No problem.
is this how you breed quality genetics?
- Thread starter FRIENDinDEED
- Start date
No problem.
CrazyKoala
Member
Please let x = .9999...
then 10x = 9.9999....
subtract left sides and right sides of the equations
10x = 9.9999...
- x = .9999...
------------------------------
9x = 9.0000000
divide both sides by 9:
x = 1 Q.E.D!
Therefore, if .999... = 1 then this problem you think may be small = mass destruction! For if anything I say is wrong in your eyes, it's still right, because if .999... = 1, then wrong = right, eventually, lol? Fuckers, bend to my will. Wait, I will come back and try to put it all in another language, but I assure you, the message will be the same.
You're right that people with scientific training poke their heads in and out (stoxx here) but leave. Part of that is the hopelessness of arguing with stoned people, another part is tyro's being experts, and another the marketing hype. But tact is useful. I got sucked into some nonsense by a good grower, who had some knowledge of genetics, but certainly a tyro in chemistry and biochemistry who spoke as he knew it all.
In academia people learn not to 'know' things outside their focused expertise and to speak scathingly otherwise they invite real experts to completely dismantle them. One example is real analysis. I may know a thing or two of the basis of real analysis, but were I to attack infinitismal non-standard analysis, I would be torn apart by real mathematicians. Not to say .9999... is not 1 because it is-- the unspoken assumption being that 0.9999... is a limit or represented as an infinite series. But I'm not about to waste breath arguing about the merits of Leibnitz's concept of infinitesimals and how it can be built on Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory because set theory and real analysis and non-standard analysis are not my expertise.
However deep we think our knowledge is, deepness remains a relative term. Same goes for intelligence. We can prove something from our knowledge of calculus, and a 3rd yr college student in math will show us how surface our knowledge of calculus is. That same college student will become aware of his lack of knowledge in interactions with professors and graduate students.
Unless you're Einstein, I'm sure we can all relate to there always being someone smarter, faster, more eloquent than ourselves. Being top few in college, possibly without attending classes is one thing. That might land you at a top graduate school. Then being a top in that group is another level, then in the professional world, getting a nobel prize might be the pinnacle, but then again, there are some debates and disagreements and 'drama' even at the top. Did not Einstein and Schroedinger/Bohr/etc. find themselves at opposite ends concerning quantum mechanics?
Humility and understanding social context goes a long way. I'm here to learn something about growing and of aromas and flavor profiles. If anything puts off scientific-minded people, yes misinformation is part of the problem. I agree, but it is a lost cause. More important than that is harmony which is not a lost cause. Why waste breath attacking wikipedia or google tyros when our own knowledge is incomplete and when our own words are admittedly vague at times?
the main reason people belittle the intellect of their 'lessers' is because they lack confidence in their own intellect
another example of this would be using big words and complex phrasings as if that is evidence they actually have a greater understanding
but; you know~ "welcome back"
another example of this would be using big words and complex phrasings as if that is evidence they actually have a greater understanding
but; you know~ "welcome back"
X
xxDR.KICKASSxx
i am not new to growing but i am new to the whole breeding thing and a lot of the info on this thread i find very helpful some of the terms are above my head but thats all good.i want to strat breeding my own strains and i think i can give it a try after reading all the post here.
TomCalifornicus
New member
Hello CK, always nice to meet an engineer/scientist/mathman of any variety, but particularly a fellow Californian, especially one who can draw a vortex that can be calculated the amount of paint required to cover the exterior while the interior remains infinite. Wonderfully intelligent and well worded post there. But allow me a couple of counter points/questions if you will. Tact is useful, yes, but is conflict not equally as useful in many cases? Particularly when change is the underlying goal? I do not mean to get into some long Hegelian diatribe on the matter but I am still of the opinion that my approach is not unsound at all.
If it's not obvious, I am not as concerned with harmony as I am with what I would refer to as the fringe element of folks out there who have the ability and desire to actually do something good for cannabis and therefore mankind. For that is not a lost cause and pretty much the only avenue/folk worthy of serious engagement imo. I am fully aware that there are many folks who have neither the ability or desire to apply themselves in such a way, but I see no real point in engaging them much more than I would a spinning top, ie for amusement purposes only. After all - the world needs ditch diggers too.
