is this how you breed quality genetics?

[fadetoclear]

tom, can you please explain to a neophyte your meaning of "self"? i'm assuming you mean forced sex reversal. though i know your busy, can you please explain how this would benefit in gene selection. also, i was under the influence forced sex reversal multiplies the chances of intersexing in subsequent generations.

in no way am i being facetious. i am genuinely curious yet obviously naive on the exact subject (yet not naive to breeding in general, just the process of selfing in relation to gene selection). i've noticed you speak about this here and there lately and i was under the impression the whole forced sex reversal thing was a fad that was doing more harm than good in the long run.

 

[Tom Hill]

"Self" means just like it sounds, one individual and one individual only, contributing to the following generation.

Whether it is forced or not, and to what degree, is somewhat besides the point. An individual may be easily forced, and yet her progeny difficult to force. We'd do well to lift ourselves outside of this ridiculous paradigm we seem to be stuck in and reaslize that these are the facts.

The only thing that multiplies the chances of intersex progeny coming from any individual is what's in said individuals genes, period. Nothing that has to do with how the plant is bred has any influence whatsoever, and never has. Nor has anybody ever to date been able to even bring forth a reasonable hypothesis to justify such comments, let alone test them, but they spew forth this garble anabaded anyhow, why, is what I am genuinely curious about.

 

[PWF]

that completely ignores a newer facet of genetics called epi-genetics.
this is where environment triggers genetic responses phenotypically and can affect heritability.
something to think on.
peace,
pwf

 

[Tom Hill]

nonsense, and epigenetics is by no means new.

 

[PWF]

hey man, did i say it was new?
what the fuck are you calling nonsense btw?

 

[Tom Hill]

Everything,,, EVERYTHING, is under the control of genes ultimately, including to what degree and individual may be affected by environment, in this life, and the next and so on and so forth. Everything.

 

[Tom Hill]

new, newer, shit, manure, whatever, it's bs.

 

[PWF]

so what?
what does that have to do with infering something i posted is nonsense?
you mis quote me on top of that.
are you trying to start shit with me?

 

[PWF]

back your statements up.
you are unpleasant towards me why?

 

[Tom Hill]

consider the reverse? I have "completely ignored" nothing.

 

[PWF]

you completely ignore the effect on phenotypical expression as induced by environmental cues which trigger genes that otherwise would be dormant or untriggered.
you have no reason to treat me with this contempt.

 

[Tom Hill]

Nor you I sir, but that bothers me about as much as daylight. All environmental cues are under the influence of genetics, period, end of story, epigenetics are a moot point.

 

[Raco]

Nor you I sir, but that bothers me about as much as daylight. All environmental cues are under the influence of genetics, period, end of story, epigenetics are a moot point.

What he said ^

Epigenetic changes are reversible....correct me if I´m wrong

keep it civil amigos

 

[Tom Hill]

It's almost as if some spotted a little red mark, and mistook it for blood, lol. The truth is still the truth, last time I checked.

 

[Tonygreen]

Y chromosomes are for junk dna.

 

[PWF]

you back up nothing.
show me where i have treated you with contempt that you are so unbothered by.
moot means it is arguable yet unprovable.
epi-genetics is not new as you stated and it is not hypothesis.
selfing has alot yet to be studied and discovered and you are no geneticist identifying genes in cannabis let alone how those genes are reacting. if you think you can call me or my posts nonsense you had better back it up because my post is based on obseving many of your posts taking a hardline stance about things youre just now learning and i doubt you have much real world use for besides your trophy selfing theories. yes, theyre theories because of the variability being found in selfed stock. you are teetering on nonsense yourself for taking a hardline stance on a subject that, in regards to cannabis certainly, has alot of study left to it. you are making statements that you havent backed up.
i'm not making any statements about your precious genetics topic other than the observation that you completely ignore epi-genetics.
epi-genetics tells me that selfing only shows you what selfing would show and you ignore the fact that one may very likely not get usable results if they wanted to use what they find in a single specimin. selfing shows you what selfing will give you, nothing more. it tells you nothing of if those results will be carried over in a normal fxm cross even if you self your male.
there are no shortcuts.
selfing is just an added step, not a window into the future of how a plant will react in a fxm cross.
you have no reason to treat me with such contempt.

 

[Tonygreen]

Idk about contempt PWF but your punctuation is horrible and your sentence structure is laborious to read.

Most selfed stock for sale is a s1 of a random f1 cross, thats why they generally show alot of variability, that and alot of seed companies dont seem to genotype test their lines before they release them. How many random male x female crosses are for sale right now that have show major variability? That is not due to method of sexual reproduction it is due to lazy people making these lines not testing them properly.

Hell its not just the fems showing variability. You get that shit just as bad from non fem standard seeds for some of the same reasons, people are not genotype testing before they release alot of times and most shit is a poly hybrid mess.

 

[Tonygreen]

The method of sexual reproduction has nothing to do with the stability of the line.
The genes do and how they match up...

 

[PWF]

what is wrong with variability again?
i am missing the point on not wanting variability and the reasons ive been given to-date dont support the distain i read people expressing towards this variability.
hitler wanted all one type too.

 

[PWF]

if punctuation is your only complaint then i cannot help you.
seems trite.
ever read a paper written by almost any scientist or doctor? most have help in that. i dont.
please criticize my punctuation skills, it matters the most.