Is low potency a recessive trait?
- Thread starter bubbl3r
- Start date
- Status
bubbl3r said:
Ok, I get that, but the thing that I do not understand is what will you achieve with the resulting information? regardless of the answer, whether it is yes or no, what puzzle will you be putting together with this missing piece of information?
bubbl3r
Member
imnotcrazy said:
I can totally sympathise with your condition, but as you don't want to take any of my advice, here's a link to a study by professionals that may help you to understand your predicament more fully.
Its entitled...... "Genetic Polymorphism Of Cytochrome P450 -2d6*4 In Cannabis Smokers"
http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijto/vol5n1/cannabis.xml
Bubbl3r
Last edited:
yeah, that was kind of a dog's breakfast, guess i'm not gonna be published in "Science" any time soonbubbl3r said:
"I believe that cannabis plants have the ability to influence each other, in a dominant way, by adapting to a given environment. A sort of co-existence survival trait if you will. Some have more influence than others. Why is it so unbelieveable, that when different strains of cannabis are grown very closely together, that some individuals can express dominance over the group, by either physically or chemically changing themselves, or perhaps even instigating the change in the other plants."
in my post i was referring to how plants *could* affect each other, much as the presence of some male mammal's presence could cause a female of the species to go into estrus outside of their normal cycle, based on the male's pheremones. or, that co-habitation of a bunch of human females in prison can cause their ovulation to synchronize. or, the presence of other plants may somehow stress a pot plant, causing latent hermie characteristics to appear. the other organism causes physical changes to occur in the organism in question. but, i believe that the capacity for such changes already reside in the genetic makeup of the organism.
i referred to lysenkoism because you seem to be implying that the environment a plant grows in can directly affect its genetic structure, in a way outside of mutation (which is almost always deleterious), and that these characteristics would then be passed on to subsequent generations, as opposed to the environment causing underlying genetic potential to manifest itself. i may be wrong in that assumption.
perhaps you sum up your hypothesis and the observations you've made to give rise to them in a single post; the thread really is scatter-shot. i really dont see anything to lead one to believe that "potency" is a dominant or recessive characteristic. you state that "... cannabis plants have the ability to influence each other, in a dominant way, by adapting to a given environment. A sort of co-existence survival trait if you will". what do you mean by a plant influencing another one "in a dominant way"? and what do you mean by their doing this "by adapting to a given environment", and how is this a "co-exstence survival traint"? are you suggesting that a particular plant may be "dominant" and stunt or eliminates other, adjacent plants of the same species, in order to "hoard" resources for itself?
Looking good....
Looking good....
Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (Russian: Трофи́м Дени́сович Лысе́нко) (September 29, 1898–November 20, 1976) was an agronomist who was director of Soviet biology under Joseph Stalin. Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics in favor of the hybridization theories of Russian horticulturist Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin, and adopted them into a powerful political scientific movement termed Lysenkoism. His unorthodox experimental research in improved crop yields earned the support of Soviet leadership, especially following the famine and loss of productivity resulting from forced collectivization in several regions of the Soviet Union in the early 1930s. In 1940 he became director of the Institute of Genetics within the USSR's Academy of Sciences, and Lysenko's anti-Mendelian doctrines were further secured in Soviet science and education by the exercise of political influence and power. Scientific dissent from Lysenko's theories of environmentally acquired inheritance was formally outlawed in 1948, and for the next several years opponents were purged from held positions, and many imprisoned. Lysenko's work was officially discredited in the Soviet Union in 1964, leading to a renewed emphasis there to re-institute Mendelian genetics and orthodox science.
Though Lysenko remained at his post in the Institute of Genetics until 1965,[1] his influence on Soviet agricultural practice declined by the 1950s. The Soviet Union quietly abandoned Lysenko's agricultural practices in favor of modern agricultural practices after the crop yields he promised failed to materialize. Today much of Lysenko's agricultural experimentation and research is largely viewed as fraudulent.
