</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by WolfLarsen:
Well it's clear with today's technology that things can be manipulated more so than before. BUT I think this method is easier and much more practical in my opinion, (the six-generation part). I'll probably always think that's important to do. That's my opinion. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Opinions you're certainly entitled to, but knowledge would be so much better. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. WHAT method are you talking about?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> There's been far too much invented in Germany not for it to be taken seriously, mechanically/medically). I don't think that everything this Germany does is right and everyone else is wrong, NOT AT ALL. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Okay...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> BUT when you look at their references, you can't help but look into some of the things they say. This way you don't have to worry with many complicated issues. That's hard for the common man to produce and work with. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">erm, again, what exactly are you talking about? What references are you referring to and why do they make you wonder?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> It's my opinion though that with genetics after six generations solid anything else after will die out completely. Of course now there are ways to skip this process, cloning, artificial insemination, line breeding, etc. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not true. To give one example: I've idly followed the fates of this line of German Shepherd-Boxer crosses. After the foundation cross, the resulting generations have been systematically backcrossed with unrelated purebred German Shepherds. Since the foundation boxer was a solid brindle, it wasn't that surprising to find the entire F1 generation brindle, but 14 years and 8 generations on, the offspring are *still* brindle. Conformation wise however, there was very little Boxer influence after the third generation, but you can be sure that there are lots of other Boxer genes that just aren't obvious.

Within a breed, even 'unrelated' animals are gentically very close, so outcross effects will persist even longer -- unless (and this is key) you outcross and select based on particular, measurable, genetically-controlled traits.

Selection is the key to improvement, not outcrossing and hoping that the genes 'die out'. They won't.

With regards to human beings, there is no selection pressure on the population as a whole (if you want kids and you can, you almost certainly will). With rare exceptions involving simply inherited serious diseases, it's also perfectly needless.

If you're concerned about the issue of eugenics, you can't do better than Stephen Jay Gould's 'The Mismeasure of Man'. Get it, read it, reread it.

I think quoting what I say like that is hilarious. If it makes you feel better/more important to do so, then by all means go ahead. Everyone can clearly read my posts on the board. You obviously have a knee jerk reaction to certain words and get into things that HAVE NO RELATION to the discussion. If it works with humans, it will with dogs. I can read what your trying to say in code, :rolleyes: o. I think that was in poor taste. Maybe Dei, you should possibly consider becoming an attorney, it might be your calling. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

As far as their credentials . . . rockets, jets, automobiles, nuclear weapons, cloning, graphology, etc, etc, etc, and not to mention how much they've produced in psychological study. The many things they didn't invent, they certainly perfected. I could go on and on about this. BUT I don't need to. What you think is your perception.

I was never concerned about finding a better way to prevent this or that, if it makes something superior then I think it would help any breed or in any species.

This is my final post about this topic. The only reason, I've mentioned this much is because I was asked. I have my opinion, and you do too. END OF STORY.

Stephen Jay Gould . . . . well let's just break that down, SHALL WE? I would think he would clearly be a little biased on that issue. What you say has no basis for a dog discussion. You better not write to me about this again.

Wolf are you the same guy who asked the board to tone it down. What were your words "shock jock"
What do they say people who live in glass houses..........

Milt

I agree with you Milt. But if someone is going to do that then two can play. Besides, I'm not going to apologize to someone like that. If there's something someone wants to say then they can tell me something like that privately.

I feel like I've tried to be nice, and if someone wants to seem brilliant while they're here, and s___ on people for their own entertainment value then two can play.

As I said, if someone wants to send me a private message I will have no problem asking or answering the question. BUT I'm not speaking about this again. It's not related to a working K9 discussion . . . in my mind.

Wolf, don't be so defensive...geesh! I wish I could pull out of my dog the kind of defense you possess. If you would go back and read many MANY previous posts on this board, you would see that capital letters and quotes are used quite often to show accentuation and help other readers follow a thread without having to go back to previous posts to see what that person is referring to. It is not for malicious intent or to affirm superiority. This is a discussion board. You brought up the topic, you got a discussion. Not everyone will have the same opinion as you and debates will evolve. That's the best way to learn! Lighten up, will ya? :rolleyes:

Wolf, I'm tempted to say build a bridge and get over yourself, but that would be rude and wouldn't get us anywhere.

I am sorry that you feel that I quoted you for the express reason of putting you down. My intention was to break up your rambling post and address as specific an answer as I could to each part, since you were earlier on in the thread upset at Beth for not answering your question. I also asked for clarification when I wasn't sure of what you were asking.

For a person with highly valued opinions, you're not doing so well at saying what you mean. I know you have the ideas in your head, but it doesn't come across in what you say and you seem to get a bit frustrated when we can't read your mind.

I don't know how to say this without upsetting you, but eggs and omelettes...can't have one without breaking the other. Perhaps if you went and sat down for a while, then reread what I and everyone have actually said rather than what you think we said, then tell us your assertions, explain your underlying assumptions, and tell us about what you are basing your opinions on, then we'd have a discussion that you'd find more relevant.

Finally, this is a dog-related bulletin board. If talking about genes in dogs isn't relevant to our discussion, what is? Or did you mean something entirely different?

No quotes -- are you happier now?

Quoting is a very effective way to respond to multiple points in a post. Plus it eliminates misrepresenting what a member wrote. This is something I recommend to all members. If a member will get insulted when other points of view are expressed I will recommend to the member that they do not post. This is a discussion board not a podium. So lets continue the discussion and have some fun!

THE MISMEASURE OF MAN, Well I'm glad to hear your keen insight. In case anyone thinks what I said was harsh, that's fine. Look up the book he told me to read, and then "reread it."

I think someone that writes something to me that implies I'm a "Nazi" is clearly out of line. I am not, and it has nothing to do with the discussion. That was cute the way he worded it by the way.

I'm sorry. You're assuming that I'm saying that you're a Nazi.

No. All I said that if the subject of eugenics interests you, I recommend 'The Mismeasure of Man'. I've read (and reread) it myself and have found it interesting, intelligent and thought-provoking. I've also read 'The Bell Curve' and thought it interesting, though the authors are barking up a gum tree. If YOU think that MY suggestion of a book title means that I think that you're not just a person who finds the ideas of eugenics attractive but a full-blown-Aryans-are-superior neo-Nazi, then I don't know what to say to you.

Trust me on this, I say what I mean. If I had a problem with what you had said, I would have
called you out on them and I would have said exactly WHY I had a problem. Nor would my rejecting any ideas of yours have meant that I was rejecting you as a person. Since you are yet to articulate your first coherent idea about breeding, how can I possibly have a problem with what you've said?

Rather than throwing a hissy fit, it would have been better for you to ask me why I recommended the book.

Exorcise that overly active imagination of yours and get a grip.