questioner121 wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Definition of allele: one of a number of alternative forms of the same genetic locus. Usually, this term is applied to genes, and in elementary lessons on the subject, the classic examples chosen tend to be single-factor genes exhibiting Mendelian inheritance patterns, but of course, other, more complex examples exist. Consequently, any genetic locus for which the existence of alternative forms can be demonstrated to exist, constitutes an allele in a genome. The redundant centromere in human chromosome 2 is precisely such a locus, one shared by all humans. That same locus in other primates, happens not to be a redundant centromere, but an active centromere. Whilst Hackenslash's language was less than ideally rigorous, in these terms, he's largely right. Namely, there exists a well-defined locus on human chromosome 2, that is found to reside on a separate chromosome in other primates, and takes an alternative form, by virtue of being an active centromere.

I think that sums up the situation nicely.

Interesting.

Are you saying that the active centromere in other primates constitutes as the alternative form of the redundant centromere in humans thereby making this an allele?

I also I don't think you understood what HS was saying but I'll let him explain that unless he is now going with your interpretation.

Yes, that is what he's saying and it's what I was saying.

hackenslash wrote:

questioner121 wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Definition of allele: one of a number of alternative forms of the same genetic locus. Usually, this term is applied to genes, and in elementary lessons on the subject, the classic examples chosen tend to be single-factor genes exhibiting Mendelian inheritance patterns, but of course, other, more complex examples exist. Consequently, any genetic locus for which the existence of alternative forms can be demonstrated to exist, constitutes an allele in a genome. The redundant centromere in human chromosome 2 is precisely such a locus, one shared by all humans. That same locus in other primates, happens not to be a redundant centromere, but an active centromere. Whilst Hackenslash's language was less than ideally rigorous, in these terms, he's largely right. Namely, there exists a well-defined locus on human chromosome 2, that is found to reside on a separate chromosome in other primates, and takes an alternative form, by virtue of being an active centromere.

I think that sums up the situation nicely.

Interesting.

Are you saying that the active centromere in other primates constitutes as the alternative form of the redundant centromere in humans thereby making this an allele?

I also I don't think you understood what HS was saying but I'll let him explain that unless he is now going with your interpretation.

Yes, that is what he's saying and it's what I was saying.

I'll let Cali speak for himself.

He has spoken.

Questioner, why don't you just get some big boy pants and admit that you're wrong? Really, you won't fall off the edge of the flat earth if you admit it, just be a grown up, try it, say "I apologise, thank you for teaching me, I was wrong." You'll lose nothing, but you will gain a whole lot of respect.

Is there anyone here who disagrees with Cali's understanding of allele or are we all in agreement with him?

EDIT: I mean understanding as described below.

Calilasseia wrote:

Definition of allele: one of a number of alternative forms of the same genetic locus. Usually, this term is applied to genes, and in elementary lessons on the subject, the classic examples chosen tend to be single-factor genes exhibiting Mendelian inheritance patterns, but of course, other, more complex examples exist. Consequently, any genetic locus for which the existence of alternative forms can be demonstrated to exist, constitutes an allele in a genome. The redundant centromere in human chromosome 2 is precisely such a locus, one shared by all humans. That same locus in other primates, happens not to be a redundant centromere, but an active centromere. Whilst Hackenslash's language was less than ideally rigorous, in these terms, he's largely right. Namely, there exists a well-defined locus on human chromosome 2, that is found to reside on a separate chromosome in other primates, and takes an alternative form, by virtue of being an active centromere.

I think that sums up the situation nicely.

I'm always in agreement with Cali because he's the most awesome teacher in the whole world!

Agrippina wrote:I'm always in agreement with Cali because he's the most awesome teacher in the whole world!

In agreement because you understand or just because you blindly believe him due to the impression he gives.

I'm in agreement because he's correct. I tried several ways to drill this exact point in, but you're not interested, hence your stupid fucking around now.

I'm in agreement as he's quite correct, as has been the several others who have attempted to set you straight on this single very simple thing.

Regardless, I fail to see what relevance this has to your general failure in, well, everything.

Calilasseia and I have had our fair share of arguments, so I am hardly a blind follower of whatever he says. But he is very often correct, especially on scientific topics. And I'm in agreement with him here, because to the best of my own understanding of the topic he is correct.

questioner : one does not agree with Cali because he is Cali but because what he says is true. You can always [ and indeed should ] cross reference any truth claim that is made rather than just accept it on merit. And I have indeed done that with Wikipedia. Furthermore I have just finished reading The Selfish Gene and the same definition comes from there also. That
is therefore two independent corroborations that confirm the validity of what Cali said. You are just stalling here because you do not want to accept the definition. Your modus operandi is so transparent. Are you actually going to engage openly
at any point in this thread because your intellectual dishonesty is seriously undermining it now

questioner121 wrote:

Agrippina wrote:I'm always in agreement with Cali because he's the most awesome teacher in the whole world!

