Help with a genetics claim...

[Justatruthseeker]

That is being too generous. He has Google, into which he plugs keywords. And when he gets returns, without understanding them, he believes he has received proof that he is right.

This is why he thinks a paper that explains that 'new' alleles introduced during hybridization are the product of mutation and selection actually claims that new alleles are produced by mating.

let me repeat..... Again, I am not the one trying to convince the readers that the correct interpretation is: "a mutation is two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic variation than mutations........"

Go ahead, defend your stance... or can't you?????

 

[Jimmy D]

let me repeat..... Again, I am not the one trying to convince the readers that the correct interpretation is: "a mutation is two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic variation than mutations........"

Go ahead, defend your stance... or can't you?????

I know I needn't bother, as no one takes you seriously anymore because of this behaviour, but I posted this the last time you claimed no one had or could "defend their stance".

.........................

Many people have addressed your "argument"

Psychosarah in June

Tas8831 in April

Dogmahunter in April

Tas8831 in March

To mention just a few.

...........................

Exactly what do you hope to achieve by repeating the same thing over and over and pretending no one has addressed it?

I appreciate that you don't accept what you're being told, as in your arrogance you believe you know better than the entire scientific community, but to claim the "stance" hasn't been defended is a bare-faced lie, as anyone can see.

So what are you trying to achieve here?

 

[tas8831]

let me repeat..... Again, I am not the one trying to convince the readers that the correct interpretation is: "a mutation is two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic variation than mutations........"

No, you are the one that does not understand the source material that you link to and quote.

You ignore/don't understand that the 'new' alleles are the product of previous mutation. Your own sources routinely explain this.
You ignore it. Like most keyword-searching creationists with no science background, you simply do not understand the science and glom on to any phrase that you think props up your fantasies.

 

[tas8831]

let me repeat..... Again, I am not the one trying to convince the readers that the correct interpretation is: "a mutation is two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic variation than mutations........"

Go ahead, defend your stance... or can't you?????

I will defend it by pasting a quote from the very paper you have repeatedly cited to naively and ignorantly claim that alleles are made during reproducing, or whatever child's notions you put forth:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."


And here is more demolition of your naive folk genetics notions - in part from YOUR OWN links:

...from your Wiki link:

"For example, a single-base mutation in the APOE (apolipoprotein E) gene is associated with a lower risk for Alzheimer's disease."

Why did your SNP wiki page mention this - that an SNP in a gene does something when you have declared that alleles are really just one letter difference that was already there?

When I clicked on the 'gene' link on your SNP wiki page, I strangely saw the following:

"Genes can acquire mutations in their sequence, leading to different variants, known as alleles, in the population"

and - oh my stars - the wiki page on "gene" has a WHOLE SECTION dedicated to mutation! And - gulp! - it discusses them in reference to the creation of NEW ALLELES! I mean, ALLIES!

Genes can acquire mutations in their sequence, leading to different variants, known as alleles, in the population.

And - oh my, the vapors are a-comin' - the Google takes me to a site that makes this outrageous claim:


How are new alleles created?
Occasionally, DNA mutations occur in germ cells – cells destined to become eggs or sperm. In this case, the DNA mutation is copied into every new cell of the growing embryo following fertilisation. In this way, new DNA variants are passed on to the next generation. If the mutation affects a gene, it will result in a new version of that gene – a new allele.

Please correct these lies! Tell the TRUTH that alleles are just a different letter that was already there!

Then please tell the Grants what an allele REALLY is! Won't you? Because the Grants and their wicked co-conspirators say this about alleles:

"...the [allele] introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."

And to think about this great offense - it is found in the very link you use to claim the opposite! They must be part of the conspiracy to hide the truth!​

Now please provide evidence - other than you repeated assertions - that alleles are created via God-magic, or via reproduction as you have claimed.

 

[tas8831]

Exactly, let's look at your pretty colors.

Deleterious mutations have been purged.....

And any beneficial mutations already gone to fixation.....

And no, the mutated allele is not the one in question, as made clear by the "whereas the one [allele] introduced by hybridization"..



The allele introduced by hybridization is NOT the randomly mutated allele, or no distinction between alleles would be made.

Man, you people will try any kind of double-talk to avoid the truth, won't you.....

You must be a troll. Or a Poe. Or something.

The quote was comparing the 'newly introduced' allele with an 'in-house' mutated one.

Are you seriously this incapable of embarrassment?

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."

I will let the sane, rational, educated, non-hysterical, non-egomaniacal reader draw their own conclusions.

 

[tas8831]

Just for kicks - an example of justa's genetics 'expertise' for all to savor:

justatruthseeker:

Seems others would have no problem with what I mean when talking of the genetic strand.

