how genetics work

cc you ant proved nothing wrong at all ,I asked you some simple questions you ducked them, you was counted out lol , but go on to throw up theorys <others ideas >that you have done nothing to prove yourself yet here you are calling people lazy hypocrites???,, what a joke lol seems you've proved that is you whos a lazy hypocrite lol show us the dogs you bred because being able to read articles other people have wrote proves only you have no ideas of your own an you got nothing to bring to table i wil not waste anymore time til i see you actualy bred some dogs and are not just a fake you've shown some very strange behaviour for a so called gamedog fancier ie contempt insults for people you dont even know oh but you tell us you give your best pal lots of attention ????,,gotta familiar ring of the worst kind ,im not a young man and ime you making some real bad sighns .,,show us what dogs you bred as it seems you qualify running your mouth on the fact you can read an spell ,,,tdk good post little strange you have to explain such basics to someone who claims to be scientific just aint ringing true here

 

yes he is a fake you've show some very strange behavior for so called gamedog fancier ....
ie contempt insults for people you don't even know ......lol

cc at least there is one here on this board ....who is a bit jelous the way you write ....
because he can't make it father then the L and the O . L .

 

c.c you are not clubebbl

 

i finished with lol because calling sucessful breeding a science or know how or experience is just semantics and that is opinion , surely you dont think its as simple as putting any dog to any bitch and hope for the best

 

don't forget i am learning this langauce lol

its about understanding the gene's .
searching for the gene that make's you happy .....
some stil searching after 25 years ..some don't have to search ...that much ...
understanding is coming with the years

 

whats de i did not mention you when i finished with o.l

 

Anyone read tha cak artical He talks about his boomerang dogs.

 

Daemmm tree...nicely put!!

 

Some of the links in the beginning are slightly out dated.
I fully believe genetics are the foundation of a dog & a pup receives it's genetic make up from it's parents but what genes are passed & what are not is a bit more complicated than you may realise. This is why the first thing breeders need to understand is the difference between a recessive gene & dominate gene.
Lets talk colour & HD as easy to explain.
Inheritance from parent to offspring is the most basic and easiest to understand form of gene transmission. Every dog has two copies of each autosomal gene. Autosomal genes are those that are not on the sex chromosomes. One of these copies came from its father and the other from its mother. What combination of alleles it has are its genotype. How they interact with each other, other genes and the environment will determine what traits you will see in the dog, referred to as phenotype. When looking at pedigrees and thinking about autosomal dominant or recessive traits, the breeder should follow the pedigree back step by step along each path of ancestry and note where he first encounters a dog he knows was either heterozygous or homozygous for the recessive. In most cases 4 or 5 generations will be sufficient. The closer up an ancestor with the recessive is, the more likely the recessive allele will have been inherited. Recessive homozygotes always pass the trait but a heterozygous carrier may or may not. If you don’t know the genotype of the dominant phenotype individuals that lie between that ancestor and your dog, you can’t know for sure if the recessive allele was passed along or not. The farther back the heterozygote is, the less likely the gene will have passed on.
Inheritance of genes on the sex chromosomes differs from that of autosomal genes because the sex chromosomes come in two different forms: X and Y. Female mammals have two X chromosomes while males have an X and a Y. The Y chromosome contains only a very few genes, all of them are related to specifically male traits. The X chromosome contains a normal number of genes that produce a wide variety of traits not related to the sex of the individual. However, only one copy of the X can work in any given cell, so females are a "mosaic." Which X operates in each cell is randomly determined during development. This can be most clearly seen in calico cats, in which black and orange are phenotypes produced by different alleles of the same X chromosome gene. Unfortunately, most traits are not inherited in a simple, single-gene fashion . Many are polygenic, resulting from the action of multiple genes. At the present time, there is no way to know the genotype of any particular dog for any polygenic trait. The best the breeder can do is make an educated guess. Phenotypes in polygenic traits represent a continuum, rather than a series of similar but more or less distinct types. Canine hip dysplasia (HD) is a prime example. Dogs can have hip joint conformation that ranges from superior to abysmal. Two sound dogs can produce dysplastic offspring and dysplastics can produce sound pups.

