is this how you breed quality genetics?

[Weird]

Weird, I grow my plants in the vacuum of space to completely

avoid environmental inputs whats so ever, seriously this is getting fucking stupid... to the

umpteenth degree... if you are going to read my comments do it correctly before you

respond...

my "agenda" as you so hyperbole describe is simply to help inform people... others have no

problem understanding me... it is you who, is misunderstanding me and create circular

arguments most times when I am not even in disagreement with some of what you are saying...

you are finding meaning that isn't there and then arguing with it... its kinda ummm, Weird!

I never said, that environment doesn't effect selection... you must have the reading

comprehension level of a 2nd grader.... I essentially said... that it's just the tip of the

iceberg... one needs to grow out the progeny to determine the homozygosity of the parents...

but I am sure you will twist this to mean what ever the fuck you want it to so you can

argue... I'm tired of it, it was never fun, and now its just fucking old... seeing you

respond saying I said this and that when it is all in your mind...it is tiring I don't have

time to play your games...

please, stop reading my posts and go back to reading the mottling on your seeds

if it comes to it I will just leave the thread... and everyone can listen the gospel of

"weird"... It doesn't effect me in the least

lol thank you that was entertaining

so let me see if i get this right

I mention the variable of environment in progeny selection and you repeat a discourse of
using full/half sib as a breeding tool as if they are somehow either

A) mutually exclusive or

B) the value of one concept somehow negates the other

C) that breeding considerations shouldn't include both environmental considerations as well as mode of reproduction.

and then say I am the one creating circle arguments and hyperbole.

interestingly enough I never argued for or against half sib testing, ever. I BEG you find one reference of such ANYWHERE. There has only been a drove of fanboys (or is that a gaggle) manufacturing that I am making an argument against it because they are trying to champion the cause for TH.

You want to full and half sib inbreed, rock out, I did full and half sib AS WELL AS natural matings before the new millennium and before I read the book (well the tip was indirectly from mel frank, when he discussed that Mexican with symmetrical intersex expression that got away, if you really want the point of reference and it did come from a book... )

what do you think was a priority for me, hitting the progeny with CS and doing half sib
matings and genotype testing those progeny for trait enrichment or finding suitable parental stock that had traits I wished to enrich in the first place?

this is how the whole chicken egg thing becomes relative because based on how it works in my world mode of reproduction is not my first consideration in a breeding program and in fact it is not always a choice depending on several variables.

I mean you have had to breed out stock in the same scenarios, right? You have worked with bagssed of all different lineage and both heterozygous and homozygous lines using multiple modes of reproduction before, right?

as far as why I use the "elites" i have grown as examples. Well like the shire, not everyone finds the same virtue in that same exact plant that I do.

However majority of the people who feel this way about the shire after growing don't have the same pictorial evidence at least that they got he plant to express itself the same way I did. If were were using those trials for a basis of parental selection some people who breed with it some clearly would not. Is it an inferior elite or did others simply not meet the right environmental inputs to get the same result?

look at chem d, tmv or cal.mal and ph sensitivity? like I said grow the real D in a right ph range with plenty of cal mag and then grow here in wide fluctuation ph scale with average cal mag availability and see if she appears the same.

Is that TMV or is it a cal.mag uptake sensitivity issue?

now if you were growing from seed packs and bagseed and found a bagseed plant expressing leaf variations would you have done multiple runs of it to ascertain/validate its dysfunction or would you have simply culled it?

some people call it "dialing" a plant in. Understanding how a plant reacts to environmental inputs and making sure you have grown it according to those same inputs isn't the same when you have no idea about its lineage.

In your model I am to choose whatever I like without rigorous testing, self it, cross it to itself or its siblings and test those progeny.

what if the original stock has the potential for intersex expression, wouldn't it be smarter for me to test that generation for stability before I selfed it and possibly enriching an undesirable trait? Wouldn't it be smarter to choose a different breeding method altogether if this were the case such as crossing out the best of that generation with another strain that will help enrich the traits you wish to keep?

Have you thought about it from the any perspective other than the one you experienced?

I think I get it now

only people who inbreed on TH's suggestion get "it", those who didn't get the suggestions from TH or do things differently which including natural matings have no clue whatsoever, regardless of real life experience or outcome of breeding efforts

thanks for clearing up all my misunderstands

 

[floralheart]

I feel it's as much art, as it is science.

