White Khaki Campbell Duckling

doggo · **Posted:** Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:46 pm

Let's not be distracted by the qualifications required to understand this question. At best it is high school biology. Even an internet search of "inbreeding mutation" will provide a good insight as to whether the claim that inbreeding causes mutations is correct. It just isn't.

ColacWaterfowl · **Posted:** Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:14 pm

doggo wrote:

Let's not be distracted by the qualifications required to understand this question. At best it is high school biology. Even an internet search of "inbreeding mutation" will provide a good insight as to whether the claim that inbreeding causes mutations is correct. It just isn't.

Its far from high school biology :roll:

ok so you say internet search of (quote you) "inbreeding mutation" will provide a good insight as to whether the claim that inbreeding causes mutations is correct. It just isn't (end of your quote). So please provide web site link from genetic experts for your search. I await all the links you will post backing up YET another claim you make "It just isn't" lets see you proof please doggo. I contacted 3 geneticist today and I mentioned your statement from your "botanist friend" or google? and they all confirmed that your "friends" or google? was false and entirely without foundation and we are 1000000000% correct sorry to correct you again!

doggo · **Posted:** Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:55 pm

You are the one making the extravagant claim - that inbreeding somehow induces genes to mutate.You provide one shred of credible evidence in support of your claim and I promise to make a full and grovelling retraction.
Asking me to produce authoritative scholarly discussion of the contrary is like asking to see a scholarly article rebutting the claim that the moon is made of green cheese.

ColacWaterfowl · **Posted:** Sat Mar 09, 2013 9:21 am

doggo wrote:

You are the one making the extravagant claim - that inbreeding somehow induces genes to mutate.You provide one shred of credible evidence in support of your claim and I promise to make a full and grovelling retraction.
Asking me to produce authoritative scholarly discussion of the contrary is like asking to see a scholarly article rebutting the claim that the moon is made of green cheese.

Sure thing HERE YOU ARE and its one of many, just google Mice, Birds, ect... for more.
http://bigcatrescue.org/abuse-issues/is ... te-tigers/

Quote:

In June 2011 the board of directors for the American Zoological Association (AZA) formalized their 2008 ban on the breeding of white tigers, white lions or king cheetahs by their member zoos. Their report said, “Breeding practices that increase the physical expression of single rare alleles (i.e., rare genetic traits) through intentional inbreeding, for example intentional breeding to achieve rare color-morphs such as white tigers, deer, and alligators

I will ask AGAIN for you to post the web site YOU claim that state its not possible, totally impossible.

Quote:

Even an internet search of "inbreeding mutation" will provide a good insight as to whether the claim that inbreeding causes mutations is correct. It just isn't.

backup your remark (in red) with a shred of credible evidence

Quote:

Inbreeding increases the chances that the effects of any given genetic mutation will become manifest in the population by virtue of the fact that it is more likely that related birds, carrying the same, recessive mutated gene(s), inherited from a common ancestor, will be paired together and hence produce offspring with the two copies of the mutated gene(s) required for the effect(s) of the mutated gene(s) to show.

http://www.gbwf.org

doggo · **Posted:** Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:02 pm

Geez CW. There is a huge difference between saying that inbreeding causes genetic mutation and saying that inbreeding causes existing genetic mutations to become apparent by increasing the probability of recessive genes occurring homozygously. I don't question the latter proposition and if you read carefully you will see that I have been saying that all along.
What I maintain is that the proposition put forward by weston that inbreeding causes mutation has no credibility or support anywhere in the literature. If you can produce any credible support for the last mentioned theory - even a passing reference to it in any scientific literature or publication I will most definitely stand by my undertaking to retract and apologize profusely.
A good start to understanding basic genetic rules of inheritance of recessive genes would be to look at Mendel's theory. I am starting to suspect that we are not even on the same page.

