Fem seeds and there impact on the future of the species known as cannabis.

[kopite]

As the thread has progressed, its easy to see the acquisition of new members who seem to have come to the forum for one purpose only. To reply in this thread, and present a smoke screen to the general forum in which they pretend others are ignorant, need to be educated, havent did their research etc. in an effort to defend the feminized seed trend. Coincidence? As the thread has progressed in the opposite direction of these folks positions, more members have surfaced, most of whom can be found pulling the same kind of shenanigans over at Icmag where the threads are censored, edited, closed, taken off subject, trolled etc. anytime the truth about this manner becomes too hot for the bank rollers to handle.

One thing that Ive noticed in life, is the veil of popularity associated with safety in numbers. Its trendy, popular in fact, to go with the what the majority seem to be doing in every day affairs from wearing clothes, too listening to a specific kind of music. Those who choose to think for themselves, or do their own thing, going against the status quo are often looked at as outsiders. And Im willing to bet quite a few of you can relate to this point in relation to your own experiences in life and what happens to those who do not go with the norm yourselves.

Safety in numbers can ultimately be the only sharade of hope those who support the feminized seed have left once the thread starts to run away from their positions. (Much as we starting to see occur now with those who have found the ambition to come forward and share their own thoughts which do not mirror the unfortunate supporters of the feminized trend). Which may explain why we're seeing the aforementioned newly acquired members coming to the forum for the express purpose of trying to defend the feminized seed trend. And which I believe may ultimately have been hempys point with the posting of the fem central.

When I look into my crystal ball,

The only hope I see for those who support the feminized seed trend in this thread, is safety in numbers. To present a mirage to the general forum that "the majority" are in fact in favor of trashing your beloved plant via means of manipulation. Using terms which most of you are not familiar with, which may or may not sound impressive depending on your level of experience or ability to think for yourselves. The topic of this thread is one which I feel is of great significance, which is the impact of the cannabis plant itself based off the ever increasing popular trend of the feminized seed product. If any of you truly love the plant, any potential danger should be taken seriously to its ultimate existence.

lol, I laugh because you genuinely get the impression something similar occurs haha.

You're a crank with no understanding whatsoever IMO, you ATTACK people time and time again like you're the internet gestapo.. you drive people away from this site, where as you should be encouraging people, perhaps you like being a big fish in a small pond? going thru the thread you don't bring many facts to the table do you? as for calling members out for being in this thread perhaps you should ask JB or Fresh Genetics why he went round inviting people left right and centre ?? Lets have an open discussion on Breeding methods and not just fem seeds just as much damage is done that way !!

I'll level with you I find you rude and a distraction to the forum TBH.

IT'S NOT THE METHOD IT'S THE PRACTICE

 

[Donald Mallard]

Much respect for that post kopite ,, i see a lot of good info and discussion on this thread , apart from the odd distraction ..
as i notice a post from a respected member on another site ,, titled ""when knowlege is supressed , well all loose""
i notice a bit of that going on here also , in this thread,, thats a shame given what a great site with such good heads aboard ...

I wasnt going to post further on this thread , but its hard to sleep nights and allow misinformation to rule ...

One last post to jesse ,, we are not kindergarten kids here ,, we all know how to pick up a dictionary if needed ,, its the mr nice forums , we are mature adults and can discuss openly topics without being harassed ,, called out ,, or treated like children .. that is the point of the forums here ,, are you sure you belong in such a mature place ????

 

[kopite]

Nevil- "To me, the question left hanging in the air is, if having two sexes speeds up the rate of evolution, what role does the Y chromosome play?"

Clearly much more is needed to advance a species then a degree in yada yada yada. I agree with the old timer's assertion that cannabis and man have more
in common then you first suspect. Based on this study of man-kind (pun intended) the Y holds information that the X does not.
That being said perhaps there is a priority system when genes blend where X's go first. Maybe because of the anatomy of the Y information from that gene is less readily exchanged in the presence of the additional X in an XXY offspring.?

Perhaps it is like when a human egg is fertilized once the sperm enters the egg no other sperm can enter, except with genes.?

The male genome is so important IMO that the species developed a way to form male flowers to comtinue to pass this important information despite mans interference to eliminate most males.

It is not so Important!! look at how dioecy evolves in relation to cannabis its an outcrosser therefore naturally it favours a mating system to promote such.. why is a male typically taller etc etc all IMO to promote outcrossing. We have to remember dioecious cannabis is intended to be out crossed.