 

[FRIENDinDEED]

sorry ~i am agreeing w/ you where i point out the 'marketing' detail is where i attempt to simply add that while i agree i also feel there is a lot of misunderstanding perpetuated in the name of mystifying genetics and canna breeding

maybe some folks buy in to the myths and maybe some of the 'arguers' are knowingly perpetuating the myths

infinitesimal of course i remember those considerations

this is the very reason I wanted to answer the questions I have. I really do think that ppl are just tossing out what they have and not really putting in the time /patience/longevity/ and the practice of proper breeding practices

as ive said before, there are just too many "pheno's" out there to think other wise.

is it a marketing ploy/tactic? I completely agree! so with that being what it is, I thought that it was a topic where the community could "weed through" who is is or isn't about "their shit" when it comes to the practice of breeding.

im learning a lot more besides what I wanted to know, but hey that's the best thing about these types of threads. it my get heated BUT as long as "we" get to the bottom of this shit, im cool with it all just being part of the process

im lurking, always lurking! lol

 

[MildeStoner]

Weird, I grow my plants in the vacuum of space to completely avoid environmental inputs whats so ever, seriously this is getting fucking stupid... to the umpteenth degree... if you are going to read my comments do it correctly before you respond...

my "agenda" as you so hyperbole describe is simply to help inform people... others have no problem understanding me... it is you who, is misunderstanding me and create circular arguments most times when I am not even in disagreement with some of what you are saying... you are finding meaning that isn't there and then arguing with it... its kinda ummm, Weird!

I never said, that environment doesn't effect selection... you must have the reading comprehension level of a 2nd grader.... I essentially said... that it's just the tip of the iceberg... one needs to grow out the progeny to determine the homozygosity of the parents... but I am sure you will twist this to mean what ever the fuck you want it to so you can argue... I'm tired of it, it was never fun, and now its just fucking old... seeing you respond saying I said this and that when it is all in your mind...it is tiring I don't have time to play your games...


please, stop reading my posts and go back to reading the mottling on your seeds

if it comes to it I will just leave the thread... and everyone can listen the gospel of "weird"... It doesn't effect me in the least

I can relate to this 100%, had the same experience in another thread. Hard to argue, but hey, you did well

 

[Weird]

lol people here LOVE to talk shit like they know what the fuck they are talking about

they all spew the same rhetoric but can't ever dismiss any of the scientific evidence presented

: golf clap :

custie is as custie do

 

[FRIENDinDEED]

I have to laugh at all you guys with love

what kills me is that your all talking about the exact same thing just different aspects of it. there are always going to be major and minor factors in the grand scheme of things; some possibilities are more wile others are less detrimental than others.

you guys are intelligent ppl, its amazing how you guys go from road scholars to a cage of apes in minutes, but i am starting to see that that's the process around here.

if it can happen during the breeding process then its a factor and its important enough to be considered during the process plain and simple.

 

[gloryoskie]

So who's breeding what these days?

Are you sharing seeds or own use?

How many generations with males and females?
Stored pollen or the old fashioned way?

How many selfed generations?
Preferred selfing method?

What are your breeding goals?

 

[xmobotx]

ppl are just tossing out what they have and not really putting in the time /patience/longevity/ and the practice of proper breeding practices

the best 1st indicator is when they call a 'cross' a 'strain' another is mis-using the term 'F1'

sharing crosses is fine but let people know what they are getting

that disclosure is what indicates whether there is understanding or mis-representation

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

I just read the whole thread and really do not know what to say.
In general I would say a lot of focus was wasted on environment, instead of breeding.
I am not saying the environment is unimportant, but it is much more important for cultivation then breeding. I mean isn't all this "breeding" being done under lights? What is the environment where these Cannabis seeds came from? Did it have any lights?
So in the first place you are just trying to duplicate a natural environment, with artificial lights, I guess?
I suspect it is better to learn more breeding techniques then chase an environment.
Or get more seeds to breed with...

Back to the thread,
The best way is first a goal, then use large plant numbers, kill most of the progeny, test the chosen progeny for traits important to reach the goal. Take the time it requires.

I made it simple because most of the posters who made long winded posts, had little to say about breeding in fact.

Wierd, and others, maybe you need to start your own thread on environment. This thread is on breeding quality genetics....
Oh well,
-SamS

 

[Infinitesimal]

I just read the whole thread and really do not know what to say.
In general I would say a lot of focus was wasted on environment, instead of breeding.
I am not saying the environment is unimportant, but it is much more important for cultivation then breeding. I mean isn't all this "breeding" being done under lights? What is the environment where these Cannabis seeds came from? Did it have any lights?
So in the first place you are just trying to duplicate a natural environment, with artificial lights, I guess?
I suspect it is better to learn more breeding techniques then chase an environment.
Or get more seeds to breed with...

