Genus vs. Specie

[pyxieBob]

if you mapped the DNA you would see the brown in the map. Just because 2 albinos don't make browns Dsnt mean its not in the DNA. pretty simple. also incase I forgot Samurai Blue are not Cranwelli X. they aren't hybrids .


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?fydx2o

[pyxieBob]

how do you claim to be an expert when you use a made up word in the title of this thread?


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?3y5fua

[cali]

LMAO, that's just another point lost to you. Look up the definition.
If you don't understand the joke, I'll explain it to you, v e r y s l o w l y o f c o u r s e.

And there is no brown in the DNA. Like I said, you don't understand genetics.

[pyxieBob]

you remind of this movie I saw... it wasn't suppose to be funny but I laughed the entire time. have you heard of Punnett Squares? yes brown is still in the traits they carry. not the traits they pass.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?zqf3nj

[pyxieBob]

don't forget genius, the whole reason we are arguing is because you were trying to convince everyone that a frog can be a hybrid an never show one single trait of one of the specieS involved in making that hybrid. that is classsssic.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?4xqfqe

[cali]

don't forget genius, the whole reason we are arguing is because you were trying to convince everyone that a frog can be a hybrid an never show one single trait of one of the specieS involved in making that hybrid. that is classsssic.

Yep- that is all correct.

#1 I am a genius.

#2 If the all genes of animal A are dominant (wich is implausible, but hypothetically possible) over all the genes in animal B, then offspring C would only show characteristics of parent A, nothing of parent B.
Moreover- animal C could be line bred (in theory) for multiple generations, with an eventual outcome of all recessive genetic material of parent B being removed and offspring X ultimately being genetically identical to original parent A, without a trace of parent B. Or animal C could be line bred for multiple generations, with an eventual outcome of all dominant genetic material of parent A being removed and offspring Y ultimately being genetically identical to original parent B, without a trace of parent A.

All of my theories and facts are sound- I stand by everything I've said.

Quote me- PROVE any of it is wrong.

[SkeletalFrog]

if you mapped the DNA you would see the brown in the map. Just because 2 albinos don't make browns Dsnt mean its not in the DNA. pretty simple. also incase I forgot Samurai Blue are not Cranwelli X. they aren't hybrids .

The problem here is terminology, using vague words like "in the DNA".

There's genes and alleles. Genes are locations in the DNA which, when processed by the cell, produce proteins. Alleles are versions of the gene, like versions of a computer program. All cranwellis have two genes for melanin (one from the mother, one from the father). In pure, wild frogs, most of them have two function genes, so you get normal melanin and normal colors. If a frog has two copies, but one is broken, they can still make good melanin off the good gene. But in an albino frog, both copies are broken, so no melanin gets made. Any sperm or eggs can only get broken copies of the gene, and thus two albinos can never produce a normal offspring. The only way to get back to normal frogs is to breed the albino with a frog that has working copies of the gene.

It's like everyone on the forum has two coins. Some have two gold coins, some two lead coins, and some one of each. You can say everyone has coins (genes), but they have different types (alleles). And if you have two lead coins, you cannot give someone a gold coin, because you just don't have it.



As far a hybrid traits, it's more complex - there's lots of stuff going on that's WAY beyond simple dominant/recessive alleles, sometimes even beyond the actual code of the DNA itself (DNA methylation, chromatin binding sites, epigenetic phenomena). Certain traits from one parent may always show up in a hybrid, or never show up. Sometimes you'll even get traits that aren't present in EITHER parent, simply because you're mixing two very different genomes, like mixing two paints into a complex swirl with patterns and shades not present in either. And given that your typical vertebrate has somewhere around 20,000+ genes, it gets very complex very rapidly. However, it's unlikely that a hybrid would be indistinguishable from the parent species, unless the species are extremely close (such as some stickleback fish species which have been separate for only a few thousand years).


As far as Ceratophrys taxonomy, yes, they probably do need to be revised, but so do just about every other group of organisms, and the sad truth is that there simply isn't enough scientific funding to do everything that needs to be done. I'm not saying that the chromosome confirgurations and/or hybridization states prove this or that, but rather the opposite - that I'm extremely wary of basing too much on those measures, as they've proven fallible before.