As to the egg fertilized with sperm etc.. again naturally some pollen will nick better with the female.. but IMO the Y role is just to promote out crossing perhaps theres some suppresor role on the Y side with view to sexual differention ?

 

[kopite]

I already gave you a clue. The reason cannabis is considered a highly evolved plant is because it has two sexes, one with a Y chromosome. In fact, all highly evolved life on this plant has two sexes. Lesser plants are self pollinators!
Could it be that having two sexes speeds up the rate of evolution?

I like the idea of clones in seed form, so that we can more efficiently preserve what we have got, but like the clone itself, It's an evolutionary dead end until we breed it to something.

To me, the question left hanging in the air is, if having two sexes speeds up the rate of evolution, what role does the Y chromosome play?
N.

It just promotes out crossing IMO, as far as i'm aware the rate of evolution is over a million years ? we know selfing promotes inbreeding and is the fastest way to achieve it.. most of the problems with regards to fem seeds seems to be that people forget that you need 2 seperate lines to create the hybrid..

Ps. thx for putting the pic up.

 

[Donald Mallard]

I notice a few folks referring to mother nature etc ..
are they aware it is man that made cannabis how it is today ,,
it is man that selected for potency in cannabis , not nature ,
go and look at wild hemp and have a toke , without man there isnt much in the way of potency at all ..
man has inflenced all the crops we grow , to how it suited his needs , using nature to make what he needed ...
mother nature has provided us with the tools to use to feed ourselves and clothe ourselves ,, but it is man that has used those tools to make mother nature work for him ...

I really urge fellow members to study more on how plants work and how we have used them to our advantage .. please open a book and have a read ..

 

[kopite]

I notice a few folks referring to mother nature etc ..
are they aware it is man that made cannabis how it is today ,,
it is man that selected for potency in cannabis , not nature ,
go and look at wild hemp and have a toke , without man there isnt much in the way of potency at all ..
man has inflenced all the crops we grow , to how it suited his needs , using nature to make what he needed ...
mother nature has provided us with the tools to use to feed ourselves and clothe ourselves ,, but it is man that has used those tools to make mother nature work for him ...

I really urge fellow members to study more on how plants work and how we have used them to our advantage .. please open a book and have a read ..

Exactly look at crops and how man has adapted them to suit his needs.. I grow for female plants.. therefore I want female plants... its not the be all and end all.. its something that serves a purpose, a tool in the box of which you need many.

it also seems to me many don't understand how the sexual systems work especially with regard to sexual determination.

http://www.plantcell.org/cgi/reprint/1/8/737.pdf

 

[brock1]

It just promotes out crossing IMO, as far as i'm aware the rate of evolution is over a million years ? we know selfing promotes inbreeding and is the fastest way to achieve it.. most of the problems with regards to fem seeds seems to be that people forget that you need 2 seperate lines to create the hybrid..

Ps. thx for putting the pic up.

evolution happens over millions of years because it has no outside factors effecting it. look at dogs and flowers cows, sheep ect ect. all have been evolved a lot faster than nature would because of man. how long would it take to make a total new breed of dog, plant ect now be honest. millions of year? i dont think so maybe in the wild without humans intervening. we are interfering with evolution all the time playing god so to speak. a new breed of anything can be achieved in just a few year not millions when we play god fact. we can play god to a dangerous level these days and with the power of god in human hands we need to respect it. not abuse it without thinking of the consequences first. what you say applies to a neanderthal man that doesn't have any understanding of how things work. humans understand how most things work and have a responsibility not to take apart what they cant put back together. how meany natural things are gone because man new best that the planet would be better with since we first appeared on the plant? we still haven't learned it seems. with great understanding comes great responsibility. we are the ultimate killing machine on the plant and we haven't learned responsibility for the future of lesser life forms on the plant. nothing is more dangerous to the future of other species than us. learn and evolve. evolve and dont be ignorant to the evolving we have done over thousands of years. evaluation takes thousands of year that's unbelievable sorry but it is a really relay bad point to use for anything today. maybe a thousand year ago when we know no better. sorry you must of grow up in a cave Kopite to not see how fast we make things evolve.

 

[hempy]

You cant turn a donky into a race horse no matter how much you breed select from its species reality boys and girls and for cannabis to be good it had to be good to start with.

