Gene arrangements are the genes that are unique to a specific species. In the Howe Venn posted above you see genes that are shared and genes that are not shared between different species.
I have not claimed that different species can share the same gene arrangements as no data has validated this yet.
Indeedy. Bill, is that by design, rank ignorance, or both?
So they are “unique to a specific species” and two different species could have identical “gene arrangements.”
See what I mean?
Yes, you have:
I do and sorry for the confusion.
They logically could but there is no evidence yet that this is true.
So they “logically could” be identical in two different species.
And they are defined as “the genes that are unique to a specific species.”
Correct?
Nobody will be able to understand you if you insist on your own peculiar diction. Arrangement is usually the ordering of things, such as finding an identical gene in a different location. That has nothing to do with the uniqueness of that gene.
Based on the current evidence they are unique to each species.
What if we called them “gene sets”?
If I’m understanding you, “gene set” would be more clear.
Is this your meaning Bill:
Each species has a “gene arrangement”, which is the set of genes that all members of the species share.
And to your knowledge, no two species have the same set of genes?
Do you claim that almost every member of each species has those genes located in the same order on the same chromosomes?
In the Venn diagrams, the genes included in only one of the species covered are not necessarily only found in that species. They might be in other species that aren’t in that particular diagram.
Why do you think myosin has a “new” function that is 1000 substitutions away? What is this new function, and how did you determine it took 1000 substitutions to evolve it?
Hi Walter
This is not necessarily true as there may be slight variation in the population. The gene set would be the consensus gene set for the particular species.
So far yes.
No as genetic recombination can alter the location of genes on the chromosomes.
If they are defined as being “unique to each species”, current evidence is of no matter. They can only ever be “unique to each species.”
It is a simple matter of logic, which is another subject you do not understand.
Genes themselves, or types of genes?
If there is a translocation with breakpoints between genes, aren’t the genes the same but their arrangement is different?
Define “function” as it applies to myosins.
I disagree. It is clear that Bill does not know what he means at any particular point.
Do they? How did the person who produced the diagrams distinguish between homologs and orthologs?
If you’re trying to infer anything from gene gain/loss, it is essential to have baseline knowledge of the tricky distinction between homologs and orthologs. Do you? Does Ewert?
Bill, you shouldn’t be questioning the completeness of anyone else’s knowledge here.
I would think that karyotypes and synteny diagrams show arrangements.
It does. You lack sufficient understanding to evaluate that simple point.
In English, gene arrangements are how genes are arranged, not their presence or absence.
I predict that you’ll be back to using the same contradiction in hours, at most days.
If you look at Myh 7 vs Myh 14 in humans you will see dramatically different sequences (greater than 1000AA) yet very similar lengths. One is a general cellular protein the other is a muscle protein. This supports @Winston_Ewert latest paper showing design specific sequence changes of the same or similar protein function.
You vastly overestimated.
So why do you think myosin has a “new” function that is 1000 substitutions away? What is this new function, and how did you determine it took 1000 substitutions to evolve it?
I don’t think gene duplication and divergence explains the origin of the myosin family of proteins or other families of proteins such as the WNT/Frizzled family where sequence divergence is more than a few AA’s distance from each other.
I don’t care what you don’t think. So why do you think myosin has a “new” function that is 1000 substitutions away? What is this new function, and how did you determine it took 1000 substitutions to evolve it?
I don’t think random substitutions have anything to do with the sequence differences between myosis 7 and myosin 14.