GMT re C. "c) why would I want a population that if I want to breed it without polluting the work I've done ie reintroducing genes I may not want, I have to go against a or b?"
There was not enough info there, pollute in what way exactly? All I am contending is that it is better to drive hard in many directions, knowing that we'll fail on many of those paths (slaughter as much ego as possible if you will), than to drive in one direction, with some "art in selection" leading the way (good lord). If I am going to fail at something, I guess I'd rather get it over with than drag it out, same goes for success? Again, this is exactly why modern day selection methods were developed, to scew maths in our favor, were they not?
There was not enough info there, pollute in what way exactly? All I am contending is that it is better to drive hard in many directions, knowing that we'll fail on many of those paths (slaughter as much ego as possible if you will), than to drive in one direction, with some "art in selection" leading the way (good lord). If I am going to fail at something, I guess I'd rather get it over with than drag it out, same goes for success? Again, this is exactly why modern day selection methods were developed, to scew maths in our favor, were they not?