User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 41 to 48 of 76

Thread: Just to clear some things out for he newbies

  1. #41
    SirKristoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Puyallup, WA United States
    Posts
    4,132
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyro View Post
    Oh boy genetics.... Now I know that tune, who wants to dance??



    To be clear here we are talking about genes and not genetics. Genes, in and of themselves, do not "want" anything. A gene is nothing more than a unit of information, it has no "wants" or "goals".



    A mutation is no more "bad" than it is "good". A mutation simply is. However, how that mutation effects the organism can be said to be "bad" or "good" but that is totally arbitrary depending on who/what is making that determination. For example, most everyone would agree that Sickle Cell Anemia is "bad" and yet, in parts of the world where malaria is rampant, being a carrier for the Sickle Cell gene gives you a resistance to malaria which most people would say is "good". So, is Sickle Cell "bad" or is it "good"?



    You cannot say that they weaken the species, I am sorry Scot. You are putting a trait on genes that simply is not there, basically you are personifying them. I am tired of the "good"/"bad" label because it simply is not applicable so let me use what geneticists use: "Fit", which brings us also to one of the single most misunderstood ideas in genetics/evolution, the idea of "Fitness".

    A gene is "fit" only in relation to other variants (alleles) of that same gene it has nothing to do with the organism as a whole or how that gene relates to other genes.

    So, genetically speaking, Wacky Traps (aka Bart Simpson) and Pugs and Persians and Parrot cichlids are all very much genetically fit because the genes for those traits have survived the process of selection. I grant you that that selection was at the hand of "man" and not "nature" but that simply does not matter.

    The species in and of itself is not weak. There are numerous other alleles of those genes out there and if the selective pressure switches then the unfit genes will be culled from the population and new ones will take their place.



    Again, genes do not want, they simply are. You must quit personifying them.

    And for the record, cancer is actually the ultimate in fitness from a genetic stand point. Immortality is the ultimate in "self-preservation".



    Just because a mutant gene is present in a pool does not by default mean that pol is weakened. Again I point you back to the Sickle Cell gene, outside of malaria regions it is not a fit gene but within those malaria areas it is most certainly a fit gene, and purging it from those populations would actually hurt them. I can think of many other cases where the presence of a mutant gene actually ended up conferring a fitness unto a population by its presence.

    So, you cannot correctly say that mutant individuals will, by default, harm the population.



    That argument does not stand up to reason though. There are perfectly normal looking plants from perfectly normal looking parents that are in no way genetically related to "cup traps" and yet harbor "weakness" genes and could produce weak offspring. Whether a plant grows weakly is likely not the result of a single gene. Every year people are producing plants from crosses where they sow the seed out and a few years later the weak plants have died or been pulled but the strong plants are sent out to others likely carrying some of those same genes that made their siblings weak. And yet no one baulks about that.



    The example hits a flaw though. While you may not like those genes popping up in your collection some one else may. I can relate this back to a snake breeder who bred a couple snakes together looking for one result (piebald) and got out another (piebald, axanthic and piebald axanthic). He was not aware that either snake carried the axanthic gene but he was thrilled to discover they did.


    When we are dealing with such things as "desirable" mutations there is always a level of subjectivity on what exactly is desirable. You do not like cup trap and I do. I do not like fused tooth and you do. So what happes is that I do not breed fused tooth plants and you do not breed cup traps and some people will want my plants and some people will want your traps and then one day someone who wants a fused tooth cup trap will get both of our plants and breed them together and get something new and unusual that will rock the VFT community. So while we each have our dislikes the genes behind those dislikes still have their fitness under the selective pressure of the collector. No "good". No "bad".

    Well said Pyro, i couldnt have come near to saying it any better myself!

  2. #42
    RL7836's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyro View Post
    Oh boy genetics.... Now I know that tune, who wants to dance??
    ((snip // snip))
    I think my brain just got larger from the new information ...
    All the best,
    Ron
    You must do the thing you think you cannot do. --- Eleanor Roosevelt

    *** Growlist / Wants / Offers ***
    (with Pics)

  3. #43
    Admin- I'm growing CPs in the Desert of Tucson, Az. adnedarn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona USA
    Posts
    8,432
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Great post Travis, +1million!

