by joanro on 08 September 2018 - 13:09
Pragr, if all you are selecting for is color, then all you need to do is select two black dogs to pair up, or select one black dog and one, say, sable with black recessive, you will get black dogs, and possibly a sable or two, since as we all know, sable is dominant color gene.
But if a breeder is not of the back yard kind, as you seem to only focus on, and is looking deeper than the hair color of a dog and is considering traits such as temerament, and structure, then they can't possibly get what they want using your theory of starting the selection process by looking at the so-called "first " male in the sire's pedigree.
One must be able to evaluate the tangible being, in front of them, and not select breeding pairs because of a name on a list of hundreds from many many decades ago, in fact nearly a century ago in some instances of your claim.
But evaluating the dogs standing in the flesh, for some reason to you, is grounds to denegrate and mock those who understand that this is the only way to produce quality dogs with any consistency.
(Quality is subjective, but like begets like)
by joanro on 08 September 2018 - 13:09
Pragr: OK here is another point. You say :in "Every generation you loose 50% of the initial traits of the single ancestors, to the same time you get fresh 50%," What about if the " fresh 50% " I get is the same as the one in a former generation? Then that would prove my point that breeding in line works because that is what we are doing when we breed in line - adding the same genes and do it for generations.
Me: here is an explanation for you, pragr....you are 100% wrong in your understanding of the way genetics work.
Take a jar of one hundred red jaw breakers ( represents stud dog genes).
Take another jar one 100 blue jaw breakers( represents dam genes).
Now put fifty of the red ones in another jar and add fifty of the blue ones. Put a lid on the jar so's you don't throw jaw breakers all over the place ( possibly hitting yourself in the eye, and we don't want you to hurt yourself in this demonstration)
Lid in place on the opening of the jar.???now shake the heck out of that jar! Make it rattle real good!
Now pour out fifty jaw breakers ( you think is half of genes from your stud dog) ......how many red jaw breakers are in the mix? The red jaw breakers are not contained in a capsule and remain unto themselves, as you believe happens with genetics of the stud dog.
Go on and on like that, pragr, using different colors not using solid red any more because that was the original) and after only three or four times mixing up the jaw breaks, came back and tell us how many red jaw breakers you have ....
by Prager on 08 September 2018 - 15:09
joan while snippets of your post are correct the rest is like a broken watch. The individual parts are more less ok but they are not put together well or they are put together by a person lacking understanding how te watch works. So please do not waste our time with your jiber jabber. I am open to reading an intelligent post but please understand that genetics is not a jar of jawbreakers. That is worse than "1+1=2 genetics". Please study Mendelian and nonmendalian laws of inheritance and try to understand it before you post any more. I admit it is not that simple. If you have any questions during such study please ask and I will be happy to help you to understand it. Until then au revoir, I am done here at least with answering your naive understanding of genetics.
Here is a link for your convenience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance
by ggturner on 08 September 2018 - 15:09
Mendelian genetics covers the basics. Gregor Mendel studied pea plants and gave us a foundation to build on. However, in more complex organisms, you have multiple alleles (alleles are in the chromosomes), co-dominance, incomplete dominance, epistasis, etc. It isn’t just one allele from the mom and one allele from the dad which influence a particular trait. Not to mention mutations which often occur during crossing over in meiosis.
Regardless, the mother does contribute half of the chromosomes and the father the other half of the chromosomes.
by joanro on 08 September 2018 - 16:09
Thank you, gg.
Pragr, your inability to understand genetics becomes more obvious with each of your comments.
You are obviously incapable of understanding the example I made, so you go with the same personal attack that you used on your own forum against me...you are very uncreative and appear to lack ability for linear logic. So, here is a suggestion....since all my posts are over your head and therefore read like " jibber jabber" to you, just pass over them....that way you won't get so confounded by them.
by duke1965 on 08 September 2018 - 17:09
would say the jawbreaker model is quite acurate, generally speaking, take a look at working dog website and select any mating, than find ancester loss coefficient, that gives you an idea about predictability in todays outcross breeding, be it from sire or dam genes
by Prager on 08 September 2018 - 20:09
I am sure jawbreaker analogy is appealing to some. But it has nothing to do with explaining of breeding in line which considers dominance, the law of inheritance, law of segregation, law of independent assortment, incomplete dominance, codominance, traits production by the interaction of several genes, genetic linkage, phenotypes, genotypes, quantitative genetics, molecular genetics and on and on and on and this is just basics. ............No! Instead let's just talk about jawbreakers. Got it!
by joanro on 08 September 2018 - 20:09
No, it explains to those who would claim that all the genes from the original gsd are passed down encapsulated and not changed, as though that dog is the one contributing to a breeding done today.
As in this absolutely false premise
Prager quote, (brackets mine): "OK here is another point. You say :in "Every generation you loose 50% of the initial traits of the single ancestors, to the same time you get fresh 50%,"
What about if the " fresh 50% " I get is the same as the one in a former generation? [Not possible.]
"Then that would prove my point [ you have not proven anything, only made false comment] that breeding in line works because that is what we are doing when we breed in line - adding the same genes and do it for generations". [ Not possible]
Edit to add: And being the disengenuous person you are, you went back and deleted the above quote from your post....that figures. Because I pointed out the falacy of your beliefs, you delete it. Face it, pragr, you don't know what you are talking about...you can only cut and paste from goo gle. You have nothing creative nor original in your thinking. That's why you don't understand using jaw breakers to demonstrate mixing genes from parent dogs.
by Prager on 09 September 2018 - 00:09
by Western Rider on 09 September 2018 - 00:09
Accusing one another and back and forth needs to stop. Please keep to the topic this discussion can be usefull to many.
You must be logged in to reply to posts