The Genetic Strand

The Genetic Strand

So two links to two places selling a book about a guy researching his family history:

The Genetic Strand is the story of a writer's investigation, using DNA science, into the tale of his family's origins. National Book Award winner Edward Ball has turned his probing gaze on the microcosm of the human genome, and not just any human genome -- that of his slave-holding ancestors. What is the legacy of such a family history, and can DNA say something about it?​

justifies you writing:

"I didnt ask you to show me that a C can be inserted between a T and G where the C already existed, but that a C can exist where C never existed at all in the entire genetic strand. "

Right...​

 

[tas8831]

But the mutated allele is not the allele introduced by hybridization.....

"The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one [allele] introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection...."

Get over it Tas. They are discussing two different alleles, One introduced randomly by mutation and one introduced from the effects of genetic hybridization from mating......

It is good to remind ourselves of how the Dunning-Kruger effect works, and how it is so common in creationists.

 

[tas8831]

I seriously doubt your biology degree except from a cracker jack box if you don't understand the difference between a random mutation producing a allele and an allele produced by the re-combination of divergent genomes....

Please provide the mechanism by which an allele is created in this fashion, with examples.
[/quote]

And he never did...

 

[tas8831]

let me repeat..... Again, I am not the one trying to convince the readers that the correct interpretation is: "a mutation is two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic variation than mutations........"

Go ahead, defend your stance... or can't you?????

I have done so a dozen or more times, you just cannot/will not learn.

I am not making that claim, that is your ignorance-based misinterpretation. The paper that YOU keep citing is making the claim that a "new" mutant allele, that has not yet undergone selection, does not have the same success at producing new, adaptive, genetic variation than does an "old" mutant allele that has been selected for already.

You should try to read the sources that y our keyword searches bring you for understanding, not argument fodder in the hopes that nobody else will know more than you. Because those hopes are the fool's hopes.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You must be a troll. Or a Poe. Or something.

The quote was comparing the 'newly introduced' allele with an 'in-house' mutated one.

Are you seriously this incapable of embarrassment?

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."

I will let the sane, rational, educated, non-hysterical, non-egomaniacal reader draw their own conclusions.

the troll is you.

yes, the newly introduced allele from the combination of genes from interbreeding and backcrossing.

but then that's why the Grants spent page after page after page telling you all about interbreeding and backcrossing of genes, and one tint sentence on mutations.

one tiny sentence that told you that alleles introduced through mutation were two to three orders greater in magnitude at producing new genetic variaton than mtations.

You all just can't accept the truth, that your mutations are virtually worthless and is noting but PR for the gullible.....

 

[tas8831]

the troll is you.

Awesome comeback... So original.

yes, the newly introduced allele from the combination of genes from interbreeding and backcrossing.

An allele IS a gene, not a "combination of genes".

but then that's why the Grants spent page after page after page telling you all about interbreeding and backcrossing of genes, and one tint sentence on mutations.

Right...

one tiny sentence that told you that alleles introduced through mutation were two to three orders greater in magnitude at producing new genetic variaton than mtations.

Do you ever read what you write? You totally contradicted yourself within a single sentence.

You all just can't accept the truth, that your mutations are virtually worthless and is noting but PR for the gullible.....

You know.... I have explained to you over and over and over - even using sources that YOU have linked and quoted - to show how clueless you are when it comes to biology/genetics/evolution, and this is not exception. I used your own source to prove that alleles arise via mutation.
But having no background in science, and an excess of ego and the Dunning-Kruger effect, all to prop up you middle eastern myths, you just can't seem to get it.

I will compile previous posts wherein I have made a fool of you on this issue today. It will be fun.


Oh - tell us all about "continuous variation", won't you?

 

[tas8831]

Tas just doesn't want to accept that his beloved mutations take second seat to plain ole mating in creating genetic variation and adaptation, leading to new species (although I contest that conclusion - leading to new "sub-species" is the proper terminology and classification).

Had forgotten how funny creationists are when they are not trying to be.

 

[tas8831]

Wait - there is more:

"It [an allele] is not a mutation which simply copies what already exists in a single genome. It is taking two entirely different chromosomes and creating a unique gene from the two."


You saw that right, folks - the creationists thinks that 2 different chromosomes interact to create a new gene... Cannot top that amazing genetics expertise!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

An allele IS a gene, not a "combination of genes".

Your quote.....

"It [an allele] is not a mutation which simply copies what already exists in a single genome. It is taking two entirely different chromosomes and creating a unique gene from the two."

And just as with mutations, alleles are created from mating when combining two entirely different chromosomes and creating a unique gene from the two.. The Grants tried to explain this to you, you just didn't listen....

