TWO S1 LINE PRODUCES MALES

[Tom Hill]

Hi again,

GMT I'm not so sure we differ and if we do it revolves around the over-all value we can place on phenotype during selection for quantitative traits. I am not saying there is no value there, but next to none for sure. Case in point, nearly all measurable progress with traits revolving around biometrical genetics (yield, resistance to pathogens, etc) has be made outside of the more simple selection methods (mass selection etc) where the phenotypic evaluation of candidates is the focus. That is no coincidence, imo.

Tackling complex genetic matters with so blunt an instrament (phenotypic evaluation), is akin to attempting brain surgery with a hammer.

 

[wrongwrong]

Hi again,

GMT I'm not so sure we differ and if we do it revolves around the over-all value we can place on phenotype during selection for quantitative traits. I am not saying there is no value there, but next to none for sure. Case in point, nearly all measurable progress with traits revolving around biometrical genetics (yield, resistance to pathogens, etc) has be made outside of the more simple selection methods (mass selection etc) where the phenotypic evaluation of candidates is the focus. That is no coincidence, imo.

Tackling complex genetic matters with so blunt an instrament (phenotypic evaluation), is akin to attempting brain surgery with a hammer.

Pass me the hammer there's plenty i'd like to attempt it on!

 

[Tom Hill]

Joe wants to increase his yield, or rid his population of intersex tendencies, or resistance to pathogens. He remembers his burbank very well, so he suits up and carefully measures these things as he selects merrily along within his population, paying careful attention to selecting only the best each generation.

Mike understands the complexity of the maths, understands that Joe's approach is a failing, egotistical one. Mike knows that Mike will mostly fail. So Mike's approach is to buy more lottery tickets to the big show. He cares not so much about individual selection criteria each generation, in fact his selections are chosen by darts tossed randomly into family plots each generation haha. But Mike has 6 families from which to choose from in the end. Be it yield, intersex tendencies, or resistance to pathogens, Mike is the guy who comes out on top, seguro.

Yes, it is better to do both, but the jist of this is that yes, phenotype evaluation has value, but let's be sure to keep that in it's proper place - which is way down on the totem pole in the complex maths world of biometrical genetics.

 

[GMT]

Mike has a lot of land on which he can grow then

Poor Joe was just copying what nature does, when making "selections" during the standard model of evolution. Which is an approach that history has proven to work, albeit on a far slower time frame than Mike will be able to achieve.

That approach though at first glance, appears to fly in the face of current market demands wouldn't you say? Where the offspring of a hyped clone, esp when hit with reversed pollen from another hyped clone, command the highest prices.

For now, personally, I'm forced to simply follow the principle of like begets like, and kill the rest.

 

[Tom Hill]

If you had 100, ten of which you bred after your indepth (haha) testing,.. What I am saying is that my 10 groups of 10, is more valuable, mathematically. Stone cold single seed decent, in an absolutely blind fashion, makes an order of magnitude more mathematical sense than clinging to this Mendel or Burbank bs placing such value on phenotypic worth - these are the maths and realizing this is how we've made the genetic progress that we have over the past few decades? You will understand and value this sentiment,,,, these are not the droids you are looking for....

And, Current market demands, lol, really? From inside the whorled phylotaxy paradigm? How about we just talk about genetics instead?

 

[mofeta]

Hi Guys

You can count me in on the Tom Hill camp.

I think that the expression of intersex in pot is a case of a continuously variable trait that superficially appears to be a qualititative trait. In most populations, the quantitative nature of the trait is not apparent. Upon closer inspection, though it really does seem to me to be the case. This is called a Threshold Trait. This is when a trait is passed down quantitatively, but appears qualitative. It is still a polygenic, continuous, quantitative trait, and is not manipulable by assortive mating driven by phenotypic selection. You have to "move the curve" with the techniques that Tom is such a serious student of.