 

[Donald Mallard]

id beg to differ on that hempy ,,
did u read my last post ,, its man that made cannabis potent ,, not nature ,, we took advantage of something it had and made it stronger ,,

no offence hempy .. but it really pays to study some books ,, english rick pointed out an excellent one that id say is a must to read ...

no one is trying to sweep the dust under the carpet here ...

 

[kopite]

evolution happens over millions of years because it has no outside factors effecting it. look at dogs and flowers cows, sheep ect ect. all have been evolved a lot faster than nature would because of man. how long would it take to make a total new breed of dog, plant ect now be honest. millions of year? i dont think so maybe in the wild without humans intervening. we are interfering with evolution all the time playing god so to speak. a new breed of anything can be achieved in just a few year not millions when we play god fact. we can play god to a dangerous level these days and with the power of god in human hands we need to respect it. not abuse it without thinking of the consequences first. what you say applies to a neanderthal man that doesn't have any understanding of how things work. humans understand how most things work and have a responsibility not to take apart what they cant put back together. how meany natural things are gone because man new best that the planet would be better with since we first appeared on the plant? we still haven't learned it seems. with great understanding comes great responsibility. we are the ultimate killing machine on the plant and we haven't learned responsibility for the future of lesser life forms on the plant. nothing is more dangerous to the future of other species than us. learn and evolve. evolve and dont be ignorant to the evolving we have done over thousands of years. evaluation takes thousands of year that's unbelievable sorry but it is a really relay bad point to use for anything today. maybe a thousand year ago when we know no better. sorry you must of grow up in a cave Kopite to not see how fast we make things evolve.

No just the only way it can be measured is as such, don't be so condescending..

r = (ln(x2) - ln(x1)) / Dt

I know how it works, which was the point you clearly missed (hopefully Nev hasn't((was just a little jab)) though you have helped rely the point... .

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2459757

and which was something DM eluded to ie we create high THC plants not nature... WE select, WE play god as you put it... but since Hempy is using humans as an example I could use this and say the rate of evolution slows with Y

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007276

 

[L33t]

hi all

hey hempy and Donald Mallard

yeah Donald according to some cannabis started off as low THC (in its wild growing form) , and selection for high resin production and high potency is what brought us the numerous high THC/potency different lines we have available.

But..eitherway the high potency/THC production genetic traits had to be in the genetics' potential in the first place..cause if not we wouldn't be able to select towards that way..so eitherway hempy is pretty much right. Humans surely did a lot with selection but if it wasn't for nature cannabis would not be psychoactive for us to enjoy..

For the theory of yours to make sense it would have to be humans to have actually made cannabis to be psychoactive and also humans to have actually created the genetics' potential to produce high THC and potency by some sort of a mutation or something. It doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[brock1]

Exactly look at crops and how man has adapted them to suit his needs.. I grow for female plants.. therefore I want female plants... its not the be all and end all.. its something that serves a purpose, a tool in the box of which you need many.

it also seems to me many don't understand how the sexual systems work especially with regard to sexual determination.

http://www.plantcell.org/cgi/reprint/1/8/737.pdf

that's the most contradicting thing i ever heard. are you for real? or just trying to justify your self. one minute things take years to evolve. then nature give us the tool to make thing evolve faster and we should use them without thinking of the consequences. really lol. come on i think we were given the tools but not to abuse. we have the resources to use them probable but we still dont. i suppose that's human nature use and abuse then when everything go pear shaped just say shit sorry because we all know sorry make everything better lol. when we make wild plant and animals extinct. how meany wild plant and animals dont exist because we made new ones to replace them or our new ones breed them making a new species? i think you need to research as much as anyone take your own advice i think you need it.

 

[kopite]

that's the most contradicting thing i ever heard. are you for real? or just trying to justify your self. one minute things take years to evolve. then nature give us the tool to make thing evolve faster and we should use them without thinking of the consequences. really lol. come on i think we were given the tools but not to abuse. we have the resources to use them probable but we still dont. i suppose that's human nature use and abuse then when everything go pear shaped just say shit sorry because we all know sorry make everything better lol. when we make wild plant and animals extinct. how meany wild plant and animals dont exist because we made new ones to replace them or our new ones breed them making a new species? i think you need to research as much as anyone take your own advice i think you need it.

Clearly you don't understand what I'm on about... things take millions of years to evolve if no selective pressures are used etc etc.. this was the whole point not just because something has A Y.