    I actually wanted to share a tray of Cupped Traps with you all- while some clones may be weak... I definitely disagree that all of them are. I have had some typicals that looked far worse than these... A picture version of what Travis just said I guess haha
    Andrew




    -Andrew
    Owner of TerraForums, FlyTrapShop.com, and cpforums.org.
    Support FlyTrapShop, support TerraForums! www.flytrapshop.com

  4. #44
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    TC also aint any more likely to produce weak individuals than seed grown.......ive had around 100 seeds from a nep a couple different times, say all 100 germinate about 30-50 get culled either by me cause of weak growth i dont approve of or by "nature" cause they dont want to adapt to my rough growing techniques and just keel over at some point.....some of the weakest growing plants i have seen in CP's or in most any other plant group are seed grown.....if you buy a small seedgrown plant your generally running a higher risk of getting a weak individual than by buying a plant from a known TC clone.....

    seed grown plants have their place and i encourage ppl to get them but screaming from the roof tops that they are some how superior growers to TC plants is plain stupid and comes from individuals with no experience with actually growing large quantities of plants from seed......
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  5. #45
    scottychaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Western New York, USA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyro View Post
    So, genetically speaking, Wacky Traps (aka Bart Simpson) and Pugs and Persians and Parrot cichlids are all very much genetically fit because the genes for those traits have survived the process of selection. I grant you that that selection was at the hand of "man" and not "nature" but that simply does not matter.
    you are wrong about pugs and persians and parrot cichlids..
    they really are remarkably "weak" simply because they have bred to be "cute"..
    Persian cats and pug dogs have been bred to have flattened, smooshed faces, so they look more human and "cute"..this results in breathing problems, asthma, and shortened life.
    these are very inferior animals, compared to the ideal of the species..
    they would never survive in nature..they are inferior animals, bred, on purpose, by humans, to be deliberately deformed..which causes the animals to have medical problems..
    how is that not "weakness"? then when people breed these poor animals with other breeds, it introduces these genes into the larger gene pool of the entire species..

    If humans ceased to exist, eventually these traits would be culled out..which would be a good thing..but as long as humans exist these "weak" animals will be allowed to exist, and suffer..

    Parrot cichlids often cant eat normally, because their mouths are so seriously deformed..on purpose..they have a shortened lifespan because they are so inferior to the "normal" varieties they are derived from..again..thats a deliberate man-made weakness, all in the name of novelty and making money..

    Can Bart Simpson VFT's actually catch bugs? if they cant, thats a weakness and a disadvantage for that plant..when those plants are bred with "normal" VFT's, the genes are allowed to enter the main gene pool..


    And for the record, cancer is actually the ultimate in fitness from a genetic stand point. Immortality is the ultimate in "self-preservation".
    I dont understand what you mean by that..how is cancer immortal?


    So, you cannot correctly say that mutant individuals will, by default, harm the population.
    yes I can say that..the entire population of Persian cats is very much harmed..
    they cant breath properly, they often have asthma, all in the name of smooshed "cute" faces..of course that is deliberate harm..how can it not be harm?

    and if those genes get into the general cat population, you end up with cats with characteristics that have the potential to cause harm..weakened cats..which would not happen naturally..

    I dont see how it cant be conisdered harm, or weakness..

    tell me how a Pug dog or a Persian cat or a Bart Simpson VFT is MORE fit (or even equally fit) than a "typical" variety, and maybe I will believe you..but you cant do that..because its simply not true..because they are most definitely less fit..bred to be less fit purposely by humans..only for the novelty, or for making money..how can that be considered a good thing?

    Scot

  6. #46
    War. War never changes. Est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Champaign, IL
    Posts
    3,935
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    how is that not "weakness"? then when people breed these poor animals with other breeds, it introduces these genes into the larger gene pool of the entire species..
    I do believe that the point was that they are not weak because it's people making the selection, not nature. They may be less healthy, but so long as people select for those traits, the genes are more fit. The difference of opinion lies in that reference frame. A gene may lower fitness by natural selection, but as you well know, this is a case where it isn't "nature" selecting.

