Is low potency a recessive trait?
- Thread starter bubbl3r
- Start date
- Status
Most of the time, when a pair of alleles at a genetic locus is different, one of them has to be dominant. Sometimes in some heterozygous organisms, both alleles of a given locus are expressed, showing codominance.
Last edited:
Pretty much... though there are rarely ever 'always's about anything... If there were one single locus for potency, then your earlier questions might have made more sense... It would also make breeding the grail strain very easy... Unfortunately, potency is the culmination of a combination of traits determined by many loci... But also fortunately! It would be an incredibly boring scene if every bud you smoked had exactly the same effect and there was no qualitative variation between many equally potent plants...bubbl3r said:
Instead of asking me to teach biology here, UC Berkeley has all of their biology department lectures available for FREE download at itunes... Their professors are adept at explaining all of this stuff, and you won't have to keep asking questions to learn more...
bubbl3r
Member
Wow, thks Grat3fulh3ad........nice tip I just found this link.
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978456
The Laws that Govern the Inheritance of Traits - Segregation of Alleles.....
Bubbl3r
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978456
The Laws that Govern the Inheritance of Traits - Segregation of Alleles.....
Bubbl3r
Last edited:
Both THC and CBD are produced from a precursor CBG. If the plant has a Bt allele, the CBG is changed to THC. If the plant has a Bd allele, it is changed to CBD. Some plants are BtBt and have THC and almost no CBD. Some plants are BtBd and produce both THC and CBD(most hash plants). Some plants(like hemp) have BdBd alleles and produce mostly CBD,with very little THC. Most drug strains have been bred to produce THC and contain less than .1% CBD. Most hemp strains have some THC but very little. Current accepted standard in the EU is .3%THC. The U.S. will not accept any THC in hemp. That is why we cannot grow it(so they say).
bubbl3r said:
"Breeder's don't create potency like they claim, you don't get something for nothing. Its either there to start with or it isn't. They simply select something thats already there."
"Claiming responsibility for potency, through breeding, is just a nonsense."
"Cannabis is POTENT by default!"
"All that breeders do is deselect the recessive low potency traits....and I believe that Cannabis in the beginning didn't have any of them.
So while potency has always been there, these darn recessive low potency traits, that Cannabis did not have in the beginning....
What happened to your first law: "IT'S EITHER THERE TO START WITH OR IT ISN'T" Don't you see the contradiction?
And you obviously don't believe in evolution, because "IT'S EITHER THERE TO START WITH OR IT ISN'T"
-SamS
Last edited:
Kinderfeld
Member
Wow. I am really high and just read this whole thread (took me two sittings) and honestly I don't know what the fuck anyone is talking about. Can we split this into like this guys thinks this and that guy thinks that please. thnx.
suzycremecheese
Active member
I think I've found the root of the disagreement here...
I don't think that bubbler understands the difference between "trait" and gene or allele variation of a gene.
No trait is dominant or recessive. alleles can be. A trait may be influenced by only one gene and many different alleles that govern that gene.
However it is more common that a trait is influenced by a combination of genes... Each of which has many different allele variation and combination possibilities. One expression of such a trait isn't necessarily more dominant or more recessive than another. It is just a different combination of many different factors.
While some alleles may be trumping others in the process some may be working together, and some may be canceled out by others to add up to the, in this scenario, potency level that you ultimately end up with.
Bubbler,
No offense but if it makes you feel good to call less potent Cannabis recessive and potent cannabis dominant or vice versa then by all means do it but it isn't relevant to what is already known about the inheritance of the factors that make up this trait. It isn't ground breaking in any way... and if by some outside chance what you are trying to convey to us over the last 4 pages is revolutionary in some way then you're not explaining it in a way that is making any sense to anyone and it is still useless... even those that have spent good portions of their lives studying genetics and inheritance are not seeing the value that you think is in your writings...
Why not go back to the drawing board, study genetics and inheritance a little bit more, and see if this still seems like such a great idea... if it does then come back and explain this in a way that makes sense to someone besides yourself because right now this is going nowhere.
I don't think that bubbler understands the difference between "trait" and gene or allele variation of a gene.