I think the fact that environmental factors can play such a big role in intersex expression is the most compelling thing for me. What greater hallmark of a polygenic, quantitative trait is there than environmental sensitivity?

Hermi populations also fall into a normal, Gaussian distribution as to herminess. This is the other big hallmark (continous variability) of the quantitative trait.

 

[stems&seeds]

excellent discussion guys thanks

 

[GMT]

If ya want to breed cats, don't start with dogs.
Nature works soley on P.E. within it's specific environment. The scientific world can't keep up with it's ability to develop using that technique. Now the numbers are there for nature to use P.E. within your model of separate lines. And so while the same mutations in some areas will cause that family to die out, the same mutations in other areas allow for proliferation. At the end of the day though, no matter which starting point you go for, there has to be some form of selection process at some point. And even with a lab, what you are looking for, or creating, is still a particular expression within a given environment. So to my mind, regardless of numbers, or techniques, P.E. is still both the holy grail and the path to it.

mofeta, will you accept that the sexual expression is at different stages of evolution in different lines, depending on which part of the world they were inherited by?

ph Tom, I was talking as someone watching prices, not as someone with something to hype, when commenting on the current market.

 

[Tom Hill]

Mofeta has a much firmer grip on the maths of project manager imo, from that other thread where he pointed out that we do better to gamble a little after we reach X probability. I am still waiting for you to embrace the maths you so cling to.

 

[GMT]

maths can never be argued with, but I don't know which numbers you're speaking about. Probability though, is always going to have alternative approaches to playing the game, and any one of them can get there first.

 

[Tom Hill]

okay, so why don't we just start talking about god then? I mean, it would hold about the same value to me. Make zero mistake I am a big Heisenberg fan, and I approach with the assumption that I am wrong. But come on man, your in the middle of retreating to markets etc, how about we just shoot from the hip instead?

The dude spreading out energy over 3 instead of two thinking 3 is better than two even though they weigh the same, needs to refocus, imo.

If I can not lean on you to understand the maths of what I speak of, then I am at a loss. I spoke to the maths clearly I thought, your, my, Mendel's, Burbank's, Sam's, phenotypic evaluation, is worth jack shit. It is an ego wrapped up in crap, compared to skewing the maths with that of altering selection method, I felt I offered this this very plain and simple. I stated order of magnitudes, other maths, I was as plain as can be. This is not mine, this is our collective understanding of biometrical genetics to date, as I understand them to be. Again, I am entirely open to alternative hypothese, proffer them if you please.

 

[GMT]

lol Tom, got yer gun slinger's belt on tonight I see.
I'm certainly not retreating to markets, I merely wanted you on record as saying that a clone from generation 1 is no better in one generation of breeding, than anything else, and its all bullshit. I didn't imagine that would have been difficult to do.
But, ok, I'm game, ask yourself why I do it. The answer is as it has always been. I enjoy doing it. Do I really need a better reason than that? It's evolution in action in front of my eyes, although admittedly, artificial evolution. Now look at the way I discuss it on here. Do I hype and rave about it, putting people's nose out of joint? Or do I simply say this is what I'm up to? Why do people chase purple weed, or webbed leaves, or anything else that adds a bit of difference to the experience? Most of us are hobbiests, not commercial enterprises. And I'll promise you that the average tri, is not less than the average bi.

 

[Tom Hill]

yes, I am sporting said belt. A clone one gen removed can be and has every opportunity to be better than all others that came before, of course.

You know I value your input, but I see you too, see me?

Yes it was me who came in and tore that shit up previously, what was it under the colina handle? Or some such other, yes, I with all of my heart believe that if you spread out 2 over 3 you've done nothing more, been there, done that, waste of time imo.

 

[GMT]

Lmao Tom, very diplomatically put, yes I do of course accept that too.

Tom, You can say anything if its said honestly, it's cool, we can disagree on stuff without falling out.