With polygenic traits the parental contribution can be unequal. A parent with just one or a few genes that produce the trait may have offspring that exhibit it if mated to a dog that has all the rest. Or the trait may show up after many generations of absence because the right combination of genes finally happened to fall together to produce it. With polygenic traits a breeder must consider the history of the trait in the family, rather than in the pedigree. Dogs that have a family history of the HD (affected siblings, cousins, aunts/uncles or nephews/nieces) are more likely to produce HD than dogs which do not. The more affected relatives there are, the greater the risk.

I will leave it at that atm but am happy to answer any questions on what i have posted so far.

 

The only question I have is when did you get out of Australian Shepards and into game dogs, Mrs. Sharp? I've read much of your work. I'll email you at the institute.

http://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/ca-sharp.html

How long ago did you write this the first time?
http://www.ashgi.org/articles/breeding_in_mode.htm

 

I am not Mrs Sharpe I just think her wording is the easiest for other to understand. I have followed her work a lot I thought I linked to her page but it is not on the post sorry, my mistake.
I myself have always been involved in game dogs but not Pit Bulls.

 

You copied and pasted everything BUT the name at the top of the page and offered to answer questions on this. I'll take your word for it that it was a oversight. Just wanted to make sure nobody got confused.

 

///////////?????????????????????????????????????????.....

 

What game dogs are you talking about?

 

Bump

- Got caught up for a few months on D-Wave and S. Aaronson blog and forgot about this interesting conversation. N.W. Thornhill's (Ed.) book got me back on track......

 

Dude you are even weird to me. hahhahahhah

 

Now this is a REALLY GOOD POST.

 

Darwin collected data from his peers - scientist from a number of disciplines who were also involved in plant and animal husbandry. Why? Because husbandry (including breeding dogs) is a SCIENTIFIC SUBROUTINE. What about Malthus or Adam? Lamarck (there is that word again)? Would you like to talk about Whitman's pigeons? Have you read S.J.Gould's magnum opus "The structure of evolutionary theory"?

 

Did I understand you correctly when you requested on an open forum for someone to PROVE they are a dogman? Is this your intention young man? On the computer? I see you're still in that phase of your life, absolutely fascinating.........

Did you mean to say that "give (ing) your best pal lots of attention" has "gotta familiar ring of the worst kind"? Can you please elaborate? Are you attempting to say that Dogmen don't love their dogs and spend quality time with them? I was unaware that this board advocated this position........

Original thoughts are rather rare. If I told you that your dogs needs clean water and healthy food would these statements constitute "nothing to bring to table (sic)" due to the fact that they don't meet your criterion of original thought ( "no ideas of your own")? That being said, here is an original thought (!) I found sometime ago:

Before retiring I taught physics for more than 40 years.
An integral part of my course
was James Conant's "Science and Common Sense".
Conant was president of Harvard
for 20 years. Prior to his presidency many
rated his work in organic chemistry as of Nobel-calibre. His last years at
Harvard included his teaching a "nat-sci" course which aimed at communicating "
an understanding of the tactics and strategies of science".
Two of
Conant's epistemological hypthotheses were first - the word "theory" is too
imprecise to communicate scientific understanding. It should be replaced by (a)
speculative idea (b) broad working hypothesis and (c) conceptual scheme. Only a
thesis classified as a conceptual scheme should be treated as part of science.
Speculative idea and broad working hypothesis were not yet and perhaps never
would be part of science. The "atomic theory" until Dalton's formulation in the
early 1800's would be classified as a speculative idea. Conant's second
hypothesis was that it is useful to ask statements in science to pass one of two
types of validity tests.
"Experiment fact" type statements must pass a truth
by correspondence with events test (i.e. the ""e.f." statement is validated by a
true/false test.)
The validity test for the conceptual scheme type of
statement is a "fruitful of testable deductions" type of test. The testable
deduction is a potential "e.f." type statement.
Summarizing the theory
proposes a true/false and a friutful/not fruitful scheme for validity in
science.
In this scheme both speculative ideas and broad working
hypotheses are not classified as science. The speculative idea(s) have not yet
produced any experimentally testable deductions (as I understand it this is the
state of string theory today).
The broad working hypothesis (e.g. Dalton's
initial statement of atomic theory) does produce testable deductions but
mainstream scientists do not yet use it in scientific work.
The conceptual
scheme is a broad working hypothesis whose testable deductions correspond with
events AND it is used by mainstream scientists in doing their work.
I and
many of my students have found Conant's proposals very fruitful in attempting to
understand science.