No trait is dominant or recessive. alleles can be. A trait may be influenced by only one gene and many different alleles that govern that gene.
However it is more common that a trait is influenced by a combination of genes... Each of which has many different allele variation and combination possibilities. One expression of such a trait isn't necessarily more dominant or more recessive than another. It is just a different combination of many different factors.
While some alleles may be trumping others in the process some may be working together, and some may be canceled out by others to add up to the, in this scenario, potency level that you ultimately end up with.
Bubbler,
No offense but if it makes you feel good to call less potent Cannabis recessive and potent cannabis dominant or vice versa then by all means do it but it isn't relevant to what is already known about the inheritance of the factors that make up this trait. It isn't ground breaking in any way... and if by some outside chance what you are trying to convey to us over the last 4 pages is revolutionary in some way then you're not explaining it in a way that is making any sense to anyone and it is still useless... even those that have spent good portions of their lives studying genetics and inheritance are not seeing the value that you think is in your writings...
Why not go back to the drawing board, study genetics and inheritance a little bit more, and see if this still seems like such a great idea... if it does then come back and explain this in a way that makes sense to someone besides yourself because right now this is going nowhere.
bubbl3r
Member
Sam_Skunkman said:
Nice observation Sam, but I do believe in evolution to a large degree, and I don't think it's too difficult to read that, into everything I say.
The Law hasn't been broken, it's either there, or if you like possible, or not. You see my philosophy on this subject is this:-
"IF IT CAN HAPPEN, THEN IT WILL HAPPEN, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME!.....IF IT CAN'T HAPPEN, THEN IT NEVER WILL HAPPEN, AND NO AMOUNT OF TIME IS GOING TO CHANGE IT!"
Imagine a guy standing at the bottom of the Himalayas, while smoking a joint, and asking his friend, " hey dude, do ya think we will ever climb to the top of this rock?... to which his friend replies "sure we will, but not today hey dude, come on pass me that spliff".
Sam, I never said recessive low potency could never happen, it's always been a possiblity with DNA right from day one, that's the whole point...but like the guys at the foot of the mountain, it just wasn't the status quo for that day.
"All that breeders do is deselect the recessive low potency traits"...yes it's true I said that, but maybe I should have expanded it to say "the traits they've largely induced in the first place"...think about it.
Bubbl3r
Last edited:
bubbl3r
Member
suzycremecheese said:
Suzy, I'm starting to feel good already!...and I might just take your advice.
Btw, do you think that there are any recessive traits, or if you like recessive alleles at all, that lead to low potency?....how about yield for instance. I've read many growers and breeders say things like "yeah it's a killer smoke, but just not much yield to it", and others say " yeah, I'm hoping to improve on the yield, without loosing any of the quality"
So, can you accept that a recessive trait or recessive alleles of any description, even ones that maybe "index linked" to other ones, could have the direct effect of lowering potency?...if you can, then you can safely fit it into a recessive low potency bracket...Is this line of reasoning for you, starting to make sense in terms of how potency is perceived?
The ultimate supreme mega potent creation, I like to talk about, may have looked very different, smelt very different, and tasted very different than today. Although that doesn't mean, it wasn't possible for the genes to get mixed up via natural selection and mutation... and btw, just because the selection was "natural" doesn't mean it was optimal, or desireable either.
How does that song go?...."We are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon, and we got to get ourselves back to the garden"...why did that just pop into my head I wonder?....lol
Bubbl3r
Last edited:
I think your basic problem, or one of them, is your assumption that Cannabis when it first evolved and spread around the planet, was potent until man fucked with it and made it full of them old nasty recessive un-potent genes.(according to your thinking)
This is wrong, just plain wrong.
Fix this thinking, and the problem goes away...
Just think if Cannabis is capable of producing Cannabinoids, 71 including THC, it is also capable of producing lots of resin with those Cannabinoids in them, it is capable of being selected by man to produce only one of the Cannabinoids in large amounts, on plants that produce a lot of resin and bingo you have a potent Drug variety, that when combined with mans selection for terpenoid content, (from the 130+ terpenoids found in Cannabis) for the smell and taste, as well as the type of highs, from couch lock physical, to Psychedelic, up, clear, soaring, mental stimulant, created the Cannabis we see today. Man also un-selected plants with no THC or high CBD, or terpenoids that he did not like the taste and smell as well as the subjective effects, by not using them or any seeds they made.