And vagueness is okay in the realm of social context ime, an invitation to further discussion, or not. A gentle poke is much easier to politely let pass on by, or save face as the east might say. Yes, it's a tricky business social interaction, but I'd rather go on record as loosing my cool than to not participate at all. I invite the dismantling of my thoughts, and even occasionally purposely set up that exact exercise Rhetorical: How odd and out of sorts does one feel being a seeming sole voice of reason/question on issues that others should be deep into the discussions thereof, say for example, cannabinoid pathways? Do it for a few more decades amigo(?), and let's just see if you feel no need to go ahead and let your freak flag fly from time to time, or otherwise indulge in a little Hegelianism.
At any rate, coaxed to the surface or otherwise, it is a pleasure to read your thoughts sir, sincerely.-T
If it's not obvious, I am not as concerned with harmony as I am with what I would refer to as the fringe element of folks out there who have the ability and desire to actually do something good for cannabis and therefore mankind. For that is not a lost cause and pretty much the only avenue/folk worthy of serious engagement imo. I am fully aware that there are many folks who have neither the ability or desire to apply themselves in such a way, but I see no real point in engaging them much more than I would a spinning top, ie for amusement purposes only. After all - the world needs ditch diggers too.
And vagueness is okay in the realm of social context ime, an invitation to further discussion, or not. A gentle poke is much easier to politely let pass on by, or save face as the east might say. Yes, it's a tricky business social interaction, but I'd rather go on record as loosing my cool than to not participate at all. I invite the dismantling of my thoughts, and even occasionally purposely set up that exact exercise
Rhetorical: How odd and out of sorts does one feel being a seeming sole voice of reason/question on issues that others should be deep into the discussions thereof, say for example, cannabinoid pathways? Do it for a few more decades amigo(?), and let's just see if you feel no need to go ahead and let your freak flag fly from time to time, or otherwise indulge in a little Hegelianism. At any rate, coaxed to the surface or otherwise, it is a pleasure to read your thoughts sir, sincerely.-T
TomCalifornicus
New member
A more pressing engineering problem is how to transplant less than 8 week old plants that are 8 feet tall without disturbing their meristems. For a much more sound structure is the central leader system. Can I borrow your latter dude?
TomCalifornicus
New member
What, I always do nitrous and beer and acid and all that shit when I am killing off cells and multiplying or otherwise expanding others be they human or other forms
TomCalifornicus
New member
ps, good to see you bro, especially the new you. I can feel you transforming inspite of your resistance. It looks good on you. Nice haircut skippy.
Nice haircut skippy.TomCalifornicus
New member
"Smart" pots, or breathing containers, are suitable as a final home for a plant, but otherwise slippery sides are the way to go ime. More better to concentrate on manipulating other facets of environment in the early stages of growth.
TomCalifornicus
New member
PS, of all the the endeavours a breeder might undertake, fixing recessive traits is the easiest of all.
TomCalifornicus
New member
Because while only a percentage of dominant traits expressed are homozygous, 100% of recessive traits expressed are homozygous -as far as that other thread goes.
Monstrous starts, looks a little like bamboo in structure.
Reading your posts just before the ban, I felt you were a little unhinged, now I see my mistake, with a second glance over your brash post I see the subtext, maybe in the same light you did.
Last post explains it all. Sometimes we all need to be a little harsh to make sure a very important point is received with the earnestness it was intended to be afforded. There is a time to fight for what you believe in IMHO..
I look forward to your re-return
Reading your posts just before the ban, I felt you were a little unhinged, now I see my mistake, with a second glance over your brash post I see the subtext, maybe in the same light you did.
Last post explains it all. Sometimes we all need to be a little harsh to make sure a very important point is received with the earnestness it was intended to be afforded. There is a time to fight for what you believe in IMHO..
