Is low potency a recessive trait?

[Pops]

H3ad, you can try to make me into a servant, but I will guarantee that I eat more than I am worth!

(Looks like arrogance is a double dominant allele, as well)

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Vic High,
I remember him well...
We used to debate the merits of RSS and cubing, I felt they were all but useless for home breeders, he thought they were the schnitzzle.
I felt that RSS & Cubbing works poorly for quantitative traits, like those found in Cannabis.


PS Vic got this one point wrong...
"Like say the are resistant to a problem pest like powdery mildew."
Powdery Mildew is a disease not a pest.

-SamS

 

[RockyMountainHi]

Sorry pops... brown eyed homozygous people are perfect, and the nasty recessive blue eye gene bearers are intended to be our servants...

ohhhh SOOOOO Very close, just that ya got it backwards - which considering your gender - is quite "normal" Worth a shot anyway lol


interesting fodder to ponder.

additional question -

Say a mother is stressed - can that plant ever recover - and is that plant genetically different from clones taken before the stress?

How about after the stress? Can the clones taken after the stress, be productive?

If genes are altered - can they be changed back?


I have read about human genes ageing and changing, are plants prone to the same characteristics?

 

[bubbl3r]

ohhhh SOOOOO Very close, just that ya got it backwards - which considering your gender - is quite "normal" Worth a shot anyway lol


interesting fodder to ponder.

additional question -

Say a mother is stressed - can that plant ever recover - and is that plant genetically different from clones taken before the stress?

How about after the stress? Can the clones taken after the stress, be productive?

If genes are altered - can they be changed back?


I have read about human genes ageing and changing, are plants prone to the same characteristics?

Great point!

Dolly the sheep, was the first ever successfully cloned sheep, but didn't live long. This was explained, because her "mom", or donor I think is a better word here, was already a relatively mature sheep. This would suggest that although she had the same dna, and was a new born, she also carried the same "life expectancy" for want of a better phrase.

This does of course, points to a gene or genes or genetic code or codes that are responsible, for starting the aging process, leading eventually to death. What brings about this change may well be stress.

Hermaphrotism, hermies, and intersex traits are all related to stress, and it may well be, a "survival trait" that has evolved in response to stress.

For example, the plant gets stressed, realises it can't carry on in that environment, and tries to "self induce" reproduction before its too late.

The test for this hypothesis, would be if there is any evidence, that the flowering times of these hermed plants is both shorter and quicker, than plants that haven't been subject to stress.



"I have read about human genes ageing and changing, are plants prone to the same characteristics?"

Similar yes!...they have a predetermined dna "guideline" instruction to follow...the phenotypical expressions will also vary.


" Say a mother is stressed - can that plant ever recover - and is that plant genetically different from clones taken before the stress?"

Up to a certain point no, then after that point definitely yes, for both questions!

I believe clones taken from a vegging plant, at the stage when the plant is healthy and growth is accelerating, will provide far better dna material, than taking cuts from say a re-vegged plant for instance.


"If genes are altered - can they be changed back? "

Most definitely, but not in any so called "natural environment", except for a freak mutation. I believe they can in a laboratory to some extent.

Gene "mapping and manipulation" is the hot research, thats going on today. They are all trying to get there first, to unlock the secrets, and cash in on the discoveries.

What gets me is, if they do discover and can prove fundaments, like we came from another planet, descended from the space bros, or that we are the atermath of some cruel experiment, would they really tell us?...I mean, there's this phrase "not in the public's interest" that they keep hiding behind, and it bugs me. Surely, I have the right to know, and draw my own conclusions from the info. Surely the truth, is always in the "public interest" no matter what it is, and no matter how controversial.





Bubbl3r

 

[bubbl3r]

Thanks for that. I can't believe this is the thread that grabbed me.



What is a true trait? Will you define that? Instead of the word rare infrequent might suit the conversation better but I get your point.



What do you mean by mish mash? I think I know but I'd like to hear you elaborate on it.



