• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Create a Gene from Scratch

So, does that mean you have an X-ray machine in your basement?

Actually I have read articles that hinted at sound waves being able to cause genetic drift which was interesting, but seemed sort of a long stretch to create any results that could remotely be considered as beneficial. Not selective enough to affect the traits we are most interested in. Surely getting animals born without intestines or eyes because of random gene alterations isn't what anyone would be interested in doing.

If you want to DISCOVER a new gene, all you need is a big extra helping of LUCK on your side. IMHO.
 
Hybridization can cause genetic mutations, but that's somewhat of an industry secret.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Basically the different DNA of two closely related species produces coding errors.

This doesn't happen every time of course, but we know that it has in the past. Ultras and scaleless corns are just two examples of new mutations that resulted from hybridization.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Inbreeding is another method. Both methods are very well-documented, particularly in plants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Those posts are from 10 years ago. We now have a better understanding of ultras.

I do think the addition of yellow-jacket as well as the hybrid origins of those animals also played a part in the confusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Well depends on what gene your looking at starting up? Alabama Normal Corn snakes have just recently been found to have a dark factor that gives them the almost near black look. It depends on if you strike gold with a w.c corn snake on producing a new gene. Honestly with any new gene that does pop up its always going to be under fire of being a hybrid .... until its proven otherwise. I would safely say on generations of producing a new gene takes 35 generations if your doing selective breeding or hoping something crazy comes out. Just depends on what murphy and genetics for any gene to pop up randomly...on how many generations it takes.
 
snakepunk said:
Inbreeding is another method. Both methods are very well-documented, particularly in plants.
Click to expand...

Please let me know where I can find documentation about inbreeding causing genetic mutations. I've heard this often, but it makes no sense to me, and so far no one has pointed me at a reliable source. Thanks!
 
snakepunk said:
Basically the different DNA of two closely related species produces coding errors.

This doesn't happen every time of course, but we know that it has in the past. Ultras and scaleless corns are just two examples of new mutations that resulted from hybridization.
Click to expand...

Any references you can quote? I'm not so sure about the "know" part of that statement. Maybe I just haven't been keeping up, but I don't believe I ever saw any "proof" concerning the Ultras. Speculation, yes, but nothing approaching proof.

I remember seeing scaleless texas rat snakes at Dr. Bechtel's place many moons ago, but didn't realize that they were used to breed this trait into the corn snakes. With this in mind, has anyone introduced the leucistic gene from Texas rats into corn snakes? It would seem that if the scaleless gene can be done, than certainly the leucistic gene could as well.

Anyway, how would you define "closely related" in this context concerning coding errors? Would corns be considered to be closely enough related to kings, milks, and gopher snakes to incur this effect?
 
If you are going to discover a new gene then there have to be variation in the snakes you can find/buy. Do not look for new genes where every hatchling look the same.

snakepunk said:
Hybridization can cause genetic mutations, but that's somewhat of an industry secret.
Click to expand...
No, hybridization increase the genetic variation and make it easier to find odd individuals. It do not cause mutations.
snakepunk said:
Inbreeding is another method.
Click to expand...
Inbreeding do not cause mutations, it makes the likelihood better to get homozygous animals. Homozygous animals often look different from hets.
 
Proof is subjective. I've seen and read plenty of evidence about ultra (and others) to convince me otherwise. However the scaleless corns are reported to have came from an emoryi cross, so the parents would NOT have been hets.

Every mutation has a genesis. Some are obvious external ones, others are more subtle. But genes mutate for many reasons, including environmental factors. Therefor there is no variation needed in the base stock.

I challenge anyone who disagrees with me about potential mutations from hybridization to study up on the subject. Hopefully some day this hobby can get past the hurdle of Punnett squares and it's illogical taboo of hybridization and actually make some REAL accomplishments though selective breeding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
One of the reasons genes mutate is because, just like pretty much every thing else with living things, the process by which DNA is replicated isn't 100% perfect. It is not only normal, but EXPECTED that genes will mutate.

We are just not aware of it most of the time because the mutation will often be one that is totally incompatible with life, so the embryo never grows beyond a few cells (if that much), OR it makes no noticeable difference. The mutations that make just enough change to be visible but not deadly are the only ones we are ever aware of.

Yes, there are things that can cause mutations to occur at a higher rate than normal. Is hybridization one of them? It doesn't seem likely to me, but I'll admit I really have no idea on that particular point.

I'm still waiting for info on that documentation about if and how inbreeding causes a higher rate of mutations.
 
kc261 said:
I'm still waiting for info on that documentation about if and how inbreeding causes a higher rate of mutations.
Click to expand...

I don't have any documents to link you, but I think dogs are great examples. I would assume it's much the same as anything. I mean, look at white tigers- it's a fluke mutation that occurs in 1 of every ten thousand tigers, and every single white tiger alive today is descended from the same two animals, and every single one suffers from a variety of deformities or disabilities. I think genes just get screwed up when no new genetic material is added in.
Same goes for the wolves on isle royale, they now have shorter backs and hind legs than their main land cousins because they have been forced to inbreed so long.
 
snakepunk said:
Proof is subjective. I've seen and read plenty of evidence about ultra (and others) to convince me otherwise. However the scaleless corns are reported to have came from an emoryi cross, so the parents would NOT have been hets.

Every mutation has a genesis. Some are obvious external ones, others are more subtle. But genes mutate for many reasons, including environmental factors. Therefor there is no variation needed in the base stock.

I challenge anyone who disagrees with me about potential mutations from hybridization to study up on the subject. Hopefully some day this hobby can get past the hurdle of Punnett squares and it's illogical taboo of hybridization and actually make some REAL accomplishments though selective breeding.
Click to expand...

I just disagree. Proof, meaning FACTS, is not subjective at all. Only your OPINION of what constitutes facts may be subjective. Indisputable proof is indisputably objective, not subjective. Opinions can be based on anything, including falsehoods, misconceptions, and assumptions not supported by facts. Opinions are not FACTS merely because you believe they should be so. And no matter how many opinions you pile up on the table, they will not spontaneously generate a FACT all by themselves. On the other hand, some opinions are not swayed in the least by being exposed to contrary FACTS. Such is life.....

Sorry, but your statements are alluding to FACTS, when in my opinion, you are merely stating an OPINION. If you can show me FACTS, please do so whenever you can. Otherwise, I have to assume that you really cannot provide them and are merely expressing unsubstantiated opinions based on hearsay that you have convinced yourself constitutes the minimal amount of FACTS that you are willing to accept as such. I actually worked with Ultras for quite a long time, so I am basing MY opinion on the FACTS that I observed first hand. If there actually exists facts that will cause me to change my opinion, then so be it. Facts are facts, whether you or I like them or not.
 
Evidence is facts used to support a claim. Proof is the conclusion one may (or may not) reach because of the evidence offered.

Opinions, however, are mere personal preferences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top