    I dont understand what you mean by that..how is cancer immortal?
    I'm sure Travis can better elucidate than I, but here goes. Cancer shuts down apoptotic pathways -- that is, it prevents cells from "killing" itself because it is damaged. Normally, when a cell ceases to function correctly, apoptosis (programmed cell dead, as it's often referred to) is used to cull the cell. Furthermore, there are lines of cancerous cells which have been used in lab and successfully reproduced for the past 50 or 60 years (search HeLa for more).

    Other mechanisms are induced that prevent cells from senescing (eg, search telomerase). These cells can reproduce and continue to function as cancer cells indefinitely.

    tell me how a Pug dog or a Persian cat or a Bart Simpson VFT is MORE fit (or even equally fit) than a "typical" variety, and maybe I will believe you..but you cant do that..because its simply not true..because they are most definitely less fit..bred to be less fit purposely by humans..only for the novelty, or for making money..how can that be considered a good thing?
    It doesn't have to do with "good" or "bad". The fact that these traits are novel and selected for by humans by definition makes them more fit. It's not traditional "natural selection", but it is selection for a trait that increases the organism's probability to survive and breed (as facilitated by people).
    ¯\(º_o)/¯ ಠ_ಠ
    My Growlist
    NASC Website Come join in on the fun!

  7. #47
    jafvortex93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Fort lauderdale, Florida
    Posts
    479
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SirKristoff View Post
    this is part of a removed post. Doesn't need to be quoted. -- Est
    sirkrisstoff, i understand your stand point entirely but i think you mightve taken this to a certain personal level not intended. what i got from what scot wrote was that humans trying to make a species look, act, grow, etc. the way they want has caused irreversible and detrimental damage to said species (talking specifically about the dogs). in THAT way making them "weaker" then their un-altered counter-parts (un-altered as in by any other means except natural). i might be wrong and scot might be a complete scumbag but im giving him the benefit of the doubt to hopefully explain himself or at the very least apologize for not thinking before posting.

  8. #48
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jafvortex93 View Post
    sirkrisstoff, i understand your stand point entirely but i think you mightve taken this to a certain personal level not intended. what i got from what scot wrote was that humans trying to make a species look, act, grow, etc. the way they want has caused irreversible and detrimental damage to said species (talking specifically about the dogs). in THAT way making them "weaker" then their un-altered counter-parts (un-altered as in by any other means except natural). i might be wrong and scot might be a complete scumbag but im giving him the benefit of the doubt to hopefully explain himself or at the very least apologize for not thinking before posting.
    they have not made the species weaker they have made certain lines potentially weaker were they to be dropped off in the wild.....most the mutations being talked about such as the short muzzle of pugs and persians are far from set in stone though.....only way to keep the short muzzle is to keep breeding with short muzzled individuals.......introduce them to the general population and that trait disappears quickly which is why all the rez mutts here tend to look the same.....that short muzzle does not hurt the gene pool cause it is a very recessive trait easily removed, not a dominant one......

    besides in a normal persian or pugs "natural environment" it aint much of a handicap because of human intervention taking care of them.....it helps them cause ppl want them and want to care for them.....as Travis said its a positive, not a negative....when introduced back to a natural gene pool it disappears quickly and does no real harm except to the individual, it most defiantly does not harm the population as a whole....
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. my fellow newbies...
    By Presto in forum Venus Flytrap (Dionaea ) Care Information & Tips
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-12-2006, 08:07 AM
  2. for newbies
    By Copper in forum Carnivorous Plant Trading Post
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-07-2006, 07:03 PM
  3. my fellow newbies..
    By Presto in forum Venus Flytrap (Dionaea ) Care Information & Tips
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-04-2006, 12:01 PM
  4. Cps for newbies
    By Amateur_Expert in forum Carnivorous Plant Trading Post
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-11-2004, 12:29 PM
  5. Seed packet folding for newbies
    By wickedthistle in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-01-2004, 10:30 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •