I noticed a couple of posts about one of my favourite laws, Mendal's Law - a very good one by Daz, and another by Neat - and what was interesting in a contradictory way is the Purdue experiment, where scientists found that Mendel's Law may be flawed, and that there could be some self-correction going on in the RNA that acts in contradition to the laws set down in the DNA strands.

 

Even though offspring should inherently adopt certain "genetic flaws" the RNA goes against the blueprint and almost becomes self-correcting.

 

I was wondering if anyone has any anecdotal evidence that highlights the purdue experiment in regards to line breeding of budgies?

 

Article can be found at: Mendel's Law may be Flawed (and yes I know it's only talking about watercress, but Mendel was talking about peas)

Edited December 23, 200816 yr by **Liv**

I have heard that Mendal did pad out his numbers a bit to make them look more convincing. It is haresay, because my flatmate told me, but it is possible.

There is a lot to the world that we don't know.

They are not laws, they are observations of what generally occurs with hereditary breeding. They are expectations based on observations. DNA, and RNA mutates all the time, it is necessary for adaptation to survive, and probably once the crisis is over, reverting back to normal conditions. Viruses insert themselves into the hosts genome in order to be replicated, thus important role in mutations and tumours. There is also research for cancer treatment being carried out in this field.

 

Anecdotal evidence for "returning to normal" is when you put two opaline birds together and occasionally a normal pops out.

In science a Law does not mean it is infallible. Laws are very annoying things and are better replaced with Theories. A theory is the highest form of understanding in science. A theory is a very very strong hypothesis about something, that has a lot of evidence to back it up and has not been proved wrong.

A theory is not what someone thinks something is and how it works.

 

Observations are what lead us to form hypotheses. In which we either create experiments to test these hypotheses or further observe something to back it up. A hypothesis that has been backed up by evidence gained from repeatable experiments and observations and has not been proved wrong, becomes a theory. Theories are really hypotheses that are highly resistant to being proven wrong (in fact no theory that exists today has been proven wrong, because then it would have been dropped by the scientific community, it is still possible that they could be proven wrong, but they haven't yet. For example the Theory of Plate Tectonics) and have been tested over and over to produce the same result without fail.

Edited December 23, 200816 yr by Sailorwolf

Thats weird... in every other aspect of life something needs to be proven before its accepted but in science you have to disprove it??? Or did I just mis read your post Sailorwolf??

They are not laws, they are observations of what generally occurs with hereditary breeding. They are expectations based on observations. DNA, and RNA mutates all the time, it is necessary for adaptation to survive, and probably once the crisis is over, reverting back to normal conditions. Viruses insert themselves into the hosts genome in order to be replicated, thus important role in mutations and tumours. There is also research for cancer treatment being carried out in this field.

 

Anecdotal evidence for "returning to normal" is when you put two opaline birds together and occasionally a normal pops out.

 

DrNat,

 

I have to disagree in part with your view on Mendel's observations not being Laws, and I support Sailorwolf's views - I think that they are generally accepted and taught as Laws, but yes, they are not infallible.

 

Mendel was one of our founding fathers of genetics, and I think that we should give him credit there and allow the use of the word Law.

 

From: Rich Deem, "Famous Scientists Who Believed in God", last modified 19 May 2005, on "Evidence for God from Science" website (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html; viewed 5 October 2005): Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was the formation of the X-Club, dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science whilst, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.

 

 

 

 

I completely agree with you about DNA and RNA mutations. Mutations and reversions occur all the time. I think what was interesting with the Perdue experiment is the fact that while they could no evidence of the grandfather genes in the DNA of the plants without the bad gene in it, there was a complete reversion and that the mechanism for recovering the normal DNA in the plants might be lurking in the plant's RNA.

 

Slightly off topic, but you touched on it yourself - To quote from http://www.niazi.com/Neurons/Gregor%20Mendel.htm

Somewhere in our mRNA there is a copy of our genetic code that is flawless; if only this could be triggered when body figures that something wrong, something that is stressing the body systems like a cancerous cell, a hyper immune response producing diabetes, multiple sclerosis etc. It will then be possible for the body to instantly trigger a correction, fixing the genetic defect and as a result the disease.

 

I wondered what anecdotal evidence there is to support Purdue, and maybe my question should have been what is the percentage of reversion / throwbacks observed that mimic all the characteristics of the grandparent by his offspring after F2 and prior to the re-introduction of the grandfather?

 

Aren't opalines, birds that are sex linked for colour? Would they follow the more traditional Mendelianism methodology, or is there a few more subtle complexities involved with a predominantly recessive gene to begin with? I'm not sure, but wouldn't there be a lot more potential reversion / mutation with opalines because they are recessive to start with - probably a different topic here?