Lysenko was put in charge of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union and made responsible for ending the propagation of "harmful" ideas among Soviet scientists. Lysenko served this purpose by causing the expulsion, imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists and eliminating all study and research involving Mendelian genetics throughout the Soviet Union. This period is known as Lysenkoism. He bears particular responsibility for the persecution of his predecessor and rival, prominent Soviet biologist Nikolai Vavilov, which ended in 1943 with the imprisoned Vavilov's death by starvation.
In 1964, physicist Andrei Sakharov spoke out against Lysenko in the General Assembly of the Academy of Sciences:
He is responsible for the shameful backwardness of Soviet biology and of genetics in particular, for the dissemination of pseudo-scientific views, for adventurism, for the degradation of learning, and for the defamation, firing, arrest, even death, of many genuine scientists.
Lysenko died in 1976.
Epigenetic inheritance
Forms of 'soft' or epigenetic inheritance within organisms have been suggested as neo-Lamarckian in nature by such scientists as Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb. In addition to 'hard' or genetic inheritance, involving the duplication of genetic material and its segregation during meiosis, there are other hereditary elements that pass into the germ cells also. These include things like methylation patterns in DNA and chromatin marks, both of which regulate the activity of genes. These are considered "Lamarckian" in the sense that they are responsive to environmental stimuli and can differentially affect gene expression adaptively, with phenotypic results that can persist for many generations in certain organisms. Although the reality of epigenetic inheritance is not doubted (as countless experiments have validated it) its significance to the evolutionary process is however uncertain. Most neo-Darwinians consider epigenetic inheritance mechanisms to be little more than a specialized form of phenotypic plasticity, with no potential to introduce evolutionary novelty into a species lineage
-SamS
Looking good....
Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (Russian: Трофи́м Дени́сович Лысе́нко) (September 29, 1898–November 20, 1976) was an agronomist who was director of Soviet biology under Joseph Stalin. Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics in favor of the hybridization theories of Russian horticulturist Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin, and adopted them into a powerful political scientific movement termed Lysenkoism. His unorthodox experimental research in improved crop yields earned the support of Soviet leadership, especially following the famine and loss of productivity resulting from forced collectivization in several regions of the Soviet Union in the early 1930s. In 1940 he became director of the Institute of Genetics within the USSR's Academy of Sciences, and Lysenko's anti-Mendelian doctrines were further secured in Soviet science and education by the exercise of political influence and power. Scientific dissent from Lysenko's theories of environmentally acquired inheritance was formally outlawed in 1948, and for the next several years opponents were purged from held positions, and many imprisoned. Lysenko's work was officially discredited in the Soviet Union in 1964, leading to a renewed emphasis there to re-institute Mendelian genetics and orthodox science.
Though Lysenko remained at his post in the Institute of Genetics until 1965,[1] his influence on Soviet agricultural practice declined by the 1950s. The Soviet Union quietly abandoned Lysenko's agricultural practices in favor of modern agricultural practices after the crop yields he promised failed to materialize. Today much of Lysenko's agricultural experimentation and research is largely viewed as fraudulent.
Lysenko was put in charge of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union and made responsible for ending the propagation of "harmful" ideas among Soviet scientists. Lysenko served this purpose by causing the expulsion, imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists and eliminating all study and research involving Mendelian genetics throughout the Soviet Union. This period is known as Lysenkoism. He bears particular responsibility for the persecution of his predecessor and rival, prominent Soviet biologist Nikolai Vavilov, which ended in 1943 with the imprisoned Vavilov's death by starvation.
In 1964, physicist Andrei Sakharov spoke out against Lysenko in the General Assembly of the Academy of Sciences:
He is responsible for the shameful backwardness of Soviet biology and of genetics in particular, for the dissemination of pseudo-scientific views, for adventurism, for the degradation of learning, and for the defamation, firing, arrest, even death, of many genuine scientists.
Lysenko died in 1976.
