<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[evolutionistx]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[evolutiontheorist]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/author/evolutiontheorist/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Southpaw Genetics]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>Warning: Totally speculative</p>
<p>This is an attempt at a coherent explanation for why left-handedness (and right-handedness) exist in the distributions that they do.</p>
<p>Handedness is a rather exceptional human trait. Most animals don&#8217;t have a dominant hand (or foot.) Horses have no dominant hooves; anteaters dig equally well with both paws; dolphins don&#8217;t favor one flipper over the other; monkeys don&#8217;t fall out of trees if they try to grab a branch with their left hands. Only humans have a really distinct tendency to use one side of their bodies over the other.</p>
<p>And about 90% of us use our right hands, and about 10% of us use our left hands, (Wikipedia claims 10%, but <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Lopsided-Ape-Evolution-Generative-Mind-ebook/dp/B000VIDWWE?ie=UTF8&amp;keywords=the%20lopsided%20ape&amp;qid=1463120437&amp;ref_=sr_1_1&amp;sr=8-1">The Lopsided Ape</a> reports 12%.) an observation that appears to hold pretty consistently throughout both time and culture, so long as we aren&#8217;t dealing with a culture where lefties are forced to write with their right hands.</p>
<p>A simple Mendel-square two-gene explanation for handedness&#8211;a dominant allele for right-handedness and a recessive one for left-handedness, with equal proportions of alleles in society, would result in a 75% righties to 25% lefties. Even if the proportions weren&#8217;t equal, the offspring of two lefties ought to be 100% left-handed. This is not, however, what we see. The children of two lefties have only a 25% chance or so of being left-handed themselves.</p>
<p>So let&#8217;s try a more complicated model.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s assume that there are two alleles that code for right-handedness. (Hereafter &#8220;R&#8221;) You get one from your mom and one from your dad.</p>
<p>Each of these alleles is accompanied by a second allele that codes for either nothing (hereafter &#8220;O&#8221;) or potentially switches the expression of your handedness (hereafter &#8220;S&#8221;)</p>
<p>Everybody in the world gets two identical R alleles, one from mom and one from dad.</p>
<p>Everyone also gets two S or O alleles, one from mom and one from dad. One of these S or O alleles affects one of your Rs, and the other affects the other R.</p>
<p>Your potential pairs, then, are:</p>
<p>RO/RO, RO/RS, RS/RO, or RS/RS</p>
<p>RO=right handed allele.</p>
<p>RS=50% chance of expressing for right or left dominance; RS/RS thus =&gt; 25% chance of both alleles coming out lefty.</p>
<p>So RO/RO, RO/RS, and RS/RO = righties, (but the RO/ROs may have especially dominant right hands; half of the RO/RS guys may have weakly dominant right hands.)</p>
<p>Only RS/RS produces lefties, and of those, only 25% defeat the dominance odds.</p>
<p>This gets us our observed correlation of only 25% of children of left-handed couples being left-handed themselves.</p>
<p>(Please note that this is <em>still</em> a very simplified model; Wikipedia claims that there may be more than 40 alleles involved.)</p>
<p>What of the general population as a whole?</p>
<p>Assuming random mating in a population with equal quantities of RO/RO, RO/RS, RS/RO and RS/RS, we&#8217;d end up with 25% of children RS/RS. But if only 25% of RS/RS turn out lefties, only 6.25% of children would be lefties. We&#8217;re still missing 4-6% of the population.</p>
<p>This implies that either: A. Wikipedia has the wrong #s for % of children of lefties who are left-handed; B. about half of lefties are RO/RS (about 1/8th of the RO/RS population); C. RS is found in twice the proportion as RO in the population; or D. my model is wrong.</p>
<p>According to <a href="http://www.anythinglefthanded.co.uk/being-lh/children/chance-lh-child.html#sthash.2KekldeC.dpbs">Anything Left-Handed</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<div id="stcpDiv">Dr Chris McManus reported in his book Right Hand, Left Hand on a study he had done based on a review of scientific literature which showed parent handedness for 70,000 children. On average, the chances of two right-handed parents having a left-handed child were around 9% left-handed children, two left-handed parents around 26% and one left and one right-handed parent around 19%. &#8230;</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<blockquote>
<div id="stcpDiv">More than 50% of left-handers do not know of any other left-hander anywhere in their living family.</div>
</blockquote>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p>This implies B, that about half of lefties are RO/RS. Having one RS combination gives you a 12.5% chance of being left-handed; having two RS combinations gives you a 25% chance.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>And that&#8230; I think that works. And it means we can refine our theory&#8211;we don&#8217;t need two R alleles; we only need one. (Obviously it is more likely a whole bunch of alleles that code for a whole system, but since they act together, we can model them as one.) The R allele is then modified by a pair of alleles that comes in either O (do nothing,) or S (switch.)</p>
<p>One S allele gives you a 12.5% chance of being a lefty; two doubles your chances to 25%.</p>
<p>Interestingly, this model suggests that not only does no gene for &#8220;left handedness&#8221; exist, but that &#8220;left handedness&#8221; might not even be the allele&#8217;s goal. Despite the rarity of lefties, the S allele is found in 75% of the population (an equal % as the O allele.) My suspicion is that the S allele is doing something else valuable, like making sure we don&#8217;t become too lopsided in our abilities or try to shunt all of our mental functions to one side of our brain.</p>
]]></html></oembed>