Went to see Mr.Ramsey...

A repeatable fact. The very definition of something being "proven" is that it never fails to come to the same repeatable outcome.

Ex...tomorrow won't come until today is over. It doesn't matter how many "todays" that you see, "tomorrow will always come after today." <----repeatable fact

 

I guess thats one way to think about it, so what if its not 100% fact every time, If you can find it leans one way more than the other for 100% fact than its useful information. Just boils down to whether it does or not.

 

Ive heard this before also.

 

Sure! Something doesn't HAVE TO be true in all cases for that "something" to be useful. I can agree with you there.

 

well moral of the story is breed god dogs to good dogs so you have a better chance of having more good dogs no reason to breed shit to good no matter which is shit

 

And she was one of Bullysons best daughters

 

The problem we have is , how do we know whether the male bred to the female was the reason for a good female ,or that the brood bitch was the reason for producing the good male pup? Fact is it takes two dogs to make a breeding , so how do we know whos responsible for what pups quality, especially if your breeding a good male to a god female ,then were do you side?

 

Gar seems to get it - without testing this in a lab in a true scientific method to rule out all other possible factors - we cannot say x is the reason y happens when it comes to this breeding theory. One thing might SEEM like the cause, but there can be many other underlying factors that influence. Genetics are tricky.

I'm not saying Ramsey is right or wrong, I'm just saying something that intricate needs to be tested in a controlled environment, not out on a yard to truly know if its accurate.

 

This is a great theory. Im going to pay a lot more attention to this subject for now on .

 

Always heard the dam had a bigger influence..ie. motherlines, etc

 

Males of any breeding will resemble their dam if man or dog.Take a look at your self and your siblings then come back on and post your findings.Now lets take a look at Honey bunch,by her ped she is a bullyson gyp now lets look at Iron head,a buckskin colored dog with a mask honeybunch buckskin with a mask Iron head produce this mark in 90% of his offspring.Honeybunch produced very little black dogs,her sons where like her not their sire,take a good look just do'nt sit a your compu speak empty words.

 

Mr ramsey is correct. It is the same for all mammals including humans. A fathers genes can only be express his genes through his daughter when she has a son. Daddys girls are carrying his genes which will pass to his grand son. Mummys boys are carrying their Her dads genes. So as a man if you dont have daughter which have sons your line ends.

Daddy princess......his favourite.

Mummys little soilder.....her favourite .

Genetic 101 simples

 

Genetics 101 would include a lesson on heterozygosity. For those unaware, that is the condition of having TWO genes on opposing sides for the same trait. If we look at color, as hammerhead mentioned, there may be a gene for expressing black color on one side, then a gene for expressing fawn on the other. Which ever one is DOMINANT is the one that expresses.

Genetics 102 would tell you that in diploid organisms, EACH PARENT contributes one haploid chromosome to it's offspring. So the "blueprints" for all offspring in a given breeding are the same. Which traits express as dominant are the traits that we see and come to know in the offspring.

I suggest that those intent on running their yards by rumors, do some learning about genetics. Especially before touting what genetics 101 is.:cool:

 

I have known Ray for a long time he is getting up thare in age and is more into knives now but belive this he has bred some damn fine ones and he is one of the most honest dog men I have ever met It is a damn shame how he was bamboozled out of the game buy thug money. I have allways respected Ray and I have gotten some damn fine bulldogs off his arty Cherry stuff. Listen to what he says Like he told me breed your best game dogs to get your match dogs. Thats how I have been doing it for over 20 and it seems to work for me.

 

Is that the very definition of proven? Can you ref. me to your source? I am using the O.E.D. While your at it, can your show me where it explicitly states in peer-reviewed scientific literature that a theory becomes a repeatable fact. Why did you qualify fact?

 

MJ= MICHEAL JORDAN JR

BARRY SANDERS= BARRY SANDERS JR

PATRICK EWING= PATRICK EWING JR

shall i go on

 

this is the answer ....../thread

 

I can think of a number of theories, rather profound ones, which we use/rely on everyday that are clearly "repeatable" (your word). What constitutes "repeatable"? Is it an event that occurs no less then twice? That would leave three to infinity undefined. It seems as though a "repeatable fact" may just be provisional.

 

Ex...tomorrow won't come until today is over. It doesn't matter how many "todays" that you see, "tomorrow will always come after today." <----repeatable fact

Your example might work if you clearly define "today" and "tomorrow". Shades of the old F=MA discussion. Could those words be cultural concepts? What observer perspective are you using? Is there a temporal-dependent component to your definition? Or is it based on a celestial event?