I will be the first to admit that the majority of cannabis breeders and seed makers aren't doing Cannabis any good... but this idea that you have that dominant traits are good and recessive traits (I still think you mean allele variations) are all bad just perplexes me. If that was true there would never have been a need or desire to breed... like you said we started with the perfect Cannabis for every situation.

First there is no such thing as "good" or "bad" when it comes to traits, genes, alleles, whatever. There is only our perception of what is good and bad. Every allele in Cannabis is in there because it either aided in survival at one time or another. Even recessive alleles. They are all good for Cannabis and if they aren't in use right now they will hang out until they are needed or selected against. If they are detrimental to a line in some particular condition they will be selected against until they are eliminated or occurring at a very low frequency.

Breeders and seed makers don't "make" alleles. They may move them from one line to another, increase the frequency of them, but more importantly they may accidentally, and unknowingly lose some... forever.

Sure "mishmashes" suck if you're trying to get back to some ancestor that might be partially hiding in some line you may be working with but I'd rather have a mash of all the allele possibilities than lose any one forever.

See how I did that? I don't even know how I warp everything towards preservation... it just happens.

Suzy, at last some real prespective being contributed here, instead of the bible bashing attitude, towards certain knit picking facts.


1) The true traits were the ones expressed by the original.

2) The complex combination of codependent genes, and variable traits, that result in an inferior example of the original true genetics.

Again for those who didn't catch it the first time, "JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING EXISTS IN NATURE, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT'S NATURAL".



"Sure "mishmashes" suck if you're trying to get back to some ancestor that might be partially hiding in some line you may be working with but I'd rather have a mash of all the allele possibilities than lose any one forever."

Yes this is so true!...I mean, now we have this mess, it's almost impossible to determine which ones are which. This is why we need to preserve all of them, till such a time when we find out the truth.


"See how I did that? I don't even know how I warp everything towards preservation... it just happens."

Oh I do Suzy, it's the caring nature you have, that is at the heart of your fundamental beliefs.

Btw, warp is not a bad word. It's just the short hand process people use, to present the facts and express personal opinions, on any given subject. It's only when it's done disingenously, that it becomes a dirty word.




Bubbl3r

 

[joaquin386]

Sam I have a question that have been going around my mind lately.

The resin that a cannabis plant produces is a method of protection towards the sunlight?

 

[bubbl3r]

it's like driving past a car crash,lol.

Lol, if there's a disaster here, then it's the twisted genetic wreckage of the Cannabis genome, thats being observed,. Both nature and man have distorted it, by showing only an isolation and selective process, towards preservation.


Save the Holiest of Herbs first, and then the planet!


Bubbl3r

 

[bubbl3r]

Vic High,
I remember him well...
We used to debate the merits of RSS and cubing, I felt they were all but useless for home breeders, he thought they were the schnitzzle.
I felt that RSS & Cubbing works poorly for quantitative traits, like those found in Cannabis.


PS Vic got this one point wrong...
"Like say the are resistant to a problem pest like powdery mildew."
Powdery Mildew is a disease not a pest.

-SamS

I dunno Sam, as disease can also be a "pest" if it's unwanted, at any given time.

While on the subject, can you tell me what happened to Vic High, and why he's no longer around?



Bubbl3r

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Vic is very recessive....

Is there a difference between a pest and a disease? I say yes. A pest is an insect or higher life form, including man. A disease is all the rest like Fungi, Bacteria, Virus, etc. Thats why Agricultural books refer to Pest's and Disease's of crops.
Maybe I am wrong but this is how I always used the terms, and I think I will continue unless I am shown to be 100% wrong.
Organisms may be divided into the prokaryotic and eukaryotic groups. The prokaryotes represent two separate domains, the Bacteria and Archaea. All fungi, animals and plants are eukaryotes.
The word "organism" may broadly be defined as an assembly of molecules that function as a more or less stable whole and has the properties of life. However, many sources propose definitions that exclude viruses. Viruses are not typically considered to be organisms because they are incapable of "independent" reproduction or metabolism.

