how genetics work

The second half of your statement reminds me of yesterday's episode of the Rifleman: The sheriff from another town, who was in the process of investigating a murder of Mccain's friend, spent a good part of the episode explaining a new technology called "ballistics"; as you can imagine, both Lucas and the town's judge had a difficult time processing and believing something which they couldn't "see" and consequently "utilize". The dynamics and moral were obvious-- The learned (see educated) teaching the ignorant. You should have seen Lucas boys face when the sheriff mentioned a nascent technique called "fingerprinting".......

Or how about the episode from The Big Valley where the Barkley's herd had contracted anthrax. Luckily, Victoria's youngest son was visiting from his studies at some university to explain to the ignorant the science behind things you can't "see": How vaccines work and the educated gentleman (Pasteur) who discovered its "utility". Rifleman had a similar episode with the same dynamic (educated vs ignorant).

It is one thing to be uneducated (on your own time) but don't ask other folks to do the same. I'll end with Arthur C. Clark's famous quip "Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

 

Hey Bounty, received a new book today:




Only 10,000 first edition copies!

 

I figured you would remember the episodes. Good man. Did not know that, i'll check it out.

Practical application is your concern.
Do you think Canelo has any doubts about the "practical applications" of thinking rigorously about your subject? He got his ass handed to him by an ace who did his homework. Analytics allowed Mayweather to "see" and "utilize" data which the lazy folks said was unknowable. That's why they call it the "Sweet Science".
Do you think Warren Buffet has misgivings about applying scientific concepts in his domain? Not after getting out performed by C. Shannon, E. Thorp, and J. Kelly. These boys ran through Vegas and Wall street with nothing more than intelligence and determination. Cleaned house! All while the naysayers were hollering that Vegas was unbeatable and Wall Street was too efficient.
But perhaps the apparent disconnect is merely a function of language. Do you remember when the Percys came to town (The Rifleman)? I remember the father saying (paraphrasing) "Sometimes it isn't wars that separate nations but grammar". What "proper reading" are you referring to? Can you provide your source? I hope you aren't referring to gringo's outdated and crankish claim about "90% junk genes"? A simple google search would have invalidated that Reader's Digest statement.
And as far as "layman" go, this is a Scientific endeavor. If folks are not well versed in Science or the scientific method than they probably should not be breeding dogs or be involved in animal husbandry of any sort. There are no excuses for weak or lazy. What discipline is inundated with layman? Are you attempting to make a distinction between "doing dogs" and science? They are one in the same.

 

Hey limey and keystone, here is a Ch son off of Gr Ch Lionhead with his all white son. The gentleman who bred him had the courage and intelligence to not select on color but performance and production. As a result, that pup had the opportunity to become a damn good dog from my understanding:

 

lionhead was black the ch son appears to be black and that pup could also be genetically black as white is not a colour ,the genetic color that pup carrys will be in pigment in the skin or fur ,not supporting color selection its just that white has no bearing on it

 

He appears to be black based on your observation of his fur NOT his pigmentation , right? The pup could be genetically non-black, right? Which is based on your observation, again, of his fur NOT pigmentation. Yes, the genetic COLOR of the pup will be in the skin OR fur. Let me repeat what you said "......OR fur". A physicist or chemist will tell you that white is a color and pigment. Is white an option when registering your dog with most major registries?
The example presented was merely to represent a color deviation from the desired or "norm" which would have prompted some folks to cull based on this data point alone. The example is relevant based on the context in which it was presented.

