Are some genes more 'powerful' or 'stronger' than other genes? Is there a strongest/healthiest gene?

Are some genes more 'powerful' or 'stronger' than other genes? Is there a strongest/healthiest gene?

Nice pic, SAGE

what?

Define powerful. Define stronger. Define health.

Define 'Define'

'State or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.'

Well, is there a gene that is more beneficial for the human body? Is there a genome that we know that makes a human body healthier, live longer, less prone to disease/cancer/viruses, etc?

We have these retarded threads constantly, stop doing this ffs.

Is it retarded because apparently we have this thread a lot, or because the question itself is retarded? or both? you don't make much sense and seem to be complaining just for the sake of it. if you know the answer, then it would've been easier just to say yes or no.

Some genes are "better" than others in the "you'll probably live longer" sense" but there are almost always tradeoffs. There's a gene which offers partial protection from malaria -- but it you get it from both parents you're likely to develop sickle-cell anemia. Is the gene advantageous? It depends on circumstances. Do you live in an area where malaria is a problem?

There are genes which give you lower cholesterol. You're less likely to die from a heart attack. If you live longer you might have more offspring than others, so the gene will become more common in the population. (That gene might have bad side-effects to, so you might not live longer. I don't know.)

Some genes are obviously bad. Hemophilia's a good example. We know which gene is responsible and fetuses can be screened. Several hundred genes you'd rather not have are known. Many more aren't. Is there a gene which predisposes you to Alzheimer's? Seems likely -- though it's only a predisposition. No one can say on the day you're born if you WILL or WON'T be senile in old age. In any case, we don't know what the Alzheimer's gene (or combination of genes) is. Same for intelligence, eyesight, allergies and any number of other characteristics we'd all like to have.

This all depends on the environment so I would say no because it's always changing through time. You could try to argue that the bigger things like having a closed circulatory system or a notochord are "better" but even then it's still a trade off and those that don't have it don't really need it or make by without it.

If you parents make you at the age of 25, you'll be healthier than if they made you at the age of 40.

I personally would like to crack the secret recipe for the gene that makes us morally inclined to good things. That natural in-born responsibility, courage, sense of justice, benevolence, charm, etc.

I think OP is talking about dominant and recessive genes.

Perhaps.
But "dominance" doesn't necessarily mean "good". Were Mendel's short peas "better" than his tall ones, or vice versa?
What's advantageous often depends on circumstances. And on interactions with other genes, because genes rarely work alone to shape the organism.

Yeah, but OP said "stronger" or "more powerful" genes, not "better". I think that he is asking why certain genes are dominant and certain genes are recessive. both "stronger" and "more powerful" are words used to compare objects to which the trait of strength are attributed. In this case, the objects are genes, so what does it mean to say that one gene can be stronger than another gene? Well, dominant genes overpower recessive genes, so I assume that he is referring to this, because otherwise the question makes not sense!

Of course

He said "strongest/healthiest". Those words apply to the organism, not the gene, even though we talk about "people with healthy genes".
Perhaps we should wait for OP to clarify.

The perfect gene? That sounds pretty far fetched considering that nature is always changing and nature picks an adaption for each organism.
But since humans create their own environment I guess to a degree, I would assume that one day we could find that "perfect" gene

This also isnt putting into considering the fact that every gene has a drawback kinda idea, for example our back and how we can walk upright, we end up getting back pain as we get older as a result (this is a bit of a poor example but it is one)

If OP is talking about dominant and recessive he isnt thinking straight considering that multiple dominant and recessive genes are selected for along with the fact there are multiple different kinds of dominant and recessive... Sex linked,Pleiotrophy, stuff like that plus co-dominance or incomplete dominance there are a vast amount of genes
For example the gene that causes dwarfism is dominant, but it isnt selected for,
-- this genes only work in the hetero form (Aa) this one doesnt work in homozygous dominant.
Which also begs the question, is the perfect gene heterozygous, such as codominance?
and the idea of the perfect gene also puts into consideration mutations and forms of selection
if you really want to achieve the perfect gene
you would have to remove all forms of selection - because with any form of selection or genetic drift or mutation there will never be the PERFECT GENE
I am poorly stating all of this shit
but overall, there will never be a "perfect gene"

Agreed

Me personally I just enjoy talking about the subject