RyGuyFly

I have thought of this as well. Certainly it would be possible to make genetic modifications outside of just glofish (which I happen to not like). Perhaps nothing more as of yet but I imagine glofish are only the start. Although idk if available in the pet trade there are many genetically modified mice that are significantly different from their wild type counter parts. Also some reptiles sell for big bucks in odd color morphs. If someone could genetically create new color morphs of certain animals you could make a killing. Theoretically creating new color morphs should be easier than reducing the size of sharks, stingrays, or whales. But wouldn't it be sooo cool to see tiny great whites? Or tiny orcas? Lol some other ideas I've had are gmo dogs that are better suited for modern life with humans. Perhaps with better instincts relative to modern day captivity or perhaps non-matting, non-shedding, non-alergenic breeds.

Too funny! Me too, ill keep trying to brush it away but doesn't work because it's attached lol interesting link on the longies because it seems like mine pop out of no were too. Like they grow 4 inches over night. Update: theirtimewillcome, I just saw your video. That looks the same as the "longies" or "largitos" that I get from time to time.

Hello theirtimewillcome. I find that I have hairs of varying color as well. This is especially true on my forearms. Some hairs appear to be totally colorless while others are varying shades of reddish-blonde. In my case I don't think it's because of old age, it's just my genetics. I find that in the summer all the hairs tend to be lighter. Another weird phenomena I've noticed is that periodically I will have hairs that keep growing and growing in length. Its always just one single strand. Its happened on my chest, stomach, forearms, and eyebrow >_< weird right? The long ones are usually clear looking and very thin. I usually just pluck them if it happens. Anyways don't let your invisible hairs drive you crazy. Que tengas un buen dia.

Yea exactly. I feel my little experiment is definitally doable in an ethical way and i plan to try it out. Over the next year I will have produced many F1 and f2 pups to choose from. The hopes are that this will produce some amazing new coat color or texture. Its a long shot tho and pretty unlikely. I think more likely I might reveal some more minute change like odd shaped ears or tail. Or some small change in body shape. Worst case scenario my little experiment reveals nothing or only reveals some change that is completely undesirable. In that case I will move on to my 2nd little experiment which is to breed for what they call continuous or quantitative traits. That's a subject for a whole different thread tho. Lol probably a thread that's shortly forthcoming because I have questions about how to quantify various continuous or quantitative traits. In theory it is doable but being able to examine each animal for a certain trait and give a number value to said trait will be a challenge. I think in labs they will mix sperm cells with carcinogenic materials or expose them to radiation to speed up the processes of creating mutations. This is something I've also thought about. Lol but it might be a challenge to carry out at home. So for right now I'm just banking on natural variations/mutations for my first experiment.

I just looked up tautology. I have to read about it more as its a little confusing. But at first glance it appears I would agree. It sounds like Tautology is just repeating a statement as if the repetition makes it more valid or something. I believe circular reasoning is one of the primary issues at play but I have definitely run into instances were I will clearly express valid logic and reasoning and they will just repeat a statement as if it is an answer to the logical problem or as if negates the logic. Over time I have never found a way to use reason and logic in dealing with people of this mindset. Trying is just upsetting and I have tried so hard its made me physically sick. I guess for me the best solution is to just do my best stay away from people who choose not to use sound logic. Its all been very damaging to me. I think being able to label this phenomena is going to be a huge help in my recovery. Thank you.

YES. Circular Reasoning, that's exactly it. "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true." That totally sums it up. I am so happy right now. lol Thanks a bunch you guys are awesome. This circular reasoning has been driving me crazy. It got to the point were they were actually accusing me of being delusional and mentally ill because I failed to understand this circular reasoning. Words cannot express how ecstatic I am to know that this phenomena that I have observed is a "thing" lol and that I can label it. From now on should I encounter this sort of thinking Ill know what it is and what to call it. Man I cant believe I've spent so many hours of my life stressing and thinking about this phenomena with out knowing what to call it or how to express it. a million thanks.