Back to the thread,
The best way is first a goal, then use large plant numbers, kill most of the progeny, test the chosen progeny for traits important to reach the goal. Take the time it requires.

I made it simple because most of the posters who made long winded posts, had little to say about breeding in fact.

Wierd, and others, maybe you need to start your own thread on environment. This thread is on breeding quality genetics....
Oh well,
-SamS

thank you sam,

I may have not been as clear and concise as I possibly could have but in essence that is a summary of what I was trying to relay.

so again thank you for your testament and easy to understand summary for the layman... I have been saying (or trying to say) all along, the importance of selecting a goal that encompasses a combination of traits, using progeny testing, selecting for and working towards finding an individual parent that is; homozygous for all the desirable traits at each loci thereby being true breeding and passing on a copy of each gene, responsible for each desirable trait, to each of the progeny.

much respect.





here is a quote I found pertinent...

Mindless idiots never will pay attention,
If they will pay attention, they will not understand,
If they understand, they understand it wrong.

Nature produces them in abundance for natural selection.
I’ve seen them a lot in virtual and also in real life.
Useless to repeat Warnings, doesn’t work.

happy breedings everyone

 

[Weird]

I just read the whole thread and really do not know what to say.
In general I would say a lot of focus was wasted on environment, pinstead of breeding.
I am not saying the environment is unimportant, but it is much more important for cultivation

then breeding. I mean isn't all this "breeding" being done under lights? What is the

environment where these Cannabis seeds came from? Did it have any lights?
So in the first place you are just trying to duplicate a natural environment, with artificial

lights, I guess?
I suspect it is better to learn more breeding techniques then chase an environment.
Or get more seeds to breed with...

Back to the thread,

The best way is first a goal, then use large plant numbers, kill most of the progeny, test

the chosen progeny for traits important to reach the goal. Take the time it requires.

I made it simple because most of the posters who made long winded posts, had little to say

about breeding in fact.

Wierd, and others, maybe you need to start your own thread on environment. This thread is on

breeding quality genetics....
Oh well,
-SamS

OK Sam what if the goal is breeding an improved cultivar for a target environment? My "theory" is that breeding in artificial environments has done just that, whether it was by design or not.

Talking about huge pools of plants when its not viable for most (including many seedbay breeders whose cultivars are highly prized) is as irrelevant to many of us here as you say environment is for you.

I get it, that you and perhaps others had land races with inconsistent and under performing traits you wanted to improve upon and it required certain criteria to get the result you required, but have you considered that in light pressures of prohibition that we have learned that breeding improved cultivars in target environment might yield acceptable results (because of the RELATIVE factors I mentioned) and that because people are here to buy these said genes or learn to breed genetics that because under similar forced conditions that it becomes VERY RELEVANT.

Apples to apples

I posted in this thread as well field studies that show a differential in phenotype expression due to difference in environment and the benefit of choosing cultivars bred in the local environment for local performance there was a reason for this, and that is because much of the improved cultivars we are seeing today are NOT bred en masse from huge selection pools. They are being bred in an fairly standard artificial environment. They are being bred by people breeding small numbers indoors using improved cultivars that the impact of this model on the effect of breeding programs has already manifested and should be considered. (not saying preferred or superior but it simply that it should be considered)

Personally my best cultivars came mostly from one off and small pool bagseed and I have run a good percentage of other breeders breeding mothers and breeding stock as a comparison. I was working with such small plant pools without knowing their target environment so I ran them several times until I felt I had gotten them to express their potential. Many plants that weren't great potential cultivars had great genetic potential they passed on, some only shined after meeting some particular environmental variable. The point being there are other considerations that can be made in breeding programs that can benefit the breeder, albeit they become relative
and contextual (same argument I have maintained from the get go).

I think it was tom who said something to the effect of you won't know if you have homozygous or heterozygous in your hands until you see them express in a different environments? well that begs the question what if there are no environmental cues that elicit them, does the point becomes moot (on a relative scale), or should it be use for a benefit.