And no, an allele is not a gene.... learn your biology....

Inheritance of Traits by Offspring Follows Predictable Rules | Learn Science at Scitable

"Somatic cells contain two alleles for every gene, with one allele provided by each parent of an organism."

they are sequences that code for a gene.....

Allele

"Usually alleles are sequences that code for a gene, but sometimes the term is used to refer to a non-gene sequence.

An individual's genotype for that gene is the set of alleles it happens to possess."

Do you ever read what you write? You totally contradicted yourself within a single sentence.

Says the guy that thinks alleles are each a gene when it is the set that is the gene and codes for it.....

You know.... I have explained to you over and over and over - even using sources that YOU have linked and quoted - to show how clueless you are when it comes to biology/genetics/evolution, and this is not exception. I used your own source to prove that alleles arise via mutation.
But having no background in science, and an excess of ego and the Dunning-Kruger effect, all to prop up you middle eastern myths, you just can't seem to get it.

I will compile previous posts wherein I have made a fool of you on this issue today. It will be fun.


Oh - tell us all about "continuous variation", won't you?

Please do, and we will look up the original papers by the Grants and others and show where you are completely wrong, as I have shown you many times......

You just can';t accept your mutations are meaningless in the larger scheme of things and are two to three orders of magnitude less affective than simple mating at producing genetic variation. It doesn't fit your belief system and so you will forever misconstrue everything written....

You will continue to ignore that it is the "Morphological consequences of hybridization were studied in a group of three interbreeding species of Darwin's finches", not mutation......

Will continue to ignore "Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization...... not by mutation.... in fact it outdid that introduced by mutation by two to three orders of magnitude.....

You continue to ignore that "Introgressive hybridization is effective in increasing genetic variation because it simultaneously affects numerous genetic loci."

continue to ignore scientific definitions in your zeal to promote your Fairie Dust..

Introgression - Wikipedia

"Introgression, also known as introgressive hybridization, in genetics is the movement of a gene (gene flow) from one species into the gene pool of another by the repeated backcrossing of an interspecific hybrid with one of its parent species...."

"...Introgression or introgressive hybridization is the incorporation (usually via hybridization and backcrossing) of alleles from one entity (species) into the gene pool of a second, divergent entity (species)."


Over and over you ignore the reality for your fantasy, and then you want people to actually believe anything you have to say when you can't even see it in front of your nose written in black and white...... take your pseudoscience elsewhere, it won't fly here and is in opposition to the Grants own words and the very scientific definitions..... you can't be trusted at all in anything you say because you can't even accept the science......

 

[pitabread]

learn your biology....

And irony meters everywhere just exploded.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your quote.....

"It [an allele] is not a mutation which simply copies what already exists in a single genome. It is taking two entirely different chromosomes and creating a unique gene from the two."

And just as with mutations, alleles are created from mating when combining two entirely different chromosomes and creating a unique gene from the two.. The Grants tried to explain this to you, you just didn't listen....

And no, an allele is not a gene.... learn your biology....

Inheritance of Traits by Offspring Follows Predictable Rules | Learn Science at Scitable

"Somatic cells contain two alleles for every gene, with one allele provided by each parent of an organism."

they are sequences that code for a gene.....

Allele

"Usually alleles are sequences that code for a gene, but sometimes the term is used to refer to a non-gene sequence.

An individual's genotype for that gene is the set of alleles it happens to possess."





Says the guy that thinks alleles are each a gene when it is the set that is the gene and codes for it.....




Please do, and we will look up the original papers by the Grants and others and show where you are completely wrong, as I have shown you many times......

You just can';t accept your mutations are meaningless in the larger scheme of things and are two to three orders of magnitude less affective than simple mating at producing genetic variation. It doesn't fit your belief system and so you will forever misconstrue everything written....

You will continue to ignore that it is the "Morphological consequences of hybridization were studied in a group of three interbreeding species of Darwin's finches", not mutation......

Will continue to ignore "Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization...... not by mutation.... in fact it outdid that introduced by mutation by two to three orders of magnitude.....

You continue to ignore that "Introgressive hybridization is effective in increasing genetic variation because it simultaneously affects numerous genetic loci."

continue to ignore scientific definitions in your zeal to promote your Fairie Dust..

Introgression - Wikipedia

"Introgression, also known as introgressive hybridization, in genetics is the movement of a gene (gene flow) from one species into the gene pool of another by the repeated backcrossing of an interspecific hybrid with one of its parent species...."

"...Introgression or introgressive hybridization is the incorporation (usually via hybridization and backcrossing) of alleles from one entity (species) into the gene pool of a second, divergent entity (species)."