 

[kopite]

hi all

hey hempy and Donald Mallard

yeah Donald according to some cannabis started off as low THC (in its wild growing form) , and selection for high resin production and high potency is what brought us the numerous high THC/potency different lines we have available.

But..eitherway the high potency/THC production genetic traits had to be in the genetics' potential in the first place..cause if not we wouldn't be able to select towards that way..so eitherway hempy is pretty much right. Humans surely did a lot with selection but if it wasn't for nature cannabis would not be psychoactive for us to enjoy..

For the theory of yours to make sense it would have to be humans to have actually made cannabis to be psychoactive and also humans to have actually created the genetics' potential to produce high THC and potency by some sort of a mutation or something. It doesn't make much sense to me.

yes its there but HAS to be selected for.... just like you select away from intersex plants.

 

[Donald Mallard]

hi all

hey hempy and Donald Mallard

yeah Donald according to some cannabis started off as low THC (in its wild growing form) , and selection for high resin production and high potency is what brought us the numerous high THC/potency different lines we have available.

But..eitherway the high potency/THC production genetic traits had to be in the genetics' potential in the first place..cause if not we wouldn't be able to select towards that way..so eitherway hempy is pretty much right. Humans surely did a lot with selection but if it wasn't for nature cannabis would not be psychoactive for us to enjoy..

For the theory of yours to make sense it would have to be humans to have actually made cannabis to be psychoactive and also humans to have actually created the genetics' potential to produce high THC and potency by some sort of a mutation or something. It doesn't make much sense to me.

Absolutely l33t ,, as i said man has taken advantage of what was there , there is no doubt it is much more potent than its earlier forms , as they are still around to compare ... \
So it can resonably be said it is man that has influenced cannabis to be how it is today , what we smoke ..
I am sure we would not be so impressed with the wild version ...

 

[DarwinsBulldog]

You cant turn a donky into a race horse no matter how much you breed select from its species reality boys and girls and for cannabis to be good it had to be good to start with.

lol are you kidding hempy?

"Modern racing horses can trace over half of their genes to 10 horses of the late 18th century, and over 80% to only 31 ancestors from that era. Despite that highly constrained gene pool, the speed of horses has risen (whether or not it plateaued in the 1950s as discussed above). Similarly, much of the morphological evolution in dogs took place over a similar time period, beginning in the 18th century as breeders began paying more careful attention to studbooks."

http://ncse.com/book/export/html/5251

"A population of organisms exhibits considerable variability among individuals for a trait or traits that might be of interest to humans for one reason or another (such as running speed in thoroughbred horses, petal size and shape in tulips, number of kernels in an ear of corn, egg size in chickens, etc.)."

http://www.ableweb.org/volumes/vol-21/8-lauffer.pdf

horses evolved from a much slower ancestor (as it had no need to run around a track quickly with a jockey on its back) and for the last several 1000s of years horses have been bred to be quicker and quicker because they were used for purposes that required speed like travel, cavalry/army uses, racing. they evolved from an animal as slow as a donkey (after all they share the same common ancestor and a very recent one at that considering you can interbreed the two to create mules and asses), donkeys were bred for more laborious jobs like farming and plowing activities as well as more difficult travel in mountainous regions, they were never bred to be fast by humans... and we have plenty of horses like shetland ponies and Clydesdales that can't race for shit, why? because of artificial selection they were bred for other reasons than quick mobility.

ancestral horse... looks pretty similar to a donkey does it not? the thing is barely 1m tall... we made horses fast, we made them big, we made them strong.

you CAN turn a donkey into a race horse, hell you could turn it into a whale if you wanted, you just need enough time and the right selection pressures to do so. it's the same with any living organism on this earth... google evolution my friend, it's been working hard to give us the plethora of organisms in all shapes and sizes that exist today for the past 4 or so billion years, all from one original single celled organism. nothing just "IS" good at something unless it has needed to evolve to be so... thus it has to have evolved from (been selected from) slower ancestors. grey hounds are still the same species as wolves... go back 50 yrs and the quickest greyhound from that time is probably as slow as todays worst racers, go back 1-200 yrs and grey hounds didn't exist.

with enough time and selection, pretty much anything can evolve to do anything.

 

[kopite]

that's the most contradicting thing i ever heard. are you for real? or just trying to justify your self. one minute things take years to evolve. then nature give us the tool to make thing evolve faster and we should use them without thinking of the consequences. really lol. come on i think we were given the tools but not to abuse. we have the resources to use them probable but we still dont. i suppose that's human nature use and abuse then when everything go pear shaped just say shit sorry because we all know sorry make everything better lol. when we make wild plant and animals extinct. how meany wild plant and animals dont exist because we made new ones to replace them or our new ones breed them making a new species? i think you need to research as much as anyone take your own advice i think you need it.