 

[Weird]

thank you sam,

I may have not been as clear and concise as I possibly could have but in essence that is a summary of what I was trying to relay.

so again thank you for your testament and easy to understand summary for the layman... I have been saying (or trying to say) all along, the importance of selecting a goal that encompasses a combination of traits, using progeny testing, selecting for and working towards finding an individual parent that is; homozygous for all the desirable traits at each loci thereby being true breeding and passing on a copy of each gene, responsible for each desirable trait, to each of the progeny.

much respect.





here is a quote I found pertinent...



happy breedings everyone

ironic since you bred small seed pools and called it a success and breed with genes selected from small plant pools

tell me how those big numbers got you to where you are today

 

[Weird]

my guess when it comes to many of the "breeders" here the only bet they care to hedge is their own

 

[Infinitesimal]

ironic since you bred small seed pools and called it a success and breed with genes selected from small plant pools

tell me how those big numbers got you to where you are today

I don't know where I am?

I don't know why everything takes such a personal tone with you?

I never said huge plant numbers are the most important thing or that I run huge numbers (point out to me where in that quote of me you posted that I even mention plant numbers? ) ... I don't think there is any one thing that is paramount to the point where other areas can be neglected or ignored... It is science and all things need to be taken into account...

if you want to compare the artistic side of breeding then it is probably best compared to classical music, where yes there is a lot of creativity involved but it all follows a strict set of rules and works in harmony.

more important than large numbers I think a constant selective pressure towards individuals who express a combination of all the desired traits necessary to reach the goal... and probably most importantly...

test the chosen progeny for traits important to reach the goal. Take the time it requires.


-SamS

 

[Weird]

no bro you quote others peoples work as if it holds relative validity based on what you have seen and done yourself

what pool of plants did you use to create china syndrome ?

how about the stank brothers gear in your sig?

how much better would those offerings be had you run through 1000 plants?

what about if you ran then in a different environment and chose breeding progeny from that pool versus running them in your target environment and choosing from within?

would you have the same ratios in all scenarios?

if not shouldn't a consumer have an idea of the differentials when making a purchase decision and shouldn't the breeding professionals be able to articulate it?

 

[Sirius seeds]

hi fellows,

excuse me to intervene in your discussion but i wish to know a little more about the breeding techniques you use/used, are you using 1:1 matings and/or linebreeding or open pollination in your breeding schemes ? are you using self pollination of females to see how it segregates and males reversing to judge some female traits passed by the males ? and backcrossing do you think you can create a true breeding lines for a lot of traits with it ?

my point of view is all these techs are tools to learn about genotypes and are helpers but open pollination of small choosen group of individuals plants and linebreeding are ways to go for an healthy future and/or stabilisation of important polygenic traits like yield for example.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

OK Sam what if the goal is breeding an improved cultivar for a target environment? My "theory" is that breeding in artificial environments has done just that, whether it was by design or not.

OK, BUT THEN MAYBE TALK ABOUT THE RESULTS OF YOUR BREEDING INSTEAD OF GOING ON AND ON ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT?

Talking about huge pools of plants when its not viable for most (including many seedbay breeders whose cultivars are highly prized) is as irrelevant to many of us here as you say environment is for you.

I THINK BREEDING FOR ENVIRONMENT IS DONE BY VERY FEW.

I get it, that you and perhaps others had land races with inconsistent and under performing traits you wanted to improve upon and it required certain criteria to get the result you required, but have you considered that in light pressures of prohibition that we have learned that breeding improved cultivars in target environment might yield acceptable results (because of the RELATIVE factors I mentioned) and that because people are here to buy these said genes or learn to breed genetics that because under similar forced conditions that it becomes VERY RELEVANT.

I DO NOT SELL SEEDS HERE, NEVER HAVE.

Apples to apples

I posted in this thread as well field studies that show a differential in phenotype expression due to difference in environment and the benefit of choosing cultivars bred in the local environment for local performance there was a reason for this, and that is because much of the improved cultivars we are seeing today are NOT bred en masse from huge selection pools. They are being bred in an fairly standard artificial environment. They are being bred by people breeding small numbers indoors using improved cultivars that the impact of this model on the effect of breeding programs has already manifested and should be considered. (not saying preferred or superior but it simply that it should be considered)

Personally my best cultivars came mostly from one off and small pool bagseed and I have run a good percentage of other breeders breeding mothers and breeding stock as a comparison. I was working with such small plant pools without knowing their target environment so I ran them several times until I felt I had gotten them to express their potential. Many plants that weren't great potential cultivars had great genetic potential they passed on, some only shined after meeting some particular environmental variable. The point being there are other considerations that can be made in breeding programs that can benefit the breeder, albeit they become relative and contextual (same argument I have maintained from the get go).

DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY ABOUT YOUR BEST BEING FROM BAG SEED, BUT I THINK YOU ARE CONFUSING ENVIRORMENTS IMPORTANCE FOR CULTIVATION VS BREEDING, BUT WHAT DO I KNOW?

I think it was tom who said something to the effect of you won't know if you have homozygous or heterozygous in your hands until you see them express in a different environments?

OR HAVE THEM TESTED AT A LAB FOR REAL CHEAP, A BUCK OR TWO, LIKE I HAVE DONE FOR OVER A DECADE. UNLESS SELFED BY SOMEONE FOR SEVERAL GENERATIONS, ALL CANNABIS IS HETEROZYGOUS.

well that begs the question what if there are no environmental cues that elicit them, does the point becomes moot (on a relative scale), or should it be use for a benefit.

I THINK YOU NEED TO DECIDE THIS FOR YOURSELF, IT IS NOT SOMTHING I WOULD DO.
-SamS

 

[Weird]

OK, BUT THEN MAYBE TALK ABOUT THE RESULTS OF YOUR BREEDING INSTEAD OF GOING ON AND ON ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT?

I have and this is a thread about breeding quality genetics in that equation environment becomes a consideration

I THINK BREEDING FOR ENVIRONMENT IS DONE BY VERY FEW.

This is not necessarily about breeding for environment however many strains like mighty might were breed for performance in certain climes and zones. it is about the effect of environment on phenotype expression as well chemical phenotype expression and rations since selection by most is done based on physical traits and characteristics/

people may not breed for an environment and may not consider the variable of environment in regards to that breeding program but it doesn't eliminate the influence of environment.

a good percentage of breeding is done in a 12/12 lighting artificial environment and this environment effects phenotype expression differently than one with natural environmental inputs.

In mainstream horticulture strains are bred to perform with specific environmental inputs in mind. Here I contend that the homogeneity of the ENVIRONMENT effects expression which effects selection, I have experienced it too many times to eliminate it.

in some scenarios it might help assure you get best possible ration in others it might reduce variety and expression. the relative variances between indoor grow environments and outdoors are far different. Many medical strains are developed indoors for indoor environments.

imagine selecting progeny from a farm in vancouver or a farm in mardrid, if the genes were identical in each scenario would the expression of acceptable phenos be the same? Now consider the converse.

What if you were selecting from strains bred in a like environment as yours? what if it was artificial and muted some of the phenotype variation that is dependent on environmental cues to be expressed?

DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY ABOUT YOUR BEST BEING FROM BAG SEED, BUT I THINK YOU ARE CONFUSING ENVIRORMENTS IMPORTANCE FOR CULTIVATION VS BREEDING, BUT WHAT DO I KNOW?

isn't selecting progeny then reliant on environment used in cultivation? I am not inventing a new variable in breeding just stating the relevance as I have seen it play out in real life, in my own situation

OR HAVE THEM TESTED AT A LAB FOR REAL CHEAP, A BUCK OR TWO, LIKE I HAVE DONE FOR OVER A DECADE. UNLESS SELFED BY SOMEONE FOR SEVERAL GENERATIONS, ALL CANNABIS IS HETEROZYGOUS.

you did this from american soil?

multi environmental trials are used in mainstream as well as participator breeding programs (selection withing a target environment)

I THINK YOU NEED TO DECIDE THIS FOR YOURSELF, IT IS NOT SOMTHING I WOULD DO

it is happening in many breeders laboratories already and the resultant effects are being experienced which is why i shared my personal observations as well

there are really no mass models of breeding flowering plants grown for the medicinal of their secondary metabolites let alone ones being bred illegally in clandestine but similar artificial environments

be no different if we went out to space and wanted to farm in out space ships

would we select cultivars on earth or in space?

even the person doing the breeding is an environmental input that lay outside the genetic predisposition and effects selection

not trying to perpetuate an argument just sharing my "observations"

 

[Tonygreen]

You have shared very little that that is helpful to the average breeder.

 

[devilgoob]

Infinitesimal.

I did not know somebody had to create strains to prove they know epigenetics. Before sheeps were cloned, and the mechanism in which to do it was available..........would you have went over the internet, and asked a non-doctor to provide proof of it or else cloning doesn't exist?

