Is it possible to breed genes out?

[amrad]

I'm really wondering about this, and I thought this is the perfect place to ask, because so many of you guys are friggen smart, some close to the genius level, I'm sure.
You hear this expression often about genes being lost, or bred out. But is it biologically possible? Or does the plant just not express that gene and as pressure is put on the population through selecting for plant that dont show that characteristic,does the gene just become recessive?
Okay I'll just sit back and expect to be "shocked and awed" by the numerous responces. peace oh, hey sorry for posting in strains, but the other forums looked dead.

[nuggdigger]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic determinism is the belief that genes determine physical and behavioral phenotypes. It is usually taken to mean "that the genotype completely determines the phenotype, that is, the genes completely determine how an organism turns out", or that "genes alone determine human traits and behaviours." The term may be applied to the mapping of a single gene to a single phenotype, or more widely to the discredited belief that most or all phenotypes are determined exclusively by genes. While it is well established that most phenotypic variability is strongly influenced by genes, it is clear that environment plays an important role, and non-genetic mechanisms of inheritance are also known to exist.


peace

[c-ray]

with 'non-coding dna' all things are possible

[amrad]

okay, then nugdigger, good post, but really doesn't answer the question. Yes environment can turn certain genes on or off, but can you really breed a gene out of the total chromosome package. I mean totally gone, so that regardless of environmental incentive it doesn't express itself. I think not.

[amrad]

oops sorry nugdigger, I got your handle wrong, I apologize.

[nuggdigger]

i think; Or does the plant just not express that gene and as pressure is put on the population through selecting for plant that dont show that characteristic,does the gene just become recessive?

equals this..

It is usually taken to mean "that the genotype completely determines the phenotype, that is, the genes completely determine how an organism turns out",



how gone do you need..?
...are we all related to Noah? lol

peace

[c-ray]

from http://www.noncodingdna.com/is-there-junk-in-the-genome/whats-all-this-about-noncoding-dna-who-cares/

DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. DNA holds most, if not all, of the instructions that guide any biologic organism. So whether you’re a bacteria, a pine tree, or a human, DNA is running the show. The total amount of DNA that programs an organism is called its genome. It’s not completely understood how DNA tells some of the cells in your body to become brain cells and others to become liver cells. We do know that without DNA a cell cannot successfully reproduce or pass on what it has “learned” about an environment.

The genome can be divided into two main sections, the coding and noncoding (what is called junk DNA today) portions. The coding section of the genome is generally what we talk about when we refer to genes. Genes take part in a process where DNA is converted to a form of ribonucleic acid (RNA), which is then converted to protein. This has been called “the central dogma,” although somewhat incorrectly.

It was believed that genes performed most of the important biological functions, and that more complex organisms (like us) would have many more genes than other species. In fact, that’s not what we’ve discovered. Humans have the same number of genes as mice and puffer fish and have fewer genes than several plant species.

Are we really less complex than rice?

Genes make up only 2% of the genome, leaving over 98% of our genome which has been labled as “junk” (i.e. noncoding DNA). But, what if the junk isn’t junk?

The scientific paper at the hub of this website suggests that while genes are important, there are known (and probably many unknown) elements in noncoding DNA that are essential to all organisms. In fact, it is likely that these elements are what are controlling organismal complexty. If we examine genomes from multiple species and look at how much noncoding DNA they have, we find that the amount of noncoding DNA per genome correlates very well with our current descriptions of biological complexity. That is, bacteria don’t have very much noncoding DNA, protozoans have more than bacteria, fungus have more than protozoans, and humans have the most.

So the take home message appears to be:

The greater the relative amount of noncoding DNA an organism has the more complex it is.

A correlation doesn’t mean very much without data to support it.

An increasing body of evidence is showing that noncoding DNA sequences play instrumental roles in everything from cell division to leaf development in plants. Several human diseases have now been associated with “errors” in noncoding sequences. Additionally, the role of noncoding RNAs – one of the products of noncoding DNA – seems to be incredibly substantial.

If all of this is true why do we still think there’s junk in the genome?

Until recently it was quite reasonable to think that there were vast amounts of “junk” DNA in the genome. Genes and their products (proteins) are big, and easy to study. Therefore, they have garnered almost all of the scientific attention. The technology to study noncoding sequences is just now coming of age, and is consequently revealing all their biologic roles.

What’s next?

Continuing research on noncoding RNA and DNA sequences is likely to reveal how complex our genetic programming really is. We’ll have to see how deep the genomic rabbit hole really goes…

[dpn]

skunk No1 is no longer skunky :shh:

[Parabola]

follow the heart, use your mind, and select what you like as nature takes her course. breeding a trait or genotypic expression out is as simple as selecting only stock from those who do not show that expression. as to how many generations it may take before you see a sufficiently reduced gene frequency? who knows? that is the variable and therefore the rub. it seems a dominant gene would be much easier to "breed out" than a recessive one. with cannabis we always contend with the fact that males often cannot directly display the traits we are looking for in it's progeny.

[amrad]

Hey thanks C-ray. That makes sense, I take it to mean that no genes can not be bred out. If they are not turned on by environmental factors, or survival mechanisms. They still remain as non coded. It also stands to reason that humans would have more non coded dna, since we evolved from one cell organisms to our present state we retained all the dna from then till now. In an evolutionary sense it would make no sense to drop complexity.