Over and over you ignore the reality for your fantasy, and then you want people to actually believe anything you have to say when you can't even see it in front of your nose written in black and white...... take your pseudoscience elsewhere, it won't fly here and is in opposition to the Grants own words and the very scientific definitions..... you can't be trusted at all in anything you say because you can't even accept the science......

Alleles are genes. Each gene has two copies or versions (alleles); that is what being diploid means. Allele definition from the same Scitable source you quoted: "An alternate form of a gene; a single gene can have multiple alleles, or versions."

Your remarkable ability to misconstrue what you read appears to have no limits.

 

[tas8831]

More hilarity.No need for me to actually create a reply - I will embarrass the Dunning-Krugerite just by emphasizing his own words and perhaps adding parts of quotes he deems unworthy of inclusion...

Justatruthseeker:

"It [an allele] is not a mutation which simply copies what already exists in a single genome. It is taking two entirely different chromosomes and creating a unique gene from the two."

And just as with mutations, alleles are created from mating when combining two entirely different chromosomes and creating a unique gene from the two.. The Grants tried to explain this to you, you just didn't listen....

And no, an allele is not a gene.... learn your biology....

Inheritance of Traits by Offspring Follows Predictable Rules | Learn Science at Scitable

"Somatic cells contain two alleles for every gene, with one allele provided by each parent of an organism."

they are sequences that code for a gene.....

Allele

"Usually alleles are sequences that code for a gene, but sometimes the term is used to refer to a non-gene sequence.

An individual's genotype for that gene is the set of alleles it happens to possess."





Says the guy that thinks alleles are each a gene when it [an allele] is the set that is the gene and codes for it.....




Please do, and we will look up the original papers by the Grants and others and show where you are completely wrong, as I have shown you many times......

[INSERT - I never said the Grants were wrong - quite the opposite; I point out, with the same quote this one has used in the past, that they EXPLAIN that the newly introduced allele has ALREADY been selected for and purged of deleterious mutations and the like]

You just can';t accept your mutations are meaningless in the larger scheme of things and are two to three orders of magnitude less affective than simple mating at producing genetic variation. It doesn't fit your belief system and so you will forever misconstrue everything written....

You will continue to ignore that it is the "Morphological consequences of hybridization were studied in a group of three interbreeding species of Darwin's finches", not mutation......

[INSERT - hybridization introduces new alleles into the population - where do new alleles come from? MUTATION]

Will continue to ignore "Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization...... not by mutation.... in fact it outdid that introduced by mutation by two to three orders of magnitude.....

You continue to ignore that "Introgressive hybridization is effective in increasing genetic variation because it simultaneously affects numerous genetic loci."

continue to ignore scientific definitions in your zeal to promote your Fairie Dust..

Introgression - Wikipedia

"Introgression, also known as introgressive hybridization, in genetics is the movement of a gene (gene flow) from one species into the gene pool of another by the repeated backcrossing of an interspecific hybrid with one of its parent species...."

"...Introgression or introgressive hybridization is the incorporation (usually via hybridization and backcrossing) of alleles from one entity (species) into the gene pool of a second, divergent entity (species)."


Over and over you ignore the reality for your fantasy, and then you want people to actually believe anything you have to say when you can't even see it in front of your nose written in black and white...... take your pseudoscience elsewhere, it won't fly here and is in opposition to the Grants own words and the very scientific definitions..... you can't be trusted at all in anything you say because you can't even accept the science......​

So, so precious.....

For reference:

Help with a genetics claim...
Help with a genetics claim...
Help with a genetics claim...
Does science actually admit "design"?


There are more, but you get the picture.

So odd - at one point, this one actually seemed to understand what an allele is (or "allie" as he wrote for years), now he is regressing, fetus-like, to a more simplistic mindset. Sad. Yet hilarious.

 

[tas8831]

Yes, you saw it here first, folks - shy, humble, demure creationist with no science background or knowledge totally embarrasses the entire scientific establishment by exposing a massive error that nobody in history noticed, even though it was in plain sight! Observe:

And no, an allele is not a gene.... learn your biology....

Inheritance of Traits by Offspring Follows Predictable Rules | Learn Science at Scitable

"Somatic cells contain two alleles for every gene, with one allele provided by each parent of an organism."

they are sequences that code for a gene.....

Allele

"Usually alleles are sequences that code for a gene, but sometimes the term is used to refer to a non-gene sequence.

An individual's genotype for that gene is the set of alleles it happens to possess."​

My gosh, how did nobody notice this????

I mean, never mind that the creationist quotes a sentence (in blue above) that totally contradicts his claim that alleles are "not genes" and that they are actually "sequences that code for a gene" - that must have been a big typo or something - this is earth-shattering stuff!