Also, how would you bound forward, with no intuition and all book so far. Epigenetics is incomplete, so are the findings in cannabis breeding. I am sure an inventor hasn't seen his device working already, before he invents it in his mind. That would be hard to think past the very rigid rule of "only operate on what you know at this given time, any unknown factors in your mind that you may have, are null and void simply because at this time it hasn't been proven. That's kind of the like the FDA saying something isn't known as causing cancer. Until it is known.

You get my point, don't you?

Weird selects plants just as you do, just believes in more stuff to it.

I can understand it takes away from the solidity of your work, because your works is based on what you know, and results, not from knowing something and not proving it.

Although the theory about gravity does not have to exist, for gravity to exist.

Of course, some person whom thinks they're right and has everyone to back them up, could be wrong.

We are not geneticists. Although we are studying it..

Although the shape and physical configuration of the genetic sequence comes into play.
So it's simply not just the genes. It's their silencers, histones, methylation.

So, if you've already read this, you should know that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Of course I know their are multiple folding configurations and multiple genomes uncoil and interact, so it simply isn't their genes, it's how the physically join up.

Are we talking about exacting a specific trait through environment, to some how stoke that? That's what I am talking about.

A plant, that is rootbound, over and over has the DNA to tell it "hey, back in my lineage this happened for quite a bit, but now it doesn't and I shall grow roots."
But if you constantly made them rootbound again, would their ancient DNA rise?

Or are we talking about not the gene sequence being changed, but only the expressions of them?

I am not asking these as questions, I am just trying to make people clarify in their own minds, what they are debating. It seems the framing problem is gone, and one believes code and the other.....code and how the code is put together.

You can downplay them in the best of ways by saying "I've taken them into account, but they don't matter."

So, you've taken into account, something for which you cannot observe effects, and you state it's existence as having little effect, when in fact, you've never tried to breed, taking epigenetics into play.

A person is planting their plants together, making them root-bound and spraying mold, all for selection, but also to change the plant, have you been doing this on a consistent basic scientifically?

NO, because you don't believe it affects stuff that much.



It seems instead of changing conditions to roose the plant to adapt and send changes to the next seed, that only natural selection occurs. By adapt and send changes, I don't mean directly modifying the genetic sequence (magically, quickly evolving), I mean by way of silencers, how things are folded, their histone configuration.

Of course all those changes maybe really only affect genotype and therefore chemotype. With individual traits of those profiles being highly unchangeable.

Both I can agree on, but epigenetics is anything but the genes themselves which the effects are not super known, but saying "oh prove it" just means any theory must be proven to be real. That is really close-minded. That's like coming to a conclusion about the end of the universe.

Plus, why would you ask someone to prove it, if it isn't true. Cus you've already told people what the reality is, about something which you believe has very small effects, yet it hasn't been proven....because you're whole "homogeneous" plants bull crap is proving something by negatives.

You know, like if someone doesn't answer a question you could call them a mute. That's how short-sighted your delight in seeing plants not magically changing.

Why, oh why would you strive to prove epigenetics has changed your plants anyway...when you don't believe it to be a great factor?

That's like asking a crack addict if crack is great for you, of course you agree and strive to agree with what you know, and what you've been shown. It's kind of like "I don't know the things I don't know." Which means, even if you tried to figure out what you don't know, you'd not take in consideration things you cannot perceive to be existent in the first place.


Nothing to do with the code, but everything to do how they're folded, what is attached (epigenetics) to the sides, or it's germline.

I can see people being cocky now "oh everyone agrees with me."
You say he just doesn't get it.

What I see, is this is just like LED's, because the people who breed (grow with HPS) are already set with their knowledge of passing traits down and their frequencies, loci, families needed...but someone comes along with something unproven and you're saying "prove it"

but I thought you already proved him wrong multiple times?

Prove to me histones (or any of the vast, unexlpored, underestimated) affect the shape of DNA and epigenetically remain in form and therefore function, being passed down, and being not of the DNA sequence.

You showed a bunch of homogenous plants in different settings, and that's proof of....nothing. That's like a half-assed anecdotal science project.

That's like me proving light is responsible for trichomes, when water and soil are needed too.

Anyway, Besides an entire article explaining it

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=1071625&postcount=8

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=1071625&postcount=9

As you can see, you may want to look at how they fold, how they physically interact, rather than their sequences.

Sorry for all the analogies and this was a guiding philosophy on how someone can't prove someone is wrong......by providing NO evidence. You know. Say I owned a car, how would you prove it's inexistence by providing no photo, no evidence besides........I've grown in different environments, so that's kinda proof and saying you've looked into it and you find it....not so important.