Epigenetic inheritance
Forms of 'soft' or epigenetic inheritance within organisms have been suggested as neo-Lamarckian in nature by such scientists as Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb. In addition to 'hard' or genetic inheritance, involving the duplication of genetic material and its segregation during meiosis, there are other hereditary elements that pass into the germ cells also. These include things like methylation patterns in DNA and chromatin marks, both of which regulate the activity of genes. These are considered "Lamarckian" in the sense that they are responsive to environmental stimuli and can differentially affect gene expression adaptively, with phenotypic results that can persist for many generations in certain organisms. Although the reality of epigenetic inheritance is not doubted (as countless experiments have validated it) its significance to the evolutionary process is however uncertain. Most neo-Darwinians consider epigenetic inheritance mechanisms to be little more than a specialized form of phenotypic plasticity, with no potential to introduce evolutionary novelty into a species lineage
-SamS
Last edited:
LOL well im assumin you arent a stalinist mass murdererbubbl3r said:
from what i remember of his *theories*, he believed that the *environment* that the parents were brought up in could directly affect the characteristics of the offspring. kind of like, if you low-stress trained a sativa to grow in a smaller space, its offspring would demonstrate those characteristics unaided.
bubbl3r
Member
flubnutz said:yeah, that was kind of a dog's breakfast, guess i'm not gonna be published in "Science" any time soon
"I believe that cannabis plants have the ability to influence each other, in a dominant way, by adapting to a given environment. A sort of co-existence survival trait if you will. Some have more influence than others. Why is it so unbelieveable, that when different strains of cannabis are grown very closely together, that some individuals can express dominance over the group, by either physically or chemically changing themselves, or perhaps even instigating the change in the other plants."
in my post i was referring to how plants *could* affect each other, much as the presence of some male mammal's presence could cause a female of the species to go into estrus outside of their normal cycle, based on the male's pheremones. or, that co-habitation of a bunch of human females in prison can cause their ovulation to synchronize. or, the presence of other plants may somehow stress a pot plant, causing latent hermie characteristics to appear. the other organism causes physical changes to occur in the organism in question. but, i believe that the capacity for such changes already reside in the genetic makeup of the organism.
i referred to lysenkoism because you seem to be implying that the environment a plant grows in can directly affect its genetic structure, in a way outside of mutation (which is almost always deleterious), and that these characteristics would then be passed on to subsequent generations, as opposed to the environment causing underlying genetic potential to manifest itself. i may be wrong in that assumption.
perhaps you sum up your hypothesis and the observations you've made to give rise to them in a single post; the thread really is scatter-shot. i really dont see anything to lead one to believe that "potency" is a dominant or recessive characteristic. you state that "... cannabis plants have the ability to influence each other, in a dominant way, by adapting to a given environment. A sort of co-existence survival trait if you will". what do you mean by a plant influencing another one "in a dominant way"? and what do you mean by their doing this "by adapting to a given environment", and how is this a "co-existence survival traint"? are you suggesting that a particular plant may be "dominant" and stunt or eliminates other, adjacent plants of the same species, in order to "hoard" resources for itself?
I agree with almost everything your suggesting here...
Think I have given it before, but here's the link again for those that want to hear, other folk's views on the subject also:-
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=67290
What do I mean by...."A sort of co-existence survival trait if you will"
Well imagine your the new kid on the block, in a volatile neighbourhood. What do you think is your best strategy for survival, and ultimately reproduction?...lol
Do you try to make new friends, by blending in, and maybe joining a gang...or do you stick your chest out, and think hey I'm above all this, I'm different, I don't need to get involved.
What do you think your chances are, of reproducing with the local girls, if you follow one, or the other of those strategies?
You know going back to plants, I've heard the female cannabis plant can actively decide, which pollen she wants to accept. Some sort of selective interaction between the pistils, and chemical coding of the pollen.
In going back to the analogy, how do you think a large group of females would behave, in terms of getting along with the group, and ultimately attracting a mate or mates?
I don't think it's too unrealistic, to believe that plants share a similar survival and reproductive pressure, that many other organisms do, and have their own ways of adapting to ensure their survival.
This sort of lead's me on nicely, to a discussion on whether anyone believes that Hermaphrotism is also a recessive trait?
Bubbl3r
Last edited:
bubbl3r
Member
Pops, LMAO at politicians!