Edited December 24, 200816 yr by **Liv**

Aren't opalines, birds that are sex linked for colour? Would they follow the more traditional Mendelain methodology, or is there a few more subtle complexities involved with a predominantly recessive gene to begin with? I'm not sure, but wouldn't there be a lot more potential reversion / mutation with opalines because they are recessive to start with - probably a different topic here?

 

Actually no they are not a mutation sex linked for colour.

 

The opaline gene is pigment distribution mutation. It alters the distribution of the pigment without creating any new pigments. It causes the underwing stripe in a budgie to become visable above the wing, which in budgies is known as a wing mirror. The normal grey down is replaced with white down. It reduces the spread of grey family pigments whilst enhancing the spread of yellow family pigments.

Aren't opalines, birds that are sex linked for colour? Would they follow the more traditional Mendelain methodology, or is there a few more subtle complexities involved with a predominantly recessive gene to begin with? I'm not sure, but wouldn't there be a lot more potential reversion / mutation with opalines because they are recessive to start with - probably a different topic here?

 

Actually no they are not a mutation sex linked for colour.

 

The opaline gene is pigment distribution mutation. It alters the distribution of the pigment without creating any new pigments. It causes the underwing stripe in a budgie to become visable above the wing, which in budgies is known as a wing mirror. The normal grey down is replaced with white down. It reduces the spread of grey family pigments whilst enhancing the spread of yellow family pigments.

 

Apologies - I should have said Aren't opalines, birds that are sex linked (which impacts on their colour). I think the point I was questioning was that given they are a recessive gene, wouldn't it be possible that any "mutations" would be the dominant genes taking control. Anyway I think I have effectively hijacked my own Mendel thread

Recessive gene or mutation might mean the same thing as a genetic flaw. A recessive gene is just something different to a normal wildtype, call it a "flaw" if you like.

 

If you put two opalines together you should, according to Mendel's Principles applied to what we have observed so far about budgie genetics, produce all opaline offspring. There are anecdotal reports of normal offspring from opaline pairs.

 

If something is fallible, it isn't law. There are always exceptions to the rules and we are all constantly evolving, or changing. Observe longer and more closely and you discover more and more exceptions. But the principles and the concept is the foundation for what follows.

 

Sailorwolfs views on theories are basically what I said, though more accurate and descriptive terminology. Expectations based on observations (or, in other words if you like, the principles of inheritance that produce generally accepted expected outcomes backed up by consistent observations of these results of many breeding experiments) is the same as theory, call it whatever you like. The only way you truly know is if you discover it for yourself. Even better if you can prove it to others.

 

I can't prove the existence of God, I can't disprove it either. Because how do you define God? If God is everything, well then, that is easy to prove, look at everything around you, look at yourself, you can see God right before your eyes. But how do you know if your definition of God is correct or if you have the same concept for the terminology you apply to it as someone else? How can you know what God's Laws are or what God wants if you don't really know what God is? It comes down to what you believe and what you observe for yourself. It may not be necessary to repeat the experiments of others to verify the results if others have already done so, or if you are content with the evidence presented, or if you decide to go on blind faith/belief for that matter. If you think something is correct, why would you question it? If you think it is incorrect, read widely and find out other hypotheses, theories, experiments and prove or disprove it for yourself.

 

I can tell you that there is anecdotal evidence to support reversion from opaline to normal in budgies, but that is just hearsay. I can't prove it unless I have evidence of it myself by producing this outcome in a tightly controlled breeding experiment, and others can also verify it. Even if I do breed normal budgies from opalines then, the mechanism by which it occurs may be unknown to me, it might not be gene reversion, it might be something else entirely. Ultimately you might not believe it anyhow unless you see it for yourself, which it the best way to find out.

 

Hippocrates was considered the "father of medicine" and he had a theory (at the time generally accepted or believed and probably considered lore or law) about the "humours", then Galen had his theories, then others theirs. As our knowledge evolves we continue to question "laws", because they aren't necessarily so.

 

Try asking Mutavi research group for an answer to your question on percentage rates, they might have evidence that is scientific rather than anecdotal.

Edited December 30, 200816 yr by DrNat

Thats weird... in every other aspect of life something needs to be proven before its accepted but in science you have to disprove it??? Or did I just mis read your post Sailorwolf??

 

Yes and no. It depends what you are trying to prove. In events that occur over millions of years, things that take too long for us to observe, like evolution and plate tectonics this would ring true. In things that we can observe and measure like some aspects of physics like electricity, the event happens in a relative time frame that we can observe and thus can be proven a little easier.