-SamS

 

[bubbl3r]

Definition is just one answer to a question. Vic was probably using it metaphorically speaking, in that a mould can be pestilent at times. i.e. Pestilent - Infected or contaminated with a disease.

Any idea what happened to him, is he still alive?




Bubbl3r

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Sorry pops... brown eyed homozygous people are perfect, and the nasty recessive blue eye gene bearers are intended to be our servants...

Originally Posted by RockyMountainHi
ohhhh SOOOOO Very close, just that ya got it backwards - which considering your gender - is quite "normal" Worth a shot anyway lol

According to bubbl3r's law...

1. Brown eyed homozygous in the TRUE trait.
2. Brown eye homozygous is the original trait.
3. Blue eye homozygous and brown eyed heterozygous are an inferior example of the original true genetics.
4. Brown eye homozygous is good.
5. Blue eyes trait is an example of a nasty recessive trait.
7. Recessive traits like blue eyes are bad.
6. Bad traits attract/create other nasty recessive traits.

 

[bubbl3r]

According to bubbl3r's law...

1. Brown eyed homozygous in the TRUE trait.
2. Brown eye homozygous is the original trait.
3. Blue eye homozygous and brown eyed heterozygous are an inferior example of the original true genetics.
4. Brown eye homozygous is good.
5. Blue eyes trait is an example of a nasty recessive trait.
7. Recessive traits like blue eyes are bad.
6. Bad traits attract/create other nasty recessive traits.

Plant's don't have eyes so these statements are quite useless....but I will humour you and pretend otherwise.

1) I haven't speculated on what traits were true in the original, other than to say it was supremely potent.
2) Same answer as 1.
3) Same answer as 1.
4) That is correct.
5) + 7) That is correct.
6) No. I said it's the accumulative effect of recessive traits that compounds and facilitates, the rise of more recessive traits in the future.


Just because you may happen to like, or select for say blue eyes, doesn't mean that they are desireable genetically.

You may think they are pretty and desireable, but at the end of the day, they are simply genetical defects.

Genetically speaking, they are simply a bi-product or manifestation, of an undesired recessive mutation of an allele.




Bubbl3r

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

Genetically speaking, they are simply a bi-product or manifestation, of an undesired recessive mutation of an allele.


Bubbl3r

you know, part of growing up is the ability to discard badly thought ideas, shed your skin buddy, you need it or it will end up choking the air out of you... all those ideas you present are just like the nazi epigenetics.

see, when you do not even have a point of reference in terms of so-called "genetic perfection", how are you going to set the standards of what dominant and recessive? in relation to what? do you get this?

phew! , you have a lot of mud to clear, good luck.

Paz

 

[suzycremecheese]

1) The true traits were the ones expressed by the original.

There was no one "original." There were many. Cannabis evolved from another plant and it had genetic diversity then. Maybe the original went extinct or maybe they have both changed so much over the ions that the two are unrecognizable today but Cannabis did not start with only one allele at every locus. It had many alleles in a population and they frequencies varied based on the environment and reproductive habits. Since this is true... unless you believe that God placed one perfect Cannabis plant on the planet and everything devolved from that... then there is no reason to discuss this further... then your idea that there is such a thing as a "true trait" is false.

Again for those who didn't catch it the first time, "JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING EXISTS IN NATURE, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT'S NATURAL".

OK but unless a sequence is moved from one species to another by man in a lab then I would tend to believe that all allele options occurring in plants that are not genetically modified are natural. They are merely shuffled around or increased/ decreased in frequency, by the breeder, or the environment. That doesn't make them unnatural.

 

[Weedman Herb]

Assume we are of this planet ... and being animals of this planet, wouldn't our selection and hybridization of cannabis be part of a Natural Process ? Sure humans may have sped the process up but are we doing things that are against nature by helping along this Natural Process ? We aid in pollination but bees do too. I'm not slamming unlike genes into a potato here (Monsanto) or crossing weed with an artichoke or a hummingbird. What makes us playing with weed unnatural ?