Lol why not, I'm sure someone will accuse me, of being related to Hitler at some stage.
Yes, I see what you saying here.
I think its very possible, that stress has a direct influence on genetic viabilty, successful reproduction and possibly genetic manipulation over time.
Question: Why can't there be the existence of a gene, that is responsible for a limited amount of genetic variance, that is stimulated or triggered by the rise in stress levels?
Not just a gene, or latent gene, or allele or trait that manifests itself under stress, but a gene that actively produces a variance in the dna of the offspring, in response to high stress levels?
A sort of "I'm not gonna let the kids go through, the same as what I have been through"... type of analogy.
That would partly be in tune with Darwinism, evolution and the theory of natural selection.
Bubbl3r
flubnutz said:
Lol why not, I'm sure someone will accuse me, of being related to Hitler at some stage.
Yes, I see what you saying here.
I think its very possible, that stress has a direct influence on genetic viabilty, successful reproduction and possibly genetic manipulation over time.
Question: Why can't there be the existence of a gene, that is responsible for a limited amount of genetic variance, that is stimulated or triggered by the rise in stress levels?
Not just a gene, or latent gene, or allele or trait that manifests itself under stress, but a gene that actively produces a variance in the dna of the offspring, in response to high stress levels?
A sort of "I'm not gonna let the kids go through, the same as what I have been through"... type of analogy.
That would partly be in tune with Darwinism, evolution and the theory of natural selection.
Bubbl3r
Last edited:
bubbl3r said:
bubbl3r said:
I think knowledge is recessive in many people. Neo-Lamarckian's like yourself need to realize that this has all been discussed many times in the last 100+ years and disproved. This is nothing new you are proposing, it has been suggested over and over that what you suggest is true. The only problem is that it can not be proven like Mandelian genetics has been proven. Sure you can quote a few exceptions to the rules, but thats all they are, exceptions to the rules. Genetics don't work like you think they work, simple.
Law of Segregation
The Law of Segregation, also known as Mendel's First Law, essentially has three parts.
Alternative versions of genes account for variations in inherited characteristics. This is the concept of alleles. Alleles are different versions of genes that impart the same characteristic. For example, each human has genes that control eye color, but there are variations among these genes in accordance with the specific color for which the gene "codes".
For each characteristic, an organism inherits two alleles, one from each parent. This means that when somatic cells are produced from two alleles, one allele comes from the mother and one from the father. These alleles may be the same (true-breeding organisms/homozygous e.g. ww and rr in Fig. 3), or different (hybrids/heterozygous, e.g. wr in Fig. 3).
The two alleles for each characteristic segregate during gamete production. This means that each gamete will contain only one allele for each gene. This allows the maternal and paternal alleles to be combined in the offspring, ensuring variation.
N.B It is often misconstrued that the gene itself is dominant, recessive, codominant, or incompletely dominant. It is, however, the trait or gene product that the allele encodes that is dominant, etc.
Law of Independent Assortment
The Law of Independent Assortment, also known as "Inheritance Law", states that the inheritance pattern of one trait will not affect the inheritance pattern of another. While Mendel's experiments with mixing one trait always resulted in a 3:1 ratio (Fig. 1) between dominant and recessive phenotypes, his experiments with mixing two traits (dihybrid cross) showed 9:3:3:1 ratios (Fig. 2). But the 9:3:3:1 table shows that each of the two genes are independently inherited with a 3:1 ratio. Mendel concluded that different traits are inherited independently of each other, so that there is no relation, for example, between a cat's color and tail length. This is actually only true for genes that are not linked to each other.
Independent assortment occurs during meiosis I in eukaryotic organisms, specifically anaphase I of meiosis,[3] to produce a gamete with a mixture of the organism's maternal and paternal chromosomes. Along with chromosomal crossover, this process aids in increasing genetic diversity by producing novel genetic combinations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance
Last edited:
bubbl3r
Member
Sam, I'm starting to detect a synical attitude towards my theories, which has unfortunately been like a plague in this thread.
