is this how you breed quality genetics?

[PWF]

i cant see past the shit you spit in my eyes

 

[Tonygreen]

tom by your own words youre wrong.
it is all about the genetics and not what you say.

PWF, genetics is the bottom line, period.

GG stop trolling PNW... you are babbling...

bab·ble (b

b

l)v. bab·bled, bab·bling, bab·bles
v.intr.1. To utter a meaningless confusion of words or sounds: Babies babble before they can talk.
2. To talk foolishly or idly; chatter: "In 1977 [he] was thought of as crazy because he was babbling about supply side" (Newt Gingrich).
3. To make a continuous low, murmuring sound, as flowing water.

v.tr.1. To utter rapidly and indistinctly.
2. To blurt out impulsively; disclose without careful consideration.

n.1. Inarticulate or meaningless talk or sounds.
2. Idle or foolish talk; chatter.
3. A continuous low, murmuring sound, as of flowing water.

 

[PWF]

incorrect, some plants are affected to X degree, and some only affected to Y degree, the degree, is determined by genes, and that's why the hippy dippy argument holds no water in the end.

degrees of something are barely science.

 

[Tonygreen]

i am observing as much as possible and maybe oneday ill figure it out...

For someone making observations and trying to "figure it out" you sure speak in certainties quite often.

 

[devilgoob]

Can't a harsh environment turn a plant hermie? Don't they do this because of environment, and since a seed produced by stressing and selfing this way....made it's way, this way, wouldn't it invariably know it has to do this "hermie" thing more in the future and would selectively exhibit this trait based on it's past dioeciousness?

 

[PWF]

GG stop trolling PNW... you are babbling...

bab·ble (bView ImagebView ImageView Imagel)v. bab·bled, bab·bling, bab·bles
v.intr.1. To utter a meaningless confusion of words or sounds: Babies babble before they can talk.
2. To talk foolishly or idly; chatter: "In 1977 [he] was thought of as crazy because he was babbling about supply side" (Newt Gingrich).
3. To make a continuous low, murmuring sound, as flowing water.

v.tr.1. To utter rapidly and indistinctly.
2. To blurt out impulsively; disclose without careful consideration.

n.1. Inarticulate or meaningless talk or sounds.
2. Idle or foolish talk; chatter.
3. A continuous low, murmuring sound, as of flowing water.

this is trolling by TOU descriptions.
i have stayed as close to topic as i can and only pointed out what i see as inconsistencies.
why would you casually call me a troll? that in itself is baiting by TOU.

 

[Tom Hill]

no, selfing is a far degree measurable more efficient than crossing sibs PWF, this is a scientific fact, brought to you by the letter T, deal with it.

 

[PWF]

For someone making observations and trying to "figure it out" you sure speak in certainties quite often.

where? i could back up the epi-genetic position easily via links if you wish? why arent you talking about genetics tony?

 

[PWF]

no, selfing is a far degree measurable more efficient than crossing sibs PWF, this is a scientific fact, brought to you by the letter T, deal with it.

for what tomhill?
for observing the behavior of offspring of a selfed plant. genetic reshuffle still takes place just not as much and doesnt foretell what the results of outcrossing or even sib crossing or f-gens.

 

[Tonygreen]

this is trolling by TOU descriptions.
i have stayed as close to topic as i can and only pointed out what i see as inconsistencies.
why would you casually call me a troll? that in itself is baiting by TOU.

When you argue for the sake of arguing you are trolling.

PWF, genetics is the bottom line, period.

tom by your own words youre wrong.
it is all about the genetics and not what you say.

Tom said that first why are you trying to make an fact he stated and you agree with a point of conflict?

Do you see that? LOL? Thats you. Arguing just to argue. and you bringing up TOU shows me further you are just trying to provoke someone into getting banned.

Have fun with that, I am going to go read something useful.

 

[Tom Hill]

PWF just forget it man, you're in over your head, you thought you had someone on the ropes, and you were wrong. Just read dude, genetics trumps epigenetics, it trumps environment, it trumps it all man, any link you can or could ever post, was written by men who already understand this fact, get this through your head.

 

[PWF]

you are saying i am trying to get someone banned Tony, who would that be?
i have not argued anything.
you both are making statements about me that are untrue.
is there a protocol on how i should address that? these statements youre both making about me are insulting and untrue and anyone reading them can see this. epi-genetics affects genes. that is a fact. you tomhill are arguing that it is an untruth or i am missing something but i have said nothing untrue. i dont understand why you say genes are the bottom line and then say that environmental catalysts do not matter. the genes are nothing without triggers be it via reproduction or environmental cues. where am i saying it is more than the genes themselves tom?
tony, go away, you arent even talking about genetics.

 

[Tom Hill]

hey, you saying I ignore shit you have no clue about is insulting, mods not having any clue as to the truth is insulting, you and yours blathering on about absolutely nothing is insulting, that it is allowed at all is insulting. What the fuck is it that you came here to say, anything at all?

