Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tom Hill - Has Arisen -

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tom Hill
    replied
    Originally posted by Chimera View Post
    I don’t see any evidence for an X : autosome system, it’s pretty clearly XY.

    The idea of a degenerating Y is totally nonsensical, but also devoid of any type of evidence to support the claim. This is possibly the best example of stoner musings (without evidence) in this forum, if not the entire website.

    When I said more science & less stoner musings, this is the type of thing I was talking about. We’re going to hold you to account of proper scientific thoughts & processes here, so if you have some whacky claim to make, best be armed with some type of evidence.
    Put up or shut up kid. Explain another way such observations can be had (ie 70%+ female populations). But you may need to grow some plants first

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Hill
    replied
    Originally posted by GMT View Post
    Oh, well according to that paper they are X to auto. I guess the ratio of the (sex-det1) gene is in low supply within a line with 70% females. Probably through breeding selections.
    They talking about their ditchweed hemp lol. Its all they ever talk about lol.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tonygreen
    replied
    Maybe it only looks like 70% because you got lucky and didnt pop enough seed. Ha!

    Leave a comment:


  • Knop
    replied
    Tom hill, could you write a book?
    i would certainly buy

    Leave a comment:


  • GMT
    replied
    I said x to auto as a result of the paper Sam put up. Did you read it and disagree with it or is it for a different reason that you claim the 70% figure can be reached with active Y?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chimera
    replied
    I don’t see any evidence for an X : autosome system, it’s pretty clearly XY.

    The idea of a degenerating Y is totally nonsensical, but also devoid of any type of evidence to support the claim. This is possibly the best example of stoner musings (without evidence) in this forum, if not the entire website.

    When I said more science & less stoner musings, this is the type of thing I was talking about. We’re going to hold you to account of proper scientific thoughts & processes here, so if you have some whacky claim to make, best be armed with some type of evidence.

    Leave a comment:


  • englishrick
    replied
    Hay everyone,,, just nice to see everyone back arguing again,,, it's fun sometimes,, it's kinda nice

    Leave a comment:


  • GMT
    replied
    I've still got to tare up my model of x to auto though. Still at least we know how it works now. The implication though is surely that breeding active Y to X to auto, will shift the probability of an individual seed from female to male. Not just to equalise but to favour.

    Leave a comment:


  • GMT
    replied
    Oh, well according to that paper they are X to auto. I guess the ratio of the (sex-det1) gene is in low supply within a line with 70% females. Probably through breeding selections.

    Leave a comment:


  • GMT
    replied
    Yeah, I saw that quote before you quoted it, but chose not to go trampling around in that thread. But after you quoted it, I thought I'd quietly ask for a little background to it. I'm about to wade through the paper he posted above. I've had a busy day today, so this is my first chance to sit and read.
    You're right of course that x to auto doesn't provide those numbers without intersex plants breeding. In the absence of intersexed, x to auto does become a bit of a non starter as far as answers go. Like I said, I feel no shame in filling gaps in my knowledge with "I don't knows". I'll try to put some crazy theory together, but I'll label it as that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Hill
    replied
    Originally posted by GMT View Post
    Its not enough to say its different. Its not enough to say "I'm more experienced than you so I know better, believe me". Its not enough to say one thing shows different numerical outcomes. You don't have to understand it for me. But you have to understand it sufficiently for yourself to be able to explain it to someone else. And just saying no, or its different, doesn't do that.
    The questions unanswered are
    How does a healthy Y degenerate. Meiosis doesn't explain that in a reliable and replicable manner.
    How does a degenerated Y pass itself onto offspring?
    Answer either of those and I'll discuss it, I may even accept it. But at the moment I can't answer either of them. Can you?
    I am admittedly coming at it from a different angle than you ala eliminating the impossible. Seen you ask Sam in that other thread what he thinks may be the mechanism behind such an observation. The absence of intersex plants (and duh the presence of y markers) pretty much kills the x:autosome possibility sir. Not sure what else you think is left.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bud Green
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom Hill View Post
    View Image

    Oh shit. A Christmas Story is on TBS right now... fuggoff,,, don't put your eye out i busy lol.
    Lol.... I'd have been proud at any age to have had an eye put out by those...

    I'd be wearing my pirate's eye patch like a badge of honor...

    ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam_Skunkman
    replied
    https://sci-hub.se/10.3389/fpls.2020.569958

    Genetic Architecture of Flowering Time and Sex Determination in Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.): A Genome-Wide Association Study.
    Petit, J., Salentijn, E. M. J., Paulo, M.-J., Denneboom, C., & Trindade, L. M.
    Frontiers in Plant Science, 11.(2020).
    doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.569958

    I will add it to my IC BIB this week

    Leave a comment:


  • GMT
    replied
    Tom, mate, all I'm saying is, offering sophestry as a talking point, is one thing. But offering it as an education, is another. It takes you out of the realm of scientist or craftsman, and enters you into the world of religious preacher. Remember the wisdom of Socrates, and join me in saying, I don't know. Then at least we have a common ground on which we can theorise.

    Leave a comment:


  • GMT
    replied
    Its not enough to say its different. Its not enough to say "I'm more experienced than you so I know better, believe me". Its not enough to say one thing shows different numerical outcomes. You don't have to understand it for me. But you have to understand it sufficiently for yourself to be able to explain it to someone else. And just saying no, or its different, doesn't do that.
    The questions unanswered are
    How does a healthy Y degenerate. Meiosis doesn't explain that in a reliable and replicable manner.
    How does a degenerated Y pass itself onto offspring?
    Answer either of those and I'll discuss it, I may even accept it. But at the moment I can't answer either of them. Can you?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X