Care to explain how those so called "variants" occured in the first place Sam, and whether or not it's quite likely that more and more "variants" will occur in the future?
You can shout all the laws you like, but it's exactly what they don't say or explain, that I find amusing.
[/QUOTE]N.B It is often misconstrued that the gene itself is dominant, recessive, codominant, or incompletely dominant. It is, however, the trait or gene product that the allele encodes that is dominant, etc.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for cleaning this one up for us Sam.
[/QUOTE]Law of Independent Assortment...Mendel concluded that different traits are inherited independently of each other, so that there is no relation, for example, between a cat's color and tail length. This is actually only true for genes that are not linked to each other.][/QUOTE]
Sam, not sure what this means...so is it a law or not, when something isn't totally true?
[/QUOTE]Independent assortment occurs during meiosis I in eukaryotic organisms, specifically anaphase I of meiosis,[3] to produce a gamete with a mixture of the organism's maternal and paternal chromosomes. Along with chromosomal crossover, this process aids in increasing genetic diversity by producing novel genetic combinations.][/QUOTE]
Lmao....Sam care to comment on the facts, or I'm happy to even accept speculation, on exactly why gene crossover is not always a straight swap, in the early Anaphase 1 stage?
i.e. What causes the homologous chromosomes to suddenly demonstrate recombination, at the separation stage?
Also, while your at it, why not tell us what the general consencious is, on what exactly causes mutation at this stage, and how never previously seen before inherited diseases are encoded, only to show up later in life?
Bubbl3r
Sam_Skunkman said:
Care to explain how those so called "variants" occured in the first place Sam, and whether or not it's quite likely that more and more "variants" will occur in the future?
You can shout all the laws you like, but it's exactly what they don't say or explain, that I find amusing.
[/QUOTE]N.B It is often misconstrued that the gene itself is dominant, recessive, codominant, or incompletely dominant. It is, however, the trait or gene product that the allele encodes that is dominant, etc.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for cleaning this one up for us Sam.
[/QUOTE]Law of Independent Assortment...Mendel concluded that different traits are inherited independently of each other, so that there is no relation, for example, between a cat's color and tail length. This is actually only true for genes that are not linked to each other.][/QUOTE]
Sam, not sure what this means...so is it a law or not, when something isn't totally true?
[/QUOTE]Independent assortment occurs during meiosis I in eukaryotic organisms, specifically anaphase I of meiosis,[3] to produce a gamete with a mixture of the organism's maternal and paternal chromosomes. Along with chromosomal crossover, this process aids in increasing genetic diversity by producing novel genetic combinations.][/QUOTE]
Lmao....Sam care to comment on the facts, or I'm happy to even accept speculation, on exactly why gene crossover is not always a straight swap, in the early Anaphase 1 stage?
i.e. What causes the homologous chromosomes to suddenly demonstrate recombination, at the separation stage?
Also, while your at it, why not tell us what the general consencious is, on what exactly causes mutation at this stage, and how never previously seen before inherited diseases are encoded, only to show up later in life?
Bubbl3r
Last edited:
Bubbl3r, it seems that you have some secret agenda, but no one (except you) seems to know what it is. You can tease us all you want, but I am afraid that you have lost me. I will go back to downloading internet porn. It is more interesting and makes more sense.
I know what it is... He's pretending to have a secret, but...Pops said:
Like his predecessor, Lysenko... and following in the tradition of breeder hating trolls... he is here to be responsible for the addition of shameful backwardness to cannabis biology and to genetics in particular, for the dissemination of pseudo-scientific views, for the degradation of learning, and for the defamation of genuine science... :wink:
bubbl3r
Member
LOL Pops, you can still tune in, while your waiting for them to land....lol.
We are still waiting on some unanswered questions, and when we catch up, the next topic for discussion is Hermaphrotism.
How did it come about, is it a recessive trait, can it be linked to low potency.
Bubbl3r
We are still waiting on some unanswered questions, and when we catch up, the next topic for discussion is Hermaphrotism.
How did it come about, is it a recessive trait, can it be linked to low potency.
Bubbl3r
- Status