I saw this religion section and I thought of a question I've had. I hope this is not inappropriate for the forum. I'm looking for a term that describes what I'm calling "loop logic" that I have observed in a religious setting. I think there is a word for it, perhaps a legal term, but I cant think of what it is. For some reason "plausible deniability" came to mind but I looked it up and it does not define what I am looking for. Personally, a year or two ago, I was ostracized from my religious community basically for failure to adhere to this "loop logic" mentality. I've seen it used in many different instances. I'm not sure what its called but I feel that there is word for it. And I know it does not sit well with me. I'll try my best to explain with some examples. In this community there are local leaders they call "elders" It is taught that basically these men are hand picked by God. It is taught that they basically represent God, they have his spirit, and what they teach is "Truth". It is taught that they have the ability to interpret the Bible. And that their interpretation is "Truth". Basically I have observed these men doing horrible things like abusing people, lying, being selfish etc. Things that are also taught to be "bad" by this religion. If one points out that their behavior is clearly inappropriate everyone will just point back to the initial teaching that "they are chosen by God" and ignore the wrong doings. So its like this loop that they can never be accused of doing anything wrong regardless of how bad it is. This is especially true if you are the victim of the wrong doing who is making the accusations. Another example. Anything that is produced by this religious organization is regarded as absolute "Truth". If some obvious error or fallacy is pointed out they will just ignore it and point back to the teaching that the organization is "Truth" as a reason to ignore the erroneous teaching. So its like this loop that that use to get out of having to explain anything. Another example is that it is taught that this religious organization is filled with great loving people, who are warm and welcoming. It is taught they are helpful too all. They are parents to those who have none, friends to those who have none etc. Personal experience has been quite the opposite. But if I point out that my experience is in stark contrast to what they are saying it will always be my fault, never them or their teachings that are wrong or untrue. They will say its because I don't want to be friends. They will say its because I am doing something wrong. Perhaps not praying enough or not reading the bible enough. The teaching is "Truth" and so anything that goes against is untrue. So it creates this like loop. Were they can never be accused of doing something wrong and anyone who doesn't agree is wrong. They are labeled a spiritually sick, essentially a heretic. They are shunned, kicked out, or excommunicated. They logic behind the shunning is that they will try to force you into believing lies by removing your support, friends, and community. Another one is that I have stated plainly that if there is a God I do not believe his supports their inappropriate behavior and subsequent denial. I don't believe he would support this kind of "loop logic" or even "cult mentality". The response is always that the Devil is twisting me, destroying me, or that my attitude is from the Devil... Is there a name for this type of logic and behavior? Thanks.

Hi Luke. I am super interested in genetics and stuff too and I saw that same documentary about the mice living on sand and on volcanic rock. To answer your question the DNA does not know that black fur would be better for living on volcanic rocks. Basically the small changes in the DNA are just small variations that appear to do very little or nothing. But then occasionally there will be a change that will alter the survivability of the individual. His genes then get passed on to future generations. So with the example of the mice. Its possible that the same population produced white mice but they would die off easier than the rest of the population and not pass on their albino genes. Whereas the black genes got passed on because the black mice had better survivability on the black rocks. If the mice were living on a white sand beach then maybe the white mice would have survived better. For example Google beach mouse, they are a light sandy color. Some species turn white only in the winter as in increases survivability in the snow. Google snowshoe hares. also you might want to Google terms like founder effect, bottle necking, and genetic drift. I find these topics extremely interesting. there are some great youtube videos out there on the subjects too.

Thanks for clarifying. I understand what you are saying now. So basically there 6.25% chance that any given allele will be passed to the daughter and then become homozygous in the grand daughter. That's a relatively low % but we are talking about a multitude of pups, an unknown quantity of recessive alleles in the father and unknown effects when the alleles are homozygous. I am attempting a tri-hybrid cross were both parents are heterozygous for 3 different alleles. The chance of getting a single offspring that is homozygous for all 3 genes is only .0156. So .0625 is better chances than .0156 lol Anyways thanks for your help.