Cannabis has a lot of variety, man has used this to select what he wanted, be that Ganja, Hashish, rope, fiber, seeds, etc. Cannabis had no interest in being high in only THC in large amounts, man did.
-SamS
This is wrong, just plain wrong.
Fix this thinking, and the problem goes away...
Just think if Cannabis is capable of producing Cannabinoids, 71 including THC, it is also capable of producing lots of resin with those Cannabinoids in them, it is capable of being selected by man to produce only one of the Cannabinoids in large amounts, on plants that produce a lot of resin and bingo you have a potent Drug variety, that when combined with mans selection for terpenoid content, (from the 130+ terpenoids found in Cannabis) for the smell and taste, as well as the type of highs, from couch lock physical, to Psychedelic, up, clear, soaring, mental stimulant, created the Cannabis we see today. Man also un-selected plants with no THC or high CBD, or terpenoids that he did not like the taste and smell as well as the subjective effects, by not using them or any seeds they made.
Cannabis has a lot of variety, man has used this to select what he wanted, be that Ganja, Hashish, rope, fiber, seeds, etc. Cannabis had no interest in being high in only THC in large amounts, man did.
-SamS
Last edited:
bubbl3r
Member
Sam_Skunkman said:
Yes sam, only man's intervention is just like his intellect, and is merely a relatively recent f*ck up. Man is inherently reactive and not proactive. In other words, he likes to f*ck things up first, before he gets round to trying to fix them. The global warming effect is an easy one, but also food, water and resources too, are all likely to bite us sooner or later.
No, I can understand that your conscientious, and there are a few of you out there, but generally speaking the approach of most breeders towards genetics today, is very single minded and poor indeed.
i.e. Is it potent, does it taste good, hope its stable, can I sell the mofo!
Bubbl3r
Last edited:
But one animal/organism still cannot evolve during it's lifetime.3dDream said:
You're still just wishing something you imagine to be true could be.bubbl3r said:
It still does not work like you think it does. Your questions continue to demonstrate a refusal to understand.
Someone points out that there are no such things as recessive 'traits'... and you still ask questions involving recessive traits...
You still seem to be trying to squeeze reality into your imaginary paradigm. It is never going to work. Your theories are all based on bullshit.
Your line of reasoning makes NO sense. It could NOT have worked like that, the mechanics of life do NOT allow for it.
FUCKING learn something before you continue down this path of conversation which has begun to make you appear both stubborn and stupid.
Stop trying to imagine how things might work, and learn about how things have been shown to work...
bubbl3r said:
You're really just some troll with a hard on against breeders.
You Imagine some impossible scenario in order to justify your opinion... It is proved impossible, repeatedly... yet you still rail on ignorantly...
You remind me of some religious cultist, and arguing with you is akin to arguing FACT vs unprovable illogical religious dogma. An absolute waste of time.
Your wrong, and your premises are stupid. I'm out of this discussion...
Suzy and Sam... Enjoy banging your heads against this Brick Wall troll...
Last edited:
bubbl3r
Member
Grat3fulh3ad said:
I think you Grat3fuld3ad, may well have redefined that term, with your posting and comments. I would like to say that you will be missed, but I'm pretty sure I can do without the constant negativity, and personal attacks.
I found you to have a very stifling attitute, and your a classic manifestation of the term " A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing".
Like you said yourself, I have no doubt you have had arguments with other members here before, and I just hope you will learn, that it doesn't do your reputation any good.
If a member is right or wrong, about any topic or subject, then you only need state your case, and move on. There's no need to constantly hound them, in an attempt to get them to somehow submit to your will. Probably bought about by a internal conflict, of wanting to be constant control and impotency.
There's no doubt in my mind, that there's also a spiritual aspect to your life, that is gravely missing, but from your religeous hate comments, I some how doubt it would make much difference.
In the future I would try to keep comments on topic, and leave out the personal remarks.
Bubbl3r
- Status
