Grat3fulh3ad said: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.
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:Ok, so sometimes there are alleles that are always dominant, on a given locus!....and are there also, some alleles that are always recessive on a given locus?
Bubbl3r
Grat3fulh3ad said: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...
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 said:Yes Suzy, it's this easy....Cannabis is POTENT by default!
It's DNA composition makes it so...but over the years, and as a result of evolution, natural selection, mutation and eventually inbreeding, it has become the recessive excuse it is today.
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.
Thats the stand point, and belief I have, and quite frankly there hasn't been anyone so far, that has provided any proof to the contrary.
200 years ago, a man would have been laughed of the planet, for even suggesting that the Earth was round....lmao.
Bubbl3r
ScienceDaily (Aug. 11, 2006) — Scientists at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) have found that invasive crab species may precipitate evolutionary change in blue mussels in as little as 15 years. The study, by UNH graduate student Aaren Freeman with associate professor of zoology James Byers and published in the Aug. 11 issue of the journal Science, indicates that such a response can evolve in an evolutionary nanosecond compared to the thousands of years previously assumed. The paper is called "Divergent induced responses to an invasive predator in marine mussel populations."
Sam_Skunkman 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
suzycremecheese said: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.
Sam_Skunkman said: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)
-SamS
But one animal/organism still cannot evolve during it's lifetime.3dDream said:Ok, it is an animal, I know. The fact still remains that a animal can evolve in a short amount of time.
You're still just wishing something you imagine to be true could be.bubbl3r 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
bubbl3r 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
Grat3fulh3ad said:You're really just some troll with a hard on against breeders.