Hi mondie. Thank you for your response. It is true that all the siblings would inherit 50% of their genes from their father. However the 50% they would inherit from their father would not necessarily be comprised of the same genes. Its my understanding that each sibling is around 25% similar for genes from their father side. Hence the need to use several offspring insuring that 100% of the father's genes are accounted for. You state that the chance of an allele becoming homozygous is one in eight for each cross. I'm not sure I follow. Why isn't it one in four? And then wouldn't my chances of not getting homozygous be .75? Maybe there is something I'm missing? Also remember that each father/daughter mating will produce around 4-6 pups. Each pup being an independent roll of the figurative die. And each of the initial daughter females will share some genes so the figurative dice would be rolled again in other litters for the certain alleles they have in common. However, my question is not what are my chances of getting a homozygous allele. But rather the number of females needed to ensure I get a copy of every (or most every) gene from the father into that initial set of daughter females. Also regardless of the chances for homozygous alleles, if someone wanted to test for hidden recessive alleles I think this would be the most efficient way of going about it. My other thought would be "line breeding" the initial male. That is to say breed him with his daughter, then granddaughter, then great granddaughter etc. Eventually you would get homozygous alleles that way too. The downside is that your getting an increase in homozygous alleles all across the board and the inbreeding coefficient would be high. The way I am currently proposing limits the number of homozygous alleles per individual offspring and makes up for it by using multiple different offspring.

I certainly not an expert but if my understanding is correct then if the genes are close together on the chromosome then there is a possibility they will be linked and stay together during recombination. When this happens it is a different phenomena than independent assortment. So basically I would think the opposite of the statement is true. That is when the distance between 2 genes (on the same chromosome) decreases the chance of recombination increases and the phenomenon of the independent assortment decreases. However, that being said, I feel like we're missing the (possibly important) first part of the quoted statement. I feel like the thought is incomplete. What does the book say before the "...when the distance between"?

Hi everyone. I'm breeding a small hamster species Phodopus Roborovskii that is relatively speaking new to the pet trade. As a result there are not a lot of genetic morphs or coat colors documented and for the most part they are wild type agouti. My theory that when new phenotype variations pop up it is unlikely that the mutation occurred right then. More likely it occurred and was unknowingly carried for generations until someone crossed two related individuals who happened to be carriers. So I was thinking if I wanted try and reveal some undocumented recessive alleles what would be the best way to go about it. My thought is the best way to test all the alleles would be to breed parent to child. Now due to recombination and reshuffling of the genes in the germ line cells each child would have a slightly different set of the parents genes. So I would need to do parent child mating with several different offspring. Let's say I'm going to try this with father daughter pairings. One of my questions is when the father produces his germ line cells and they are recombined/shuffled do we have any idea what the percentages are? Is it generally 50/50ish? That is to say the father passes on roughly 50% of his genes from is mother and 50% from his father? Say we breed this male to and unrelated female. The genetic make up of his offspring would be possibly roughly 25% from his mother and 25% from his father. But every child would have a different set of these genes that make up those 25%s. As a result I would need to produce several female offspring from this male so that combined they would would have 100% of his genes. Then I could breed those offspring back to the male and roughly 25% of the genes of each offspring would be homogeneous. If I did this with a bunch of the female offspring eventually I would get from the f2 generation examples of homogeneous alleals for every single one of the initial males genes. My question here is how many different female offspring would I need to make sure I randomly covered about 100% of the males genes? My first thought is that I would probably need a ton so that statistically I could be assured of 100 of his genes being passed on. But i have limited space so I was thinking 3 or 4 would probably cover the vast majority but idk. Each female would share many of her genes with her siblings and only a portion would be unique to her. So in the end I'm not sure how many female offspring I need Any thoughts? One of the possible problems I thought of is that if the hamsters are already heavily inbred there may be very little variation to reveal by means of these pairings. I think it would be best to do this experiment starting with a wild male from a genetically diverse population. Thanks.