butter/lesser

There is one more piece of evidence that butter and lesser are the exact same mutations. The Daddy's
Platty daddy and butter daddy. Both have been produced, both are the same, both are produced in the exact same way, and neither have been produced using any other member of the bell complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

There is no evidence of any of the morphs in the BEL complex not being the same gene, I mean gene as in the real definition not the laymen way we normally use it. They are all alleles which by definition is a variation of the same gene. The only morphs we know of that appear to be even being remotely close but not alleles are leopard and pied.

---

my definition of gene is something like: a piece of DNA that does something.

and my definition of two genes being the same: the two pieces of DNA are the same, i mean, identical.

i dont see how two pieces of DNA that clearly and consistently do different things could be the same.

these are laymens terms, but am i wrong? if yes, how? DNA is digital information, in the case of binary code they are the same if they are the same, lol, i mean, when two strings of binary are identical they are identical. and with DNA its similar.

What am i missing, what do you mean, how could the definition of gene be different, and how could the definition for "the same" be different?

i really dont get it and would like to know. also im 100% certain that if you sequence snake genomes and pinpoint the location of the BEL genes and sequence some het russos and some lessers, they will have a different sequence of DNA at this place, and the fact that they are in the same place doesnt change the fact that the code just isnt the same.

XYZ is the same as XYZ. and VWX is different to XYZ. now you say VWX and XYZ could be the same. and i get a brain freeze, it doesnt compute, but then i know you are an absolute expert.


EDIT: okay, if you have one gene, and it mutates, lets say just a point mutation, one base pair is off, then its different. because 1234567890 is not identical to 1234467890. and if a diferent snake gets a different mutation, lets say its then 1234667890, that will be different from either of the other two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

my definition of gene is something like: a piece of DNA that does something.

and my definition of two genes being the same: the two pieces of DNA are the same, i mean, identical.

i dont see how two pieces of DNA that clearly and consistently do different things could be the same.

---

Before I answer that, how do you define allele? What you call a gene is what I think most would call a DNA Sequence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

these are laymens terms, but am i wrong? if yes, how? DNA is digital information, in the case of binary code they are the same if they are the same, lol, i mean, when two strings of binary are identical they are identical. and with DNA its similar.

---

This is off topic, DNA is hardly binary, look into epigenetics, there may be the on/off switch but if it is on, there is basically a dial to control how much is expressed.

damn, now i looked it up, and im stunned to realize that unlike any other science, biology actually seems to have botched the definitions of "same" and "different".

they talk about different forms of the same gene.

my blunt response would be: if its necessary, ditch the word "gene" and instead use the word "form". different forms of the same gene with different genetic code and different results, it just blows my mind.

so, in strict biology talk, if one BP has a gene, and a second BP has a mutated, broken version of the gene that does not work, they still both have the same gene, even when the genetic code is clearly different and one is working and the other is not? Yeah a broken ferrari and a working ferrari are both ferraris, but i cannot see how they are the same. one drives, the other doesnt.

and yes, DNA is not binary, its in base 4. but its still digital and copied with very high fidelity across generations. Binary code of ones and zeros, base 4 code of CGAT, base 10 code in the form of the numbers we use, ASCII base 128 code, basically all the same. everything can be perfectly translated into everything else. Epigenetics makes things more complicated but doesnt change the code, for me epigenetics is analogous to a write-protected harddrive in a computer where certain tasks can be active or inactive, different data can be in use or not in use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

damn, now i looked it up, and im stunned to realize that unlike any other science, biology actually seems to have botched the definitions of "same" and "different".

they talk about different forms of the same gene.

my blunt response would be: if its necessary, ditch the word "gene" and instead use the word "form". different forms of the same gene with different genetic code and different results, it just blows my mind.

so, in strict biology talk, if one BP has a gene, and a second BP has a mutated, broken version of the gene that does not work, they still both have the same gene, even when the genetic code is clearly different and one is working and the other is not? Yeah a broken ferrari and a working ferrari are both ferraris, but i cannot see how they are the same. one drives, the other doesnt.

and yes, DNA is not binary, its in base 4. but its still digital and copied with very high fidelity across generations. Binary code of ones and zeros, base 4 code of CGAT, base 10 code in the form of the numbers we use, ASCII base 128 code, basically all the same. everything can be perfectly translated into everything else. Epigenetics makes things more complicated but doesnt change the code, for me epigenetics is analogous to a write-protected harddrive in a computer where certain tasks can be active or inactive, different data can be in use or not in use.

---

form = variation

Gene has it's definition changed as we learn more about genetics, but the way I see it used most is basically a gene sits somewhere on a chromosome, the same gene gets paired up with it on the matching chromosome. They are both the same gene, however can have many different variations. The mutant variations are what we are interested in :)

I guess you could spin it that way :p but I see it more as taking a single bit and changing the 1 to a decimal point number

whats the difference between gene and locus then?

i like analogies, so ill try one.

gene: John Smith lives at west abbey road 11.

different form of the gene: Jack Harkness lives on west abbey road 11. Or Betty Sue or whoever, as long as its west abbey road 11. different forms mean different pieces of code inhabit the place.

Locus: west abbey road 11. and its always the same gene on abbey road 11, it cannot be different. No matter if its Betty Sue or John Smith. Thats just different versions of the gene.

so, logically, like it would be in mathematics, would not "gene" and "locus" be rather identical? The gene and the locus are both, independent of content, defined as: west abbey road 11.

when i apply the thinking im used to from mathematics and logic, there is no difference between "gene" and "locus" anymore. both refer to a place, and what resides at that place is meaningless for both and only affects the allele.

if thats really it then i would conclude:
so there is no BEL gene complex, there just is a BEL locus. In BP breeding, we are not dealing with different genes, but merely different forms of genes. When people list the genetics of a BP they are wrong in their terminology, they are referring to different variants of the same gene, or different pieces of code inhabiting the same locus.

but what would that be other than a shift in linguistics? gene and locus are identical, and different morphs are variants on a gene or on a locus. spider is not a gene, its a variant of the normal gene that normally would be there.

its all very confusing and i dont really see the point.

there are 2 genes at each locus in ball pythons, depending on the animal, could be more. Depending on the variation of those genes, it could be homozygous or heterozygous.

Your street is the locus. Your people are genes. People are not locations, they reside at a location. Betty and Jack are heterozygous. John (Jacks identical twin) and Jack are homozygous.

So if I were to give someone a butter and a lesser, and did not tell them which was which, is there ANY way to PROVE which was which? You can use Any other animals you wish, and any number of breeding cycles.

As I understand it, the answer to that is no, which in my book, makes them the same mutation, just different origins. (2 different people found the same mutation in the wild, and if someone else found these 2 animals parents in the wild first, we would not be having this conversation, right?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yzguy

So if I were to give someone a butter and a lesser, and did not tell them which was which, is there ANY way to PROVE which was which? You can use Any other animals you wish, and any number of breeding cycles.

As I understand it, the answer to that is no, which in my book, makes them the same mutation, just different origins. (2 different people found the same mutation in the wild, and if someone else found these 2 animals parents in the wild first, we would not be having this conversation, right?)

---

That pretty much sums it up. :)
Until the next time someone asks lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jason_ladouceur

That pretty much sums it up. :)

---

This thread should be stickied with just that one response from yzguy. If someone doesn't understand that, they never will...:)