The “gene” is just an area (locus) designating where a sequence of nucleotides used to build a protein is stored. The specific sequence of nucleotides at that gene locus constitutes an allele.
You get 2 copies of a gene. One on the chromosome from mom one on the chromosome from dad.
The specific alleles themselves are also inherited from the parents. Mom had 2 alleles on her 2 chromosomes, dad had 2 on his and you get one allele from each. Think of the allele as the software module occupying the area designated as the gene, the locus.
In the population there is no limit of 2 alleles for a gene. Alleles can number in the thousands. But only one appears at each locus (gene)
Your grandparents had 8 alleles on their specific genes. Depending on the sensitivity of the function all 8 alleles may be the same allele or all 8 may be different. Your mom inherited two and your dad inherited two then you inherited one from each of them.
For instance for Hemoglobin there are three different alleles. Highly conserved, sensitive to mutation. You tend not to live and procreate if you get a mutated hemoglobin allele. Your grandparents probably had only the one or maybe two of the variants in their 8 hemoglobin alleles. Hair color is not so sensitive. There are thousands of different alleles for expressing hair color. Your grandparents may have had 8 different alleles for this gene.
All alleles expressed in a population *is* the gene pool for that population.
So what started out as a system to protect against a few hundred diseases is now scattered so that any given individual may have protection for that collection of diseases, while another individual has protection against a different collection.
No. The immune system genes *do not* protect you from disease. They set up the mechanisms that allow your body to defend itself from disease. Even with different alleles of immunity genes your body set up the mechanisms to identify and combat invaders. Some of the proteins used may be somewhat different but the result is the same. A rhino virus in one person is treated pretty much the same as in another. The differing alleles of the immune system genes do not confer differing disease protection schemes. They only slightly alter the structures and chemistry used in setting up the full immunity processes.
And what happens to Mendel's observations about how BB, Bb and bb are the formula for blue and brown eyes?
That is high school genetics from 1970s. BB Bb bb are used as simple illustrations of a very complex processes. The reality is quite different. B is an allele. So is b. So are s, S, V, H, g, v, G and h. These variants are in the population and will be expressed if the parents pass them to their offspring.
You have seen about alternative splicing and isoforms. Genetics is not as simple as this BB bb stuff.
So now you're saying the genes aren't particularly for eye color at all, but are all involved in forming all the eye functions? Is this known for sure?
We’ve come a long way these past few decades. The proteins create the structure and the structure reflect color under certain conditions. There is no “eye color” gene. There is a suite of genes that give rise to the many structures in the eye and because there are different variants (alleles) to these genes the result is slight differences in structure and thus eye color person to person.
But those thousands of alleles are scattered through the population, so the expression you say they give the gene are available only to separate individuals. Is that a good thing?
Semantics. The “gene” is the locus where the control systems look for the information. The allele is that information. The gene pool for a species is made up of alleles. When we say “Brown Hair Gene” we are actually referring to a brown hair allele at the locus of the hair color gene. If the allele is for blond hair it still is at the same locus (gene) but produces blond karatin. In knowing conversation gene and allele are pretty much interchangeable.
Not clear what you have in mind here. "Within the parent?" "pass to a specific offspring?" For any given gene only one allele per parent will be available to pass along.
Actually there are two alleles per parent. You only get one from each. Keeping it simple your mom has G and j alleles and your dad has M and m alleles. Doesn't matter what the trait is, it's just example. You end up with GM or Gm or jM or jm as your allele set for that trait, that gene. So if you end up with the jM set the j allele is from your mom and appears on the chromosome from your mom in the locus for that gene and the M allele is from dad and appears on your other chromosome in the gene loci. One gene with one allele from each parent on the two chromosomes you get.
But all those mutations aren't really doing anything "different." Why should they? Most, again, are neutral anyway, not changing the protein or the protein's function.
Take an allele, apply a mutation, you have a new allele. If it’s harmful it probably won’t survive long and won’t appear in the gene pool. If it’s neutral (which generally means the protein it produces is electrochemically close enough to work right) then it will just kinda hang out in various folks staying in the gene pool subject to drift and other processes including more mutation like any other gene. If it’s beneficial then it will grow in prominence in the population and that allele will show up in more and more of the future population subject to drift and other processes including more mutation like any other gene.