 

ha ha. But yes you did misread it as I mentioned that proof and some form of evidence is generally needed to form a theory, several times

Edited December 30, 200816 yr by Sailorwolf

A simple point mutation in the sequence for opaline in one of those parents could cause the occasional normal bird out of opaline as without that second opaline gene the chick would automatically revert to a normal colouring. I guess the issue here is 'anecdotal', unless their is actually proven eveidence of these brds it may be as simple as someone not havng seperated a pair for long enough and the hen carrying sperm from another cock in the flight.

Edited December 30, 200816 yr by melbournebudgies

A simple point mutation in the sequence for opaline in one of those parents could cause the occasional normal bird out of opaline as without that second opaline gene the chick would automatically revert to a normal colouring. I guess the issue here is 'anecdotal', unless their is actually proven eveidence of these brds it may be as simple as someone not havng seperated a pair for long enough and the hen carrying sperm from another cock in the flight.

 

 

 

here is a question for you all i would like as many to awnser as can

i read that the hen is only fertalized by the one cock for 48 hours may be a shorter time span 8 or twenty 4 not sure but the

whole point it was getting at is that hens can be fertalized by several diffrent cock hence one of the reasons we separate our birds for breeding

but then i read some where else that a hen is fetilized by the one cock through out the whole duration of the one clutch

so who is speaking the truth?

i belive that each egg is seperatly fetalized by each seperate incountor unless the egg has not had a chance to start forming and then its anybodys guess (genetics would tell trates you know)

 

yet at the same time i dont have evidance of this as my bird are breed seperatly for a whole buntch of reasons apart from knowing who is surffing who

can anyone shed some light her for me

here is a question for you all i would like as many to awnser as can

i read that the hen is only fertalized by the one cock for 48 hours may be a shorter time span 8 or twenty 4 not sure but the

whole point it was getting at is that hens can be fertalized by several diffrent cock hence one of the reasons we separate our birds for breeding

but then i read some where else that a hen is fetilized by the one cock through out the whole duration of the one clutch

so who is speaking the truth?

i belive that each egg is seperatly fetalized by each seperate incountor unless the egg has not had a chance to start forming and then its anybodys guess (genetics would tell trates you know)

 

yet at the same time i dont have evidance of this as my bird are breed seperatly for a whole buntch of reasons apart from knowing who is surffing who

can anyone shed some light her for me

 

I have no idea.

 

Like the rest of this thread it goes way over my head. I gotta go back to school or something. I should've known when I first read the title and didn't have a clue who Mendel was... But hey I keep reading it to try and learn something so keep posting everyone...

I have no idea.

 

Like the rest of this thread it goes way over my head. I gotta go back to school or something. I should've known when I first read the title and didn't have a clue who Mendel was... But hey I keep reading it to try and learn something so keep posting everyone...

 

well belive it or not he isnt that hard to graspe i read most his stufff ... yes me ..lol took a long time of re reading it but finally sunk in i just do what i was taught when younger off this show breeder dude

 

it works for me

if only i could remember what he said ...

 

i follow my iner instinked ... so far .. its unlocked the knolage ..

you guys help

It is generally thought that each of the hen's ova are fertilised by one sperm each to produce a fertilized egg.

(There are exceptions to this, such as in the case of chimeras - always exceptions!)

 

If a hen mates with six different squire birds and then lays six fertilized eggs, then it is possible that each egg might be fertilised by a sperm from any of the squire birds she mated with.

 

So the offspring produced might all have different fathers. There are possibilities that the sperm of only one, or maybe two, or perhaps three of the squire birds would successfully fertilise her eggs. So in that case, not all squire birds are fathers and some of the six offspring would have the same father.

 

Sperm can survive for a while in the hen. So if your hens and squires fly together in a mixed aviary, and then you take a pair out and put them in a breeding box and the hen lays fertile eggs straight away. You know she is the mother of the offspring because she laid them. However, you won't necessarily be certain who is the father of each of the offspring, it could be any of the squires in the flight.

 

This raises several questions. How long do the sperm survive in the hen? How do we know if the hen doesn't absorb the DNA from the sperm from whichever squire she mates with and somehow store it in her own genome somewhere for the rest of her life? If that did occur, how do we know that it isn't possible for some of that DNA she absorbs into her own genome to somehow end up incorporated into the genome of her offspring? We don't unless we conduct controlled and verifiable experiments to find out.

 

The only way that you can be certain of the father is to segregate the sexes prior to pairing them.