In agreement because you understand or just because you blindly believe him due to the impression he gives.

I don't follow anything blindly. It took me years to understand what he and Hack were talking about, because science is not my thing, but because I paid attention, asked questions, and opened my mind to learn, I did. It has nothing to do with impressions, it has everything to do with my obsessive need to know, and to get as much information as possible about the things I need to know. If I went looking for further information after one of them had taught me something, and I found that information disagreed, I'd present it to them and ask for an explanation as to why they disagree, then follow the links to papers supporting their theses, rather than blindly dismiss it because I'd misinterpreted something I'd read elsewhere.

Unfortunately religion teaches otherwise. Religion teaches that one should blindly accept authority, because authority is always right, especially if the authority agrees with what the religion teaches. Religious people get away with claiming open-mindedness because they will reject any authoritative teaching that denies what their religion teaches, because religion is the ultimate authority, in the opinion of the people who take money from the people they brainwash to accept their authority.

The problem with this is that the people who blindly accept religious authority are taught to not question the religious writings, even when shown non-scientific ideas that are blatantly wrong. It took anti-slavery activists years and years to change the attitude towards the way people treated their servants then the law outlawed slavery, something that was normal until only just over a hundred years ago, based on the idea that it was wrong to enslave other people and to treat them like possessions. How come religious people accept this, but they won't accept that their religious teachings might be wrong about other things? Why if (and I'll have to use the Bible because I'm not knowledgeable enough about Islam to comment) the Bible says that it's fine to own slaves and to abuse them, do modern followers of the Bible not own slaves, with impunity? They don't because it's against the law, but also because they accept that it's inhumane to do that to other humans. So if they can be swayed to accept that the Bible is wrong (or that it's an outdated idea) when it comes to slavery, why don't they accept the same thing about other ideas in the Bible, for instance that women are possessions, that the earth is able to "stand still," that we descended from Noah's offsprings' in-breeding with their siblings? Why not simply say that "science is right about the origin of life, but I still believe God exists." No atheist will argue with a theist that says that, unless the theist insists that the atheist blindly accept the existence of God, which is where the problem comes in with that one. I don't care if my theist family members go to church, pray to their gods, or believe that 'God' exists, as long as they don't pick fights with me about my disbelief.

So to get back to Cali, and Hack, yes I do think they are great teachers, not because they're some sort of heroes, but because they've made an effort to become extremely knowledgeable about science, and they've taken a lot of time and patience to teach me stuff I simply didn't know. And I respect them for that.

I'm glad to hear that. We should always do our best to understand certain things ourselves.

I'm not stalling, just getting an idea of the consensus. Looks like we're all going to get a "schooling".

questioner : consensus means absolutely nothing. The validity of a truth is not
dependent on its popularity. If something is true then it is so by its own merit
and nothing else even if it is actually popular. As that is completely irrelevant

questioner121 wrote:I'm glad to hear that. We should always do our best to understand certain things ourselves.

To a degree. However, we if don't know something, or if our knowledge is demonstrated to be incorrect, then we should be open-minded enough to change that incorrect information for what is shown to be correct, even if that means having to humbly make admissions of faulty thinking. Also remember that sometimes the knowledge we acquire is only the knowledge we have at the time, take for example my story about owning slaves. If we tried to argue with 1st century Judeans about the owning of slaves, we'd be fighting the same battle we fight with creationists about evolution today. We've acquired new knowledge about how to treat people, so we've changed our thinking about slavery. This is a form of evolution, the evolution of knowledge and ideas, and it's ongoing. So that's why we keep an open mind about everything, unless it's shown to be irrefutable, as in the case of evolution, then we accept it and move on.

I'm not stalling, just getting an idea of the consensus. Looks like we're all going to get a "schooling".

It's not consensus. No one is seeking blind consensus, we're all seeking knowledge. As long as we're all learning, we'll also all continue to teach, and if we continue to learn, and teach, we make the world a better place for the people who come after us.

questioner121 wrote:I'm glad to hear that. We should always do our best to understand certain things ourselves.

I'm not stalling, just getting an idea of the consensus. Looks like we're all going to get a "schooling".

What the consensus is, is irrelevant.
What matter is the facts, of which Cali has graciously provided you with many.
Only for you to abuse that generosity with trolling and handwaving.

I don't even think we should be humble in our admissions of faulty thinking; we should crow with delight about them, because every time it happens, you learn something and you grow. It doesn't get any better than that.

You learn the most when you get it wrong, not least because the wrong idea serves as a point of reference for the correct one.

hackenslash wrote:
You learn the most when you get it wrong, not least because the wrong idea serves as a point of reference for the correct one.

And people who live their lives trying to avoid making mistakes, tend to be very risk averse and rather short on the personal growth front.

hackenslash wrote:
You learn the most when you get it wrong not least because the
wrong idea serves as a point of reference for the correct one

The humility in accepting you were wrong in the first place is
arguably more important than the correcting of the error itself

Hence the grace and gift of repentance.