butter/lesser

[Blue Apple Herps]

But butter being a separate line, doesn't that make it separate from lesser. Making it a separate gene?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747

As others have said, nope. Presumably all of the morphs in the BEL complex are mutations of the same gene: mojave, butter/lesser, mystic, phantom, het russo, etc. All of these have the same gene affected, it's just affected in different ways to give the various morphs. These different mutations are called alleles. So the BEL complex is just made up of different alleles of a single gene.

Yes, it can get complex. Read some of the genetics tutorials and find some online youtube lectures on mendelian genetics to get a good understanding. Especially if you ever want to breed, a fundamental basic understanding of genetics is extremely helpful, and I would say, necessary if you want to be a competent breeder.

[Pythonfriend]

As others have said, nope. Presumably all of the morphs in the BEL complex are mutations of the same gene: mojave, butter/lesser, mystic, phantom, het russo, etc. All of these have the same gene affected, it's just affected in different ways to give the various morphs. These different mutations are called alleles. So the BEL complex is just made up of different alleles of a single gene.

Yes, it can get complex. Read some of the genetics tutorials and find some online youtube lectures on mendelian genetics to get a good understanding. Especially if you ever want to breed, a fundamental basic understanding of genetics is extremely helpful, and I would say, necessary if you want to be a competent breeder.

I am very sorry but i have to say it as i see it: This is not true and it implies that you do not really understand evolution by natural selection. And also you do not really understand evolution driven by human / artificial selection. The different morphs in the BEL complex are on the same chromosome and they are close to each other or even all at the same place. But they do different things. Its not the same gene. It is just all located at roughly the same place on one chromosome.

[OhhWatALoser]

I am very sorry but i have to say it as i see it: This is not true and it implies that you do not really understand evolution by natural selection. And also you do not really understand evolution driven by human / artificial selection. The different morphs in the BEL complex are on the same chromosome and they are close to each other or even all at the same place. But they do different things. Its not the same gene. It is just all located at roughly the same place on one chromosome.

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.

[Pythonfriend]

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.

[OhhWatALoser]

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

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.

[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.

[OhhWatALoser]

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

[Spiritserpents]

I am very sorry but i have to say it as i see it: This is not true and it implies that you do not really understand evolution by natural selection. And also you do not really understand evolution driven by human / artificial selection. The different morphs in the BEL complex are on the same chromosome and they are close to each other or even all at the same place. But they do different things. Its not the same gene. It is just all located at roughly the same place on one chromosome.

If they're not affecting the same gene... Can you have a snake that is a super lesser super butter super mojo? If the answer is 'no', then they are affected the same gene, just as with corn snakes and ultra & amel, motley & stripe, and hypo & strawberry.

[jason_ladouceur]

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.