 

cc this thread is about how genetics work hence my post on color as white does not fall into the pigment range therefore the white pup showed nothing on a genetic level in regard to your point of color selection, but sure I get your point the dog appears diffrent to the norm which would of been a more accurate descrpition in this thread and is undeniable ,regiserting dogs has no bearing on a genetic level more descrpiptive I don't know much about chemists or physsists but white is a gene that inhibit color and does not fall into the pigment range which starts at near white and goes right thru to blueblack the point of fur and skin was to show were the actual color pigment can be found on a white dog and wen used in a breeding program this pigmentation is the genetic color the dog carrys your example of the white pup showed us a dog difrent from the norm because its showing a gene that supress its pigmentation it did not however show us anything on the color selection point you made as the sire is black the dam you didn't tell an the pup is unknown so all weve got in regard to color selection is a black sire an a pup that shows no color in your pic ,this didntt support your point very clearly imo

a well known phyisist once said , everybodys a genius but if you judge a fish by his abilty to climb a tree he wil go thru life beliving he is stupid

 

Exactly. Which has been my point from the get go (see post #23). In the future, you may want to familiarize yourself with the concepts and individual points of view with in a discussion before jumping in the deep end; folks tend to drown that way. I do find it amusing that you referred to the pup as "...the white pup...". The rest of your statements are a collection of misunderstandings, inaccuracies and contradictions. But I do give you credit for qualifying your statements with "I don't know much about......" and " ..imo". Which may be a result of you realizing your own limitations of the subject at hand. Your last statement exemplifies the aforementioned points:
Can you name the "phyisist" (sic) who supposedly said this?
Can you name your source?
Why isn't this quote included in the Princeton university press publication?
By the way, certain fish do have the ability to climb trees.

 

Are you here to teach us how to breed dogs ? then if so why dont you tell us how you do it , as you seem to be a know it all ,and a very concieted person who obviously thinks he is of such superior inteligence , but being well read which by the way i admire , doesnt make you more inteligent , as a parrot can repeat many things but its still a parrot in the end.(ps dont bother trying to come back with some smartass reply i dont give a damn got it)

 

If you "admire" "being well read" then you must see the importance and value of reading. In that case, you might want to read before you run your mouth young man; I clearly stated numerous times that I am not very bright and don't know much about dogs. But either reading or English must be tough for you. If you didn't "give a damn" than you would not have replied and showed your ass. Do you normally contradict yourself?

 

There you go again trying to be self important , but being important is gained by respect from actions in some way and so far all your doing is showing yourself to be a wiseass , that at least is some achievement i guess so hats off to you for that , now go back to your books and see what else you can parrot from them to teach us mere mortals something of value .

 

cc I think my post was pretty clear and easy to understand in regard to your post with the white pup ,the rest I don't have any interest in but I understand what your saying ,,you asked for the quote I believe it was Einstein ,he also said if you cant explain something simply you just don't understand it well enuff ,,hope that helps

 

Do you see the contradiction and humor in your statements? Looks like you are having a hard time explaining (see understanding) genetics aren't you? How rich.......
By the way, Einstein did not say that. Period. I suspect you failed to provide a source because you realize you were talking out your ass like the rest of your post on this thread. You were quoting a self -help book -- do you see the humor? Have more respect for yourself and your words. Folks won't take you seriously until you do. But I bet this wont help.

 

c.o.c
i have seen/met difference chickenman in my life ...who where trying ..to become a disent dogman .
not one succeed.....mostly a leac of understanding and patience

 

I made a very easy to understand post regarding the white pup ,,what is it you don't understand about my post ? its right here for all to see in very simple terms please show me what part you didn't understand?? , ive already told you im not interested in the rest ie ,,your insults opinions suspicions vanity,I doubt anyone else is either so please just point out what it was about my post regarding the white pup you didn't understand or if I was wrong show me an the readers were I was wrong so we can all learn something don't insult people like a coward without backing it up prove your points lets hear your understanding of it ,what you waiting for lol

 

Everybody is a Genius. But If You Judge a Fish by Its Ability to Climb a Tree, It Will Live Its Whole Life Believing that It is Stupid. | Quote Investigator

 

good post what d story ,,according to that it seems it was not Einstein I stand corrected as I believed it was him I couldn't quite understand who was the author from that article would it of been Aesop jr ?

 

So this dog is all white fur wise with a black nose and has black spots on his skin what doe's this tell you about it's genetics.