[pyxieBob]

Yep- that is all correct.

#1 I am a genius.

#2 If the all genes of animal A are dominant (wich is implausible, but hypothetically possible) over all the genes in animal B, then offspring C would only show characteristics of parent A, nothing of parent B.
Moreover- animal C could be line bred (in theory) for multiple generations, with an eventual outcome of all recessive genetic material of parent B being removed and offspring X ultimately being genetically identical to original parent A, without a trace of parent B. Or animal C could be line bred for multiple generations, with an eventual outcome of all dominant genetic material of parent A being removed and offspring Y ultimately being genetically identical to original parent B, without a trace of parent A.

All of my theories and facts are sound- I stand by everything I've said.

Quote me- PROVE any of it is wrong.

Samuari Blues are not hybrids


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?gutawo

[pyxieBob]

Cali did you read Skeletals response? read that you might actually learn something actually no you would probably think your Wile E. Cyotote still... Man I wish they still made cartoons like that.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?rack30

[cali]

Cali did you read Skeletals response? read that you might actually learn something actually no you would probably think your Wile E. Cyotote still... Man I wish they still made cartoons like that.

I used simplified definitions for YOUR benefit, I have extensive knowledge of genetics.

Have you actually READ my posts, or did you just scan through them?

I have yet to see anything I've said PROVEN wrong.

Simply stating that "samurais are not hybrids" proves nothing. Has anyone seen the F0's that were used in the initial breeding? No, I didn't think so.

Apparently the scientific community cannot even agree on the definition of "Ornata". Going back to skeletalfrog's paper- both 2n and 8n specimens of "ornates" have been catalogged- wich is odd- and impossible- to have 2 seperate genetic architectures within a species.

[GrifTheGreat]

There is no sence in argueing over theories. As a theory is basically just as a hypothesis is. A highly educated guess and yet still a guess. Theory prooves neither right nor wrong and we can argue and speculate and even post paperwork of documentation that is by now completely outdated and still get nowhere. We ourselves are at a standstill. Until the actual breeder clearifies any of this we will just be arguing a point that in the end still results with the same answer. We don't know.

I guess that you are a believer in evolution or science above all else. Perhaps there is more about this world and its creatures that far surpasses our ability to comprehend. Matters such as these will always have theories, but nobody really knows. Without proof despite however many documents on geneology you post up it will not matter. All is outdated and basically needs to be washed clean and restarted a new.

I am no longer going to post on this thread. Just adding food for thaught. I may spectate but that's all.

PS. I'm not attacking your. Beliefs in any way. I respect everyones opinion and what they believe in.

[pyxieBob]

I would like to say that it is a FACT that blue Samurais are Cranwellis. that's not a theory.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?xn04re

[pyxieBob]

also not a theory that these two Samurais are AWESOME


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?nkoebt

[cali]

By no means am I inferring that Yusuke is lying.

But my points are still valid-

#1- All business's protect their investments.

#2- Since the genus appears to be in flux, any label is suspect. How many posts are there on this site alone saying "I found this ornate at petco, got a good deal because they were calling it a cranwell" ?

#3- Even the most respected importer/breeder has no chance. Is an 8n "classic Ornate" being distributed, or is it a 2n "pseudo-Ornate" ? Was there a 2n "Ornate" that lacked eye spots, got drop-shipped to japan labelled as a cranwell, and was used in Yusuke's original breeding pool? Is this 2n ornate a yet-to-be-identified species or sub, that's capable of or responsible for these morphs?

#4- If a wild born crossbreed, whose appearance was that of a cranwell, but carried genetic material from another species, was caught and imported- would offspring be correctly labelled "Cranwell"?

2 days ago-

...might have come across a random specimen with a one-of-a-kind allele that their entire line of exotic morphs are derived from. But considering how many other breeders there are, in many different countrys, with thousands of eggs in a single clutch- shouldn't someone else have come across a variant without using a breeder from japan?

There's always the possibility that Yusuke found a random allele in a cranwell (as I stated in the beginning).
There's always the possibility that hormone therapy was used.
There's always the possibility that what Yusuke "thought" was a cranwell in his original group was actually an unknown/undefined/ WC or CB variant/species/sub-species.