I look forward to your re-return
thats the reason only 1 BX makes any sense ~you are not making a better blend of this and that plant by continuing to X them
however; X'n 2 homozygous plants fixes that trait {say its potency} BX'n a potent offspring to a potent parent fixes potency in that next generation of offspring
ultimately; combining desired traits is where the real math comes in
however; X'n 2 homozygous plants fixes that trait {say its potency} BX'n a potent offspring to a potent parent fixes potency in that next generation of offspring
ultimately; combining desired traits is where the real math comes in
Aardwolf
Active member
From the 1980s onwards, all crosses onto selected F1 generations were single cross, backcrosses or top crosses (van Ginkel et al., 2002). Single and top (or three-way) crosses are commonly used among adapted parental lines, while backcrosses are preferred for transferring a few useful genes from donor parents to adapted lines. The single backcrossing approach (one backcross to the adapted parent) was initially aimed at incorporating resistance to rust diseases based on multiple additive genes (Singh and Huerta-Espino, 2004). However, it soon became apparent that the single backcross approach also favored selection of genotypes with higher yield potential.
The reason why single backcrossing shifts the progeny mean toward the higher side is that it favors the retention of most of the desired major additive genes from the recurrent, while simultaneously allowing the incorporation and selection of additional useful small-effect genes from the donor parents.
The breeding efficiency of this strategy compared with other crossing and selection strategies was investigated through computer simulation for many scenarios, such as the number of genes to be transferred, frequency of favorable alleles in donor and recurrent parents etc.
Results indicated this breeding strategy has advantages in retaining or overtaking the adaptation of the recurrent parents and at the same time transferring most of the desired donor genes for a wide range of scenarios (Wang et al., 2009).
Two times of backcrossing has advantages when the adaptation of donor parents is much lower than that of the adapted parents, and the advantage of three times of backcrossing over two times of backcrossing is minimal.
The recommend use of the single backcrossing breeding strategy is based on three assumptions: (1) multiple genes govern the phenotypic traits to be transferred from donor parents to adapted parents, (2) donor parents still have some favorable genes that may contribute to the improvement of adaptation in the recipient parents even under low adaptation, (3) the conventional phenotypic selection is applied or the individual genotypes cannot be precisely identified.
The reason why single backcrossing shifts the progeny mean toward the higher side is that it favors the retention of most of the desired major additive genes from the recurrent, while simultaneously allowing the incorporation and selection of additional useful small-effect genes from the donor parents.
The breeding efficiency of this strategy compared with other crossing and selection strategies was investigated through computer simulation for many scenarios, such as the number of genes to be transferred, frequency of favorable alleles in donor and recurrent parents etc.
Results indicated this breeding strategy has advantages in retaining or overtaking the adaptation of the recurrent parents and at the same time transferring most of the desired donor genes for a wide range of scenarios (Wang et al., 2009).
Two times of backcrossing has advantages when the adaptation of donor parents is much lower than that of the adapted parents, and the advantage of three times of backcrossing over two times of backcrossing is minimal.
The recommend use of the single backcrossing breeding strategy is based on three assumptions: (1) multiple genes govern the phenotypic traits to be transferred from donor parents to adapted parents, (2) donor parents still have some favorable genes that may contribute to the improvement of adaptation in the recipient parents even under low adaptation, (3) the conventional phenotypic selection is applied or the individual genotypes cannot be precisely identified.
Aardwolf, it would be nice if you posted your own thoughts, and then gave references, then you might at least catch the fact that there is no such thing as a single cross onto an F1, it has to be by default a backcross. Further, the recurrent parent must be fixed to a very high degree for any of that to hold water with regards to poly genes affecting yield. It's just that I've known and read you and have noted your seeming clinginess to your current/previous mentors, and I want to make sure others realize the totality of the text you are quite obviously quoting, which you, at least seemingly from time to time, do not.
The best way to determine all of that is to self the recurrent parent before delving into such techniques to prove her genotypic worth.
The best way to determine all of that is to self the recurrent parent before delving into such techniques to prove her genotypic worth.