 

[PWF]

im hoping other people wont be put-off by this because i have seen the posts others make on these things and theyre good points of view and we need more than what has been posted in these last 2 pages. nobody has the knowledge to make bold statements about this as empirical fact because emipirical facts have yet to be gathered in genetics in the field of cannabis. alot of what is already known about genetics is applicable but when you get into the science of statistics and organic chemistry-which governs the hormones that affect genes- the science becomes clouded with the "exceptions to the rule".
peace,
pwf

 

[PWF]

hey, you saying I ignore shit you have no clue about is insulting, mods not having any clue as to the truth is insulting, you and yours blathering on about absolutely nothing is insulting, that it is allowed at all is insulting. What the fuck is is that you came here to say, anything at all?

poor tom hill.
give it like you think theyre giving it to you huh?

 

[Tom Hill]

I am sincerely waiting for something, anything out of you and yours, you know, other than you are insulted?

 

[Tom Hill]

because I really don't come here to make you feel good

 

[Green Supreme]

Welcome back dude. Missed ya here. Peace GS

 

[Tom Hill]

im hoping other people wont be put-off by this because i have seen the posts others make on these things and theyre good points of view and we need more than what has been posted in these last 2 pages. nobody has the knowledge to make bold statements about this as empirical fact because emipirical facts have yet to be gathered in genetics in the field of cannabis. alot of what is already known about genetics is applicable but when you get into the science of statistics and organic chemistry-which governs the hormones that affect genes- the science becomes clouded with the "exceptions to the rule".
peace,
pwf

I know you would like to believe that, same with my friend weird. The fact is, you're wrong and looking for some kind of hippy loophole that does not exist in the realm of science. You tell me I am posting blabla, then I give you the maths/links to set you straight, and then you go to lala land. JFC, wtf are you looking for, just some rabbit hole where nothing is ever known? Cool, I been there, and it is true, but for fux sake can we be on the same page about what 1000000 scientists are observing?

 

[Infinitesimal]

what holds no water?
are not genes triggered by environment?
what is cancer then?
your style of communication is overly dismissive and therefore contemptuous and your use of words like nonsense in describing what i write are insulting if i were easily insulted.
i have seen a few people take insult to your comminications towards them.

PWF,

if I may... try and relate if and how epigenetic are and are not relevant.

the genes are fixed, their expression can be triggered or silenced by chemical tags that are effected by the environment... BUT... this does not change the genes or how they are passed on...



THIS, what I am about to explain, is how environment and subsequently epigenetic changes can effect your breeding program...

lets say you have 26 female plants from one single strain labeled A-Z... and you have 5 different environments (each room numbered 1-5) varying in medium, nutrient regimen, light spectrum, temperature, humidity.. etc. etc.



into each of the five rooms goes a cutting of each plant A-Z numbered according to their rooms respectively... so there is A1, B1 etc. etc. A2, B2 etc. etc. A3, B3 etc. etc. and so on... so that there is a copy of each of the plants A-Z in each environment...

OK, now, one may observe that plant A1, A2, A4, and A5 produce the desirable phenotype and turns out to be homozygous for those traits "true breeding"... but A3 (same genetics, still true breeding/homozygous, as A1,A2,A4,A5) doesn't express the desired traits because the environment isn't conducive to the genotype for the desired phenotypic expression (this is the epigenome) in this room, room number 3, plant P (P3) may express most of the desirable traits but is not homozygous for those traits.

as a result... if you (for arguments sake, or anyone) were growing these plants in room #3, to make your breeding selections, the epigenetic differences may cause you to mistakenly select plant P the heterozygous individual over plant A the homozygous individual for your breeding projects... again because the homozygous plant A's genes are silenced in the environment that favors the P phenotype.


So, once the individual has been determined to posses the correct genes... the role the environment plays becomes irrelevant as it is going to pass on the same genes regardless (weather reversed or not, but the gene frequency goes up 2x faster with selfing as the desirable genes are received from both mother and father instead of just the mother) ... only the progeny will care, and only if weather or not the environment they grow up in is conducive to desirable phenotype (this is why environmental stability from generation to generation is important)


now, conversely... epigenetics can be used to ones advantage also when making selections... say you are breeding with a Indica leaning hybrid, but wish to breed the Sativa heavy traits... you can change the environment to better mimic the natural environment of equatorial Sativas... thereby being less suitable for Indicas and more conducive to the Sativa gene expressions... and by culling the more Indica expressions we are creating a bias for the Sativa genes... the more desirable Sativa phenotypes will reach their full potential, compared to the same plants grown in an Indica favorable environment... intern they are more easily identified and when bred can increase the frequency of the Sativa traits


I don't know if this will hit it's target or if it will help or not.