If scientists are in the field, dissecting specimens and using electron microscopes to define chromosome structure- and STILL unsure of proper categorization- THEN HOW CAN ANYBODY SAY WITH 100% CERTAINTY THAT WHAT THEY HAVE IS A "CERATOPHRYS XXXXX" ?


I have stated many things in this thread, if you're going to say that I'm mistaken, then actually read what I've written without taking things out of context or ignoring what I've said in a previous post.

If I state "My great, great, great grandfather wrote the star-spangled banner"- does that mean it's true? Even if I was honestly under the impression that it is 100% factual, does that make it a fact?

Again- I have yet to see anything proving ANY of my theorems or statements wrong.

[cali]

And again- no offense intended to Yusuke- but from a scientific stand point, saying that the samurai's are cranwell's simply because "he says so" is like deciding the outcome of a murder trial by only asking the defendant if he did it.

[pyxieBob]

I have yet to actually care for real abt anything in this thread other than Samurai blues are just Cranwellis. Glad I own 2 of them.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?euueqx

[cali]

Those are actually 2 very gorgeous frogs- I've wanted a blue since I first saw them. But even as I type this my mind wanders and wonders where/why/how...

[pyxieBob]

Those are actually 2 very gorgeous frogs- I've wanted a blue since I first saw them. But even as I type this my mind wanders and wonders where/why/how...

mine does too honestly, there is some secret to them. keep. look out for
my next drawing, I think you will like it honestly


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?auugkx

[pansie]

I just wanted to thank you guys for this convo! I know nothing about genes and all that and i found this discussion very thought-provoking! <3

[SkeletalFrog]

I have yet to see anything I've said PROVEN wrong.

That's not how science works. You can't prove a negative - "there are no white ravens" - except under extremely specific and limited circumstances.

Yes, you have raised potential issues, but that's all they are, potential. Acting as if they're definitive is highly premature. Yes, X or Y or Z could have happened, but without actual data supporting those claims, they're just hypotheses, and science is built on the corpses of dead hypotheses.

Simply stating that "samurais are not hybrids" proves nothing. Has anyone seen the F0's that were used in the initial breeding? No, I didn't think so.

Similarly, stating that they are, or could be, also proves nothing.

Just because there are two possibilities does not mean those two possibilities are equally likely. Given that your hypothesis would require the acquisition of ornata from a single location (which may or may not even exist anymore, thanks to deforestation), breeding it, concealing the offspring's nature, *and* offspring that look nothing like one of the parents, while the alternative simply requires that the breeder happened upon a rare genetic mutation (which happens all the time), it's much more likely that "samurai" pacs are simply a mutation.

Consider Bigfoot. What's more likely, that an unknown anthropoid evolved in or migrated to the US leaving no fossil record or evidence for several hundred thousand years in spite of massively growing human populations, or that every so often someone in a gorilla suit plays a hoax?

Given Occam's razor, Bayseian priors, and general logic, the simpler explanations should be preferred until clear evidence of alternatives is found.

Apparently the scientific community cannot even agree on the definition of "Ornata". Going back to skeletalfrog's paper- both 2n and 8n specimens of "ornates" have been catalogged- wich is odd- and impossible- to have 2 seperate genetic architectures within a species.

While the existence of a 2n ornata population seems odd, there are other possibilities, such as that the 2n specimens were mis-identified cranwelli (especially likely if they were tadpoles) or that something went wrong with the karyotyping. Plus, there's the issue of which the type specimen is - if the type specimen is 8n, then the 8n individuals retain the ornata name, and the 2n population gets a new name.

Remember "species" are only real in a vague and temporary sense - it's an artificial box we construct for human convenience. It's more real than any other taxonomic level, yes, but life is considerabl more complex than the ICZN code can cope with, or ever will.

There is no sence in argueing over theories. As a theory is basically just as a hypothesis is. A highly educated guess and yet still a guess. Theory prooves neither right nor wrong and we can argue and speculate and even post paperwork of documentation that is by now completely outdated and still get nowhere.

Not actually. A hypothesis is an educated guess, an idea based on current knowledge. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested, passed, and now has data supporting it.

That's the key, data.