HOW different? IN WHAT WAY different?
What are the differences between a wolf and a dog? What are the differences between a dandelion and a rose?
First, as I've saying, this idea that new alleles per gene just keep accumulating is either not happening as you think it is, or it's so abnormal it can only cause problems as it does in the immune system.
It is wrong so stop thinking alleles accumulate on genes. Alleles are the active part of the gene. It is the data used to build the protein. You only get one allele occupying one gene. You have two hair color genes so you have two alleles that actually code the specific keratin for your hair color.
You guys make much too much of mutations. They really aren't necessary and they don't do what you think they do.
Mutations are the machine that feeds natural selection. Change is everything in life everywhere.
Just like your confusion on gene/allele and how it all works I see you don't understand mutation and the vital role it plays in diversity.
This makes me slck. I already understand all of that. All you are doing is misreading my words. The only thing you are saying that's different is about the immune system, but others said during that discussion a long time ago that the different genes of that system WERE changed by the mutations that put so many different alleles into the population, and that they DID protect against different diseases as a result of those mutations so that individuals now had different kinds of protection against diseases. I know that the alleles circulating in the population do not "accumulate" on the gene as you interpreted it. I have no reason to give up the idea that all those "alleles" which are mutations, are mistakes, they do not further anything the genome does, they interfere with it. This is not worth discussing any more. Stop "correcting" me and try to figure out what I'm saying. Oh never mind.
Fundamental Belief BAD for the US because it involves wrong/misleading information
To be more specific:
Scientific evidence shows the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. Any belief otherwise is false.
There is NO evidence that scientifically supports a world wide flood. There were many local floods, but no universal flood. Any belief otherwise is false.
The Grand Canyon was formed over hundreds of years by erosion of the riverbed -- standard geological processes -- and not by world wide flood overflow (which never occurred because there was NO such flood). Any belief otherwise is false.
There is NO evidence that scientifically supports creation of "kinds" of life. The evidence shows life evolving from single cell organisms that originated over 3.5 billion years ago. Any belief otherwise is false.
These points have been argued on several threads on this forum, and to date, not one has been refuted by any fundamentalist believer by any argument that stands up to scientific evaluation.
Science does not "prove" theories, but it does disprove false beliefs.
Continued belief of falsehoods in spite of invalidating evidence is delusion, and it interferes with scientific literacy when people try to refute the scientific facts with ad hoc and other specious arguments based on their false beliefs, fantasies, or their imagination.
This is dangerous because it leads to denial of science in general. For a specific example the denial of the climate crisis we are facing.
Just one other angle on this. It is bad because it is a gross misrepresentation of the Christian message of the Bible and even more so, the life and message of Jesus Christ. This understanding is a largely, but not exclusively, an understanding of the Christian faith in the US. It is bad for America and for the Christian faith.
Creationism is based on a religion that worships an inerrant Bible at the expense of the life and teachings of Jesus.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Bible believers do not worship the Bible, we treat it as the source of information about God and His doings on this Earth, having no other source of information about any of that. And Creationism takes many forms, especially since the Bible doesn't give much information, but there is no violation of anything about Christ or His ministry in following out what we are able to grasp of what information is available to us.
I do try to keep up with your churlish and pharisaical misrepresentations so I can answer them.
Bible believers do not worship the Bible, we treat it as the source of information about God and His doings on this Earth, having no other source of information about any of that. ...
Except, of course, the mountains of evidence of reality as uncovered by science, such as the evidence for the over 4.5 billion year age of the earth, the evidence of all life evolving over 3.5 billion years from single cell life forms, or the evidence of many local floods but the absence of any evidence supporting a global flood.
... And Creationism takes many forms, especially since the Bible doesn't give much information, ...
Or in other words, open to interpretation of what is real and what is fantasy. The trouble comes when these interpretations are falsified by objective empirical evidence of reality (whether due to "God and His doings on this Earth" or natural causes).