Yes. Phenotype is a function of genes. So p = f(g). Obviously, it depends on the function f. If the function was an absolute value, then g = 2 and g = -2 both will give you same phenotype 2.

Back from math and into biology, in many mendelic traits, which are traits where a phenotype depends on a single gene, the receive allele is simply an allele that does not produce a particular product, such as a pigment. Such as blue eyes, which are eyes that lack melanin (the eye colour is not a perfect example, as it turns out it is not exactly mendelian trait, but lets assume for simplicity it is).

Obviously, if a gene is not producing a certain product, a protein that is directly involved in some pathway, it is because it is "damaged" in some way. And there are many way it might be damaged. A protein might be produced, but it is non-functional, shorter, or the protein might not be produced at all. So many different mutations might be responsible for the same trait.

When we look at polygenic traits like height, we will see many different genes that are responsible for a small difference in height. When you plot the population phenotype, you might see a normal distribution. Consequently, assuming the same difference for every gene and 100 genes and an on/off effect of a particular gene, you can get a trait resulting from 50 genes in many way (something like 10^29 combinations).

On top of all this, traits depend on an environment. In the case of height, this is only a potential, you will benefit from your genotype only if you will have plenty of nutrition in your young age to reach this potential.

This difference between genotype and phenotype for polygenic traits, and the effect of an environment, is important when doing a selection in agriculture. Trying to find out how much of the trait is hereditary and how much it is determined by genetics gives you an estimate on how much you can influence the trait by breeding.

> As to the rest, I'm sure you know "species" denotes "a population capable of producing viable offspring." So why would we ever use a different word?

A different word for what?

The term "species" predates the theory of evolution. If you study taxonomy and phylogenetics, you will quickly find out how arbitrary it is and that there are many exceptions.

> A hybrid, by definition in the context of biological evolution, is "offspring produced by more than one species." That's an explicit indication regarding the presence of distinct populations or a statement about the capacity to produce viable offspring.

You were talking about the general definition of the term, not about its application in a particular context. And again, not all inter-species hybrids are infertile. See for example bovine hybrids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovid_hybrid

In particular, beefalo is a fertile hybrid breed resulting from crossing species of different genus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beefalo

Similarly, many commercial plants are result of hybridization. The [brassica] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica genus is famous for this, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_of_U

> Like taxonomy as you mentioned above, asserting primacy to the factor of a population is more on the arbitrary side of things. It's a blurred line in many respects. Viability, however, is not.

Turns out it is. This is why we are usually talking in terms of populations.

> Most people tend to think of species as a label.

And they would be right. It a rather arbitrary label that predates the theory of evolution. What is species and what is sub-species is not well defined and depends whether one is "splitter" or "clumper".

> mixed-plant offspring "hybrids" is, for lack of a better description, kind of missing the point in so many ways.

You haven't demonstrated what point.

The rest is pseudoscientific nonsense anyway. You clearly lack the understanding of terms like "gene flow" and are instead trying to describe "diffusion of alleles between populations" in a paragraph of blabbering.

> So yeah, "hybrid" absolutely does imply that the offspring are not viable

I have clearly demonstrated that they are viable.

> The term "hybrid" exists for this very reason. It's to specify the product of two species, which is imbued by nature with DNA compatibility issues that either partially or entirely prohibit the free diffusion of genes into a receiving population. In short, that example of offspring (mules, in this case) is not "viable" by definition.

This is not correct. Hybrid doesn't imply in any way that the offspring are "not viable by definition".

See the etymological origin of the word: https://www.etymonline.com/word/hybrid

or scientifically its scientific use, as hybrid is used for any crossproduct, such as a hybrid breeds, plant varieties, and also species. Hybridization is very common in plants and doesn't automatically lead to non-viability of the F2 generation. In fact, up until modern times with industrial agricultural techniques, doing something like that would be crazy (unless the plants could be propagated in other way), but nowadays seedless fruit is considered something desirable.

It just happens that when we consider species hybrids among animals we get infertility. But again, there are other kinds of hybrids and taxonomy is absolutely arbitrary. There are circular species, species groups and other kinds of things, that can breed between themselves without problem.

It should be noted that there are organisms where populations differ in their karyotype while still being compatible. This is quite common among rodents, where population of the same species can be easily identified with their karyotype, but still produce viable and fertile offspring.

So I don't know enough about this particular case to say where exactly is the problem, but just having a different number of chromosomes isn't such a barrier as people often make. Yet, it is still likely related because chromosomes represent organisational units. During meiosis, there are multiple steps where the material is divided. An unequal distribution might possibly be the cause, but again I don't know enough about this particular case and I would have to speculate.

> They didn't say any of that. In fact, they said the exact opposite of some of these things

Which exact opposite? Be specific.

> At no point did they mention "populists" or them being "anti-everything."

They didn't mention that. I just provided more context.

Have you read what kind of people were there? Do you know anything about it? Would you disagree that there were populists on the anti-government protest?

> They didn't say this either.

They reacted to a post that specifically claimed that... and they didn't disagree either.

> Despite all what? Despite all the words you're putting in their mouth?

I am not. I am trying to establish baseline by describing the reality.

Or do you disagree with any of the points, such as that:

a) The previous protests contained both left and right elements of the political spectrum, plus various populist, possibly russian actors, etc.

b) The current rally is pro-government as it expresses support of governments policies, especially regarding the current situation in Ukraine

c) Government is right-wing

I can support all these statements with links to Czech articles, twitter, videos etc.

> They probably have the american flag as a symbol of the western world.

Why? No one considers an American flag as a symbol of Western world since about 2000.

> Nah they are probably Czech.

Most Czechs don't really have any need to have flag of their own country, why would anyone own an American flag?

So let me be clear. You agree that the anti-government protest had everything from extreme left to the extreme right, populists, anti-everything, pro-russian collaborators etc.

You also agree that our current government is right-wing. Like ODS, the traditional right-wing party (ČSSD used to form the traditional left), KDU-ČSL which are Christian conservatives, TOP09 which split from KDU-ČSL because they (KDU) weren't right-wing enough. Only Pirates are kind of on the left, but even they like to present themselves and centrist.

You also agree that the current rally is essentially pro-government, support for the government and their current steps/politics, including the political support of Ukraine.

Yet, despite all this, you find it alright and proper interpretation of the situation when someone says:

> Right wingers, wreck yourself before you Czech yourself.

So tell me fellow heretic, should the current right-wing government wreck itself?

This is such a brain-dead comment given that this is essentially pro-government rally and the current government is right-wing. Maybe you should stop Czeching if you know nothing about Czechia?

LCOE is not a good measure. It ignores too much information.

It turns out science and engineering is hard.

It is even harder without sufficient funding.