ColacWaterfowl · **Posted:** Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:33 pm

doggo wrote:

Geez CW. There is a huge difference between saying that inbreeding causes genetic mutation and saying that inbreeding causes existing genetic mutations to become apparent by increasing the probability of recessive genes occurring homozygously. I don't question the latter proposition and if you read carefully you will see that I have been saying that all along.
What I maintain is that the proposition put forward by weston that inbreeding causes mutation has no credibility or support anywhere in the literature. If you can produce any credible support for the last mentioned theory - even a passing reference to it in any scientific literature or publication I will most definitely stand by my undertaking to retract and apologize profusely.
A good start to understanding basic genetic rules of inheritance of recessive genes would be to look at Mendel's theory. I am starting to suspect that we are not even on the same page.

There is no mutation until the genes come together I.E 2 copies of each from sire and dam. I made the quote below bigger so you can see and read it. Also try reading the PDF I posted its also in there.

Quote:

In June 2011 the board of directors for the American Zoological Association (AZA) formalized their 2008 ban on the breeding of white tigers, white lions or king cheetahs by their member zoos. Their report said, “Breeding practices that increase the physical expression of single rare alleles (i.e., rare genetic traits) through intentional inbreeding

Quote:

Inbreeding increases the chances that the effects of any given genetic mutation will become manifest in the population by virtue of the fact that it is more likely that related birds, carrying the same, recessive mutated gene(s), inherited from a common ancestor, will be paired together and hence produce offspring with the two copies of the mutated gene(s) required for the effect(s) of the mutated gene(s) to show.

whats in front of you its all in black and white.

I will ask for the third time for you to post the web site YOU claim that state its not possible, totally impossible.

doggo wrote:

Even an internet search of "inbreeding mutation" will provide a good insight as to whether the claim that inbreeding causes mutations is correct. It just isn't.

backup your remark (in red) with a shred of credible evidence

Weston · **Posted:** Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:44 pm

doggo wrote:

What I maintain is that the proposition put forward by weston that inbreeding causes mutation has no credibility or support anywhere in the literature

You have the literature in front of your face and its all credible and supported and you well know it.

originbreed · **Posted:** Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:46 pm

something that probably needed to be defined was what was doggos interpretation of a mutation?
not all mutations are bad. inbreeding will bring out good mutations. breeding siblings isnt going to give all progeny 4 legs and no wings.
it may be the only way to keep a trait you are seeking

Weston · **Posted:** Sat Mar 09, 2013 2:06 pm

originbreed wrote:

something that probably needed to be defined was what was doggos interpretation of a mutation?
not all mutations are bad. inbreeding will bring out good mutations. breeding siblings isnt going to give all progeny 4 legs and no wings.
it may be the only way to keep a trait you are seeking

Yes your right originbreed, inbreeding or linebreeding can not only reveal a mutation for the first time but as we know its the only way to establish the mutation or "sport"

Weston · **Posted:** Sat Mar 09, 2013 2:22 pm

ColacWaterfowl wrote:

There is no mutation until the genes come together I.E 2 copies of each from sire and dam.

To help those that don't understand what CW is saying here a little example

Let say you have 1001 brown emus and the code we will say is (BE) for this exercise

Ok so if we mate a male and female together of brown emus both being (BE) then the chicks will be....................... you guessed it (BE) ok now lets say within the 1001 brown emus 1 male has a mutant gene (simple terms) and 1 female also has the same mutant gene (simple terms) and for the example we will say the mutant gene is (e) (notice its a little e and not a capital E) so we see the code as (Be) so the 1 male that has the code (Be) finally after 9 years meets up with the 1 female in the 1001 that is also (Be) and guess what.............. yep 1 of the chicks (or more) is PINK! OMG its a miracle! no its the fact that the genes needed (Be) x (Be) = % of (Be) so you can see the " 2 copies CW mentioned are needed. I hope this simple example helps. I should add that this does not happen all to often especially in the wild

AUSTRALIAN POULTRY FORUM™

White Khaki Campbell Duckling

Who is on the Forum