Pinkie is seemingly able to bend space and time- I follow the MST3k-mantra:
"If you are wondering how Pinkie leaps and bounds, and other science facts,
repeat to yourself "it´s just a show", I should really just relax!"

But more power to other fans, who have fun trying to patch together a coherent fictional universe. Go forth, be creative and come up with fun and engaging fan-content for me to enjoy!

This post has been edited by WorkbenchManiac: Jan 16 2012, 03:27 AM

[Sobana]

If there is magic involved, real life science goes out of the window anyway. That´s the point, we have no basis to say anything about how pony genetics work, and we can´t just extrapolate from real life science.

So what can we say about pony genetics so far: only that Mr and Mrs cake had a unicorn and a pegasi foal, so crossbreeding is possible. Anything more is pure speculation.
The problem is the lack of data: Heredity is a matter of statistical analysis. If you wan to know how it works, you have to make a whole lot of observations, and look for patterns. So far we only have one such observation, and that is simply not enough to go by.

Imagine you had never seen a dog in you life. Then you come across a black dog, do you then conclude that all dogs are black? Of course not, all you can say now that at least one dog is black, it´s just too early to tell.

With all due respect, need I remind you that all science is pure speculation and hypothesis until such data can prove or disprove such claims. I'm just working (poorly) with what little information I have until more becomes available. Like in case of the black dog, without any other information available, every encounter you had with a dog have all been black so it is safe to assume for the time being that they are all black. You can theorize the possibility of different colored dogs, but until you can provide such proof, it is still speculation.

Given what little bits we have, I still see a pattern every three generations. If more becomes available, I will compare this with that and make a better conclusion.

And that "Biology is Magic" picture is wrong, as well. For one, it can not even keep it´s terminology straight (calling Pegasi, Unicorns and Earthponies "species"), the little graphic of a double helix, with one strand being one allele, and the other strand being the othere allele betrays a complete lack of understanding about both what an allele is and how DNA works.

I was under the impression that strands of the double helix was designed like a mirror so when they split to copy it would be easy match the other half with the one half.

Explain science to us!

This post has been edited by Sobana: Jan 17 2012, 12:22 AM

[WorkbenchManiac]

With all due respect, need I remind you that all science is pure speculation and hypothesis until such data can prove or disprove such claims.

Let´s not go there again, okay?


Anyway, I think we have a misunderstanding at hand:

I'm just working (poorly) with what little information I have until more becomes available. Like in case of the black dog, without any other information available, every encounter you had with a dog have all been black so it is safe to assume for the time being that they are all black. You can theorize the possibility of different colored dogs, but until you can provide such proof, it is still speculation.

Given what little bits we have, I still see a pattern every three generations. If more becomes available, I will compare this with that and make a better conclusion.

You are right, it is valid to assume that all dogs are black, but you would not conclude that (ie see the issue as settled), which was my point. We are in agreement here.

That´s why I haven´t said your hypothesis about skipping generations is wrong in the context of fictional pony genetics. I merely noted that you misused certain Mendellian terminology (and you are by far not alone in that), and that while your idea would not work if we used real-life genetics as a basis for pony genetics, I then elaborated that real life genetics go out the window anyway.

Your hypothesis is not any more or less valid in the conext of fictional pony genetics, than anyone´s else, and I am sorry if I gave you the impression to the contrary.

I was under the impression that strands of the double helix was designed like a mirror so when they split to copy it would be easy match the other half with the one half.

Explain science to us!

That´s correct. Congratulations, you know more about DNA than whoever made that image!

The two strands of the double helix are complimentary to each other, and besides the point about splitting and copying, it also makes the molecule more stable and it helps reduce the rate of random mutation (if one strand is damaged, it can be repaired using the other strand as a blueprint).

This post has been edited by WorkbenchManiac: Jan 17 2012, 01:07 AM