Another point Brock1 I back up all my stock so nothing is lost as I move a line to what I select for, so no I'm not trying to justify anything, I was pointing out the stupidity of Nevs post in a nice enough way..

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/358/1434/991.full.pdf

 

[L33t]

hi DarwinsBulldog

the potential was already there in the genetics , be it in the case of the horses or any other species..

The fact we have faster horses now is not only due to the fact we selected for and bred towards desired traits , ie more muscles but is also due to the fact that the care/nutrition/living conditions etc are much better nowadays and we have all the new technology and advanced science that helps too. But the genetic potential was there!

As for the rest you posted , I don't see your point I m afraid..what hempy meant if I understand things right, is that the potential was already there we just had to find ways to take advantage of that potential , and be it through simple selection or advanced breeding practices. But it was there to begin with..it wasn't humans that made cannabis psychoative or gave the plant the potential to produce high THC content.

 

[DarwinsBulldog]

hi all

hey hempy and Donald Mallard

yeah Donald according to some cannabis started off as low THC (in its wild growing form) , and selection for high resin production and high potency is what brought us the numerous high THC/potency different lines we have available.

But..eitherway the high potency/THC production genetic traits had to be in the genetics' potential in the first place..cause if not we wouldn't be able to select towards that way..so eitherway hempy is pretty much right. Humans surely did a lot with selection but if it wasn't for nature cannabis would not be psychoactive for us to enjoy..

For the theory of yours to make sense it would have to be humans to have actually made cannabis to be psychoactive and also humans to have actually created the genetics' potential to produce high THC and potency by some sort of a mutation or something. It doesn't make much sense to me.

cannabis would've started off with no potency at all.... ancestral cannabis had no THC in it... it had similar chemicals that over time evolved to become more complex until a beneficial mutation occurred creating THC in the plant which was effective at deterring animals from eating it, especially during flowering periods when the plant definitely wants as little damage done to it as possible, hence boosting THC production in the flowers... they taste terrible to animals and so are avoided. herbivorous animals were the selection pressure that enabled cannabis to evolve THC to the extent it has it now...

anything is in the potential of the DNA of any organism in the first place l33t, cannabis still evolved from the same ancestor as us so anything can change to form anything else at the end of the day, with enough time. everything is made from exactly the same building blocks, they've just gone off in different directions over time to survive in whatever environment that exist in. you could genetically modify effectively anything to do anything, that's proof in and of itself that whether or not something has the ability to do something today (naturally), doesn't define whether it will be able to do it or not tomorrow.

glow in the dark mice for example, the natural mice didn't have the genes to do this, they had to be taken from jelly fish and introduced into the mice unnaturally yes, BUT the resulting animal can survive much the same as any other natural mouse. so all that would have to happen (over whatever amount of time) is for those or similar genes to evolve in the mouse step by step to allow it to do that naturally (the same way they would've naturally evolved in the jelly fish to begin with). my point is that anything can evolve to do anything at the end of the day whether it can or can't presently. it just takes a great deal of time for beneficial mutations to arise in the area you want to select for, if the organism doesn't have them already.

if we wanted we could take the genes that regulate THC production in hemp and introduce it into other organisms.

 

[kopite]

hi DarwinsBulldog

the potential was already there in the genetics , be it in the case of the horses or any other species..

The fact we have faster horses now is not only due to the fact we selected for and bred towards desired traits , ie more muscles but is also due to the fact that the care/nutrition/living conditions etc are much better nowadays and we have all the new technology and advanced science that helps too. But the genetic potential was there!

As for the rest you posted , I don't see your point I m afraid..what hempy meant if I understand things right, is that the potential was already there we just had to find ways to take advantage of that potential , and be it through simple selection or advanced breeding practices. But it was there to begin with..it wasn't humans that made cannabis psychoative or gave the plant the potential to produce high THC content.

No but it was humans that have selected for it and breed for it. see to me that goes againts what hempy argues for, as with female seeds WE are taking advantage of potential through selection and advanced breeding so wheres the difference ??

if we wanted we could take the genes that regulate THC production in hemp and introduce it into other organisms.

From Darwin

Think they did that with hops didn't they?