 

[Pops]

Obviously, people who are blue eyed are homozygous,and since, blue eyes are tied directly to intelligence and good looks, blue-eyed people tend to be brilliant and handsome, while brown-eyed homozygous people tend to be arrogant and domineering. Hitler was brown eyed, arrogant and domineering. So was my ex-wife. Case closed!

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Plant's don't have eyes so these statements are quite useless....but I will humour you and pretend otherwise.

1) I haven't speculated on what traits were true in the original, other than to say it was supremely potent.
2) Same answer as 1.
3) Same answer as 1.

Bullshit. You said all the original traits were dominant, and that all recessive traits are nasty and added.

4) That is correct.
5) + 7) That is correct.
6) No. I said it's the accumulative effect of recessive traits that compounds and facilitates, the rise of more recessive traits in the future.

Nah, you implied that the presence of nasty recessive traits begets more nasty recessive traits.

Just because you may happen to like, or select for say blue eyes, doesn't mean that they are desireable genetically.

You may think they are pretty and desireable, but at the end of the day, they are simply genetical defects.

Genetically speaking, they are simply a bi-product or manifestation, of an undesired recessive mutation of an allele.

No... the only things that are 'desirable' genetically speaking, are traits which ensure survival and reproduction.

Blue eyes are a genetic defect, eh?

You're sooooo funny, bro...

 

[bubbl3r]

you know, part of growing up is the ability to discard badly thought ideas, shed your skin buddy, you need it or it will end up choking the air out of you... all those ideas you present are just like the nazi epigenetics.

see, when you do not even have a point of reference in terms of so-called "genetic perfection", how are you going to set the standards of what dominant and recessive? in relation to what? do you get this?

phew! , you have a lot of mud to clear, good luck.

Paz

No, I don't understand your question or point. At a guess I think I have answered it already anyway.





Bubbl3r

 

[bubbl3r]

There was no one "original." There were many. Cannabis evolved from another plant and it had genetic diversity then. Maybe the original went extinct or maybe they have both changed so much over the ions that the two are unrecognizable today but Cannabis did not start with only one allele at every locus. It had many alleles in a population and they frequencies varied based on the environment and reproductive habits. Since this is true... unless you believe that God placed one perfect Cannabis plant on the planet and everything devolved from that... then there is no reason to discuss this further... then your idea that there is such a thing as a "true trait" is false..

Suzy, if it's true, what was mentioned earler in this thread, that drug cannabis has 16 genes and hemp has 40+. Then from a genetics prespective, would that data suggest to you, that hemp was the precurser to drug cannabis, or came much, much later?

OK but unless a sequence is moved from one species to another by man in a lab then I would tend to believe that all allele options occurring in plants that are not genetically modified are natural. They are merely shuffled around or increased/ decreased in frequency, by the breeder, or the environment. That doesn't make them unnatural.

Ok, for example, if there was a virus that pracically wiped out all strains of cannabis overnight, almost to extinction, you would be the one to stand up and say " No problem it's was just a natural occurance"....I'm sincerely hoping, that's not what your suggesting.



Bubbl3r

 

[bubbl3r]

Assume we are of this planet ... and being animals of this planet, wouldn't our selection and hybridization of cannabis be part of a Natural Process ? Sure humans may have sped the process up but are we doing things that are against nature by helping along this Natural Process ? We aid in pollination but bees do too. I'm not slamming unlike genes into a potato here (Monsanto) or crossing weed with an artichoke or a hummingbird. What makes us playing with weed unnatural ?

Fantastic!....now someone has mentined Monsanto.

Let me ask you this....how long do you think, it will take those types of companies, to get their greedy light hands on it, if they made cannabis legal overnight?...With their special brand of modified pollen, no cannabis plant would be safe.



Bubbl3r