[c-ray]

yes and specifically it is the loving hand of a conscious human fully connected with nature who can push this evolution of the plant just as the plant is doing the same with the human
spiritually entwined we are, and to accept this is the key that will unlock the door that allows us to realize our dreams

[d'artanian]

yes and specifically it is the loving hand of a conscious human fully connected with nature who can push this evolution of the plant just as the plant is doing the same with the human
spiritually entwined we are, and to accept this is the key that will unlock the door that allows us to realize our dreams
:adore:

[c-ray]

I'm don't buy into the idea that the growers intentions effect how the plant grows and develops. Especially in regards to genes. There is simply no scientific evidence that would occur (that I'm aware of).

While speaking in ethereal terms sounds good, I very highly doubt anything is actually happening at all in that regard...

I know of a guy in Peru who bred the gluten out Kamut, using such spiritual scientific techniques, it is a registered variety if you want to look it up
another spiritual scientist bred rye with a foot long head and 300 grains, normally rye only has about 80 grains
there are more examples out there if one knows where to look

[guest]

I'm don't buy into the idea that the growers intentions effect how the plant grows and develops. Especially in regards to genes. There is simply no scientific evidence that would occur (that I'm aware of).

While speaking in ethereal terms sounds good, I very highly doubt anything is actually happening at all in that regard...

Maybe you could read or re-watch the secret life of plants and start from there.

[c-ray]

sometimes it is better not to think and just experience

[amrad]

I'v requested the book you mentioned gojo, from the library, thanks for that. But I think c-ray isnt just speaking trash.
Wasn't it proven through quantum mechanics experiments that particles act differently when observed than when not? So since every thing, in ultimate reality, is one, I don't see why plants wouldn't react to mental stimuli.
I have a hard time believing in spiritual stimuli, since I dont believe in a soul. Which is where, If i understand it correctly, this type of stimuli would originate.

[amrad]

And then of course there is Finhorn:)

[c-ray]

teach yourself how to see auras and it will all start to make sense, I did many years ago and never looked back
it not only takes an open mind but a cultivation of a certain consciousness and an enthusiasm for the interconnectedness of all beings
really since we are working with sacred plants we should be like priests or magi and our gardens like holy temples

[c-ray]

for those of us who are opposed to using the words 'spirit' and 'spiritual' we can instead use words like energy, quantum and force when we are describing such concepts
still it is important above all to maintain a morally sound perspective, and as much as possible to foster and strengthen our connection with nature as it is nature which ultimately determines what sprouts from a seed

[Lundin]

:adore::kind:eucharist=:sun::high:

[hypnotoad]

Is it possible to breed genes out?

New growers do this daily by taking some of the finest genetics around the world and turning it into shoe weed within 1 generation. I'm sure that on my grow journey more than a few good plants will fall by the wayside, and represent nothing of their true genetic potential after being mangled by well meaning, yet unknowing, hands.

[spaceman]

my plants love me!

[hypnotoad]

Wait a minute, now that I read this thread, where are all of Gojo's posts?

On a serious note, I have this question. C-Ray, seeing as you are an accomplished grower, are you saying that while you basically follow the scientific method, do you add elements to your research that may not be quantifiable of directly observable?

For instance, planting on the phases of the moon, and seeing actual germination rates vs moon phase. I would view that as a scientific approach to understanding a metaphysical belief. But while we may definitively find a way to get the best germination rates (in this scenario) during certain moon phases, understanding the mechanics would be another manner.

I guess since this is such an esoteric question, I may not be getting my point across. Simply put, I'm curious about your research/gardening workflow, and methodology.

[c-ray]

actually I've been learning new languages so I can read specialized agriculture books from europe that are not available in english yet, folks that have already figured this stuff out so I am basically just following their guidelines and they seem to be working quite well
no need to reinvent the wheel
I do a lot of reading and inevitably end up trying a lot of different things, but it is not so methodical, I can only say that for instance I feed something to a plant an watch the reaction over several days, or I germinate a bunch of seeds on such and such a day and watch how they spring up out of the soil
the ultimate test comes when the bud is harvested and properly dried to a point where it is ready to smoke and not a day sooner, in which case after smoking a few doobies I can say that I can taste such and such fertilizer that was used and if it was a negative experience then I can make adjustments the next go around...the ideal is that we experience each flower as they are meant to taste given the environment they are grown in and not be able to taste the fertilizers they were grown with..I am fortunate that I have an above average palate sensitivity, but others may not so in their case they need to find someone who does to help in the testing..really this testing is what it comes down to and really there should be as many testers as possible to get a good idea of whether something can be considered an improvement or not

back in garden the kicker is that imho the human being can often influence how things go to a great extent, and this is especially evident when dealing with small gardens or with only a few plants
to get a real scientific like perspective I find it is important to grow a lot or ideally an overwhelming amount of seeds or cuttings as this takes the focus from a few plants to many plants and in this case I have to spread my energy out so there is less to go around, and then and only then can I take myself more or less out of the picture and get a good picture of how all the external elements are contributing
also when sprouting lots of seeds I can get a much better idea of actual germination rates compared to just sprouting 5 or 10
when germinating only 5 or 10 seeds and getting 80% or whatever to germ well that is nice but it is not really a great indication of true germination rates, but it does show to a certain degree how vital those seeds
this is a major reason why small scale growers have an advantage when it comes to growing very high quality herb with good yields, they can give each plant that much extra attention to each plant, they can spend endless hours stroking each plant and telling them all how beautiful they look

personally I think it is important for everyone who is curious about something to actually try it and see what happens, that way our belief system gets constructed from what we can actually see with our own eyes and not built up from others stories, and over time our collected experiences can help us develop a better sense of instinct and intuition towards future decisions

btw there is a whole lot more to just germination rates when considering what day to plant, in the long term there are implications to how the plant will develop, what part of the plant will develop more than others, this is old school knowledge