Then you're missing the point, is it right to continue here, or should we really discuss this in one of my threads? The essence is, once food and water have been provided, then next obstacles are air and light capture. You aren't spreading 2 out over 3 at all, you are increasing your tools. Now ask why there are 3 in stead of 2. Then take a bifoliar clone from a trifoliar plant. Now what are you doing? Turn it on its head, youre forcing 3 through 2. Have you really explored the tri thing Tom, or like Sam, took a look over a couple of generations and then threw it away?

 

[Tom Hill]

Well this ain't my thread either, but I will tell you how I feel on the street. Your tri in my world sucks ass. You see, while your tri being so, it passes along energy from where it would otherwise exist in the bi. If I am bi and you are tri, we are cruising along at the same rate when it comes to the totality of cellular multiplication, you are spending your energy there, me here. I have grown taller than your tri, therefore, must more quickly build my roots to accommodate that scenario, again, so often been there and done that. I assure you, build a root, build a plant. Your tri caters to some indoor scheme which I am not willing to wrap my head around, plain and simple. You're investing your efforts into a dieing breed, imo. I can't imagine Charles laying it down any differently.

If I wanted to grow rejects, I would grow eu crap, faciated stalks, or any number of other worthless individuals, yes, tri's fit quite nicely into this category, imo.

 

[GMT]

My Tri has never been in your world. All you can say with certainty is that in your world, your tri's sucked arse. You are making too many assumptions, rather than looking at the mechanics of why tri's are tri's.

 

[Tom Hill]

"Your" tri's plague my world! If only to the tune of 1%, they are still a plague! There you are, actually reproducing them! WTF???

brother, you breeding for that trait is nothing more than you taking your eye off another that actually matters, period, end of story.

If it makes you feel any better Hyb did the same in some bizarre penis measurement quest with fet, but for fuck's sake, let's move on to something that actually matters.

 

[GMT]

No not at all. All I care about is the effect that smoking them has upon me. After that, I chase the tri thing. The tri thing is always an overlapping subset, the selection is from within the overlap. If your's aren't working out for you, then isn't your position like me suddenly dismissing every bifoliar of every line?

 

[mofeta]

You guys obviously have a long history together. I don't know the inside baseball here, so I don't know WTF you are talking about.

I'll start back before you guys lost me.

Nature works soley on P.E. ....

Natural selection only sees phenotype, but evolution is more than just natural selection. There are also non-adaptive, neutral forces like genetic drift. But that's something for a different thread.

there has to be some form of selection process at some point. ...... And even with a lab, what you are looking for, or creating, is still a particular expression within a given environment.

There is selection in breeding strategies based on population genetics. It just isn't done by looking at individual phenotypes. You look at trait frequencies in your dispersing lines, and do progeny testing to essentially deduce genotype, and use statistical methods to predict the shortest route to your goal. Of course the big deal these days, now that the genotype is directly visible to us, is QTL analysis and such, eliminating the considerable work of deducing genotype.

For simple qualitative traits, selection and mating strategies based on phenotypic selection are great, and appropriate.

But for complex, massively polygenic traits, you just can't tell the breeding value of an individual just by looking at it. The best parent genotypically may not display it's worthiness in its phenotypic expression. You have to reveal the genotype through the old way (deduction), or the new way (directly observing the genome in the lab).

mofeta, will you accept that the sexual expression is at different stages of evolution in different lines, depending on which part of the world they were inherited by?

I'm not sure what you mean? If you mean that certain populations from around the world have more hermies than other populations found elsewhere, then sure.

 

[Tom Hill]

Hey, you are a math man, as am I from time to time. But you are also squeamish as hell about numbers. So, am I to believe that my one in one hundred, or yours, solely because they have three fucking leaves, has somehow in the middle of all that has magically allowed you to also select the best, Mr. luthor? I think highly fucking not. So here we are, in the face of these maths, you will either come to terms with them or you will not, check.