 

With some of my birds, I don't care who the father is. To me the maternal line is more important and verifiable. I let nature sort out who the father is, and I let my birds choose their mates from within a pool of birds I select. If I have a particular squire bird that I want to use, I sometimes give him a choice of half a dozen hens that I would like him to breed with and see which hen likes him best, and which he likes best. (Occasionally that backfires when he likes a hen that doesn't like him, or a hen likes him that he doesn't like, then he gets what I choose.) If I have a particular hen I want to use, then I select a group of squires and see which one she likes best, or I might choose one for her myself. I don't care if another squire bird gets to her in the process, I only care about what the offspring end up like, because I don't have enough cages to continue to breed with the old birds, I want to breed with the offspring the following year.

 

If I do happen to come across something unique in my offspring that I want to develop, if it is male I will put it back to it's mother, if it is female I will put it to it's brother (because they have the same mother) or if I am certain of the father with a second or third round chick, back to the father.

 

I know that my first round of chicks from any pairing may have different fathers and I make note of that in my breeding records if they are a first round chick, but the second and third rounds I expect will be of that squire bird I have paired the hen with.

 

I have a "hypothesis" - (see hypothesis 7), that if a hen is fertilised by multiple squire birds and all those different little sperms are mixed up together in the cloaca of the hen bumping into each other all the time, might it be possible that they trade DNA between each other before one of them fertilises the hens egg? So could it be possible that the offspring has aspects of two different fathers?

 

But this hypothesis is beyond my capability, interest and intention to develop a theory.

 

I can give some hearsay anecdotal evidence that led me to formulate this hypothesis:

 

I put three birds together in an aviary for several months, a hen with two squire birds.

After several months, I put a nest box in and the hen laid fertile eggs and hatched offspring for several rounds.

The hen OLIVE was a normal bird split for recessive pied.

One squire was a normal split for recessive pied SCALLYWAG and the other was a texas clearbody QUAZAR.

OLIVE produced for me in her fourth clutch a recessive pied male offspring TIGER.

I mated TIGER to a different normal hen SABRINA for six successive rounds without contact with other birds, and produced several texas clearbody hen offspring.

This led me to conclude (based on my assumptions of how these genetic traits are inherited) that TIGER the recessive pied was also split for texas clearbody.

 

I know that OLIVE is TIGER's mother because she laid him.

I don't know if either QUAZAR or SCALLYWAG is the father, or both.

 

I have made the assumptions that recessive pied is inherited as an autosomal recessive trait, and that texas clearbody is inherited as a sex-linked recessive trait. (Also made several other assumptions on chromosomes and inheritance and the list goes on, but I work with what I know and believe, thats all we have really).

 

Now there are several hypotheses that could explain the occurrence of TIGER the recessive pied producing texas clearbody hens:

 

1. That QUAZAR the texas clearbody squire is the father, and also happened to be split for recessive pied

2. That SCALLYWAG the recessive pied squire is the father, and also happened to be split for texas clearbody

3. That TIGER is a chimera fertilised by both QUAZAR and SCALLYWAG

4. That SCALLYWAG is the father and TIGER had a spontaneous texas clearbody mutation to produce texas clearbody chicks

5. That QUAZAR is the father, but there was a spontaneous mutation in TIGER's genome to make him recessive pied

6. That the clearbody hen offspring are a different type of clearbody altogether

7. That there was a contact transfer of genetic information between the sperm of both fathers incorporating the recessive pied characteristic of SCALLYWAG and the texas clearbody characteristic of QUAZAR into the one sperm that fertilized OLIVE's egg to produce TIGER - this is the idea that occurred to me based on nothing but instinct

8. Something else? Was olive carrying a spare sex chromosome (ZZW rather than just being ZW, and somehow split for texas clearbody that she passed on to TIGER, along with her autosomal recessive pied trait, and SCALLYWAG has fertilised the egg with his recessive pied trait also to produce TIGER the recessive pied split for texas clearbody)

 

I would have to do lots of controlled breeding experiments and all kinds of other experiments with those birds and their offspring and siblings to provide evidence to prove or disprove any of these hypotheses.

Then I could develop my theory of TIGER (Transfer and Integration of Genome Evidence and Results).

In my experiments I would have to make note of the assumptions of how I believe these characteristics to be inherited, and report my findings. Others would have to verify these findings to support my theory.

 

I'm not going to bother with this because ultimately it is not so important to me except that, from what I understand of inheritance of these characteristics in budgies based on reading the work of others, my texas clearbody hen offspring are also split for recessive pied. Now I am going to breed one of these hens back to Tiger because I want to see what a recessive pied texas clearbody looks like.

 

The point is to decide what you want to achieve with your budgie breeding.

(In this case I want to see what a recessive pied texas clearbody looks like. I have other goals for other pairs.)

Then read, ask the questions, and learn from others ideas, discover things for yourself, think for yourself about how you may apply them to what you want to achieve, and develop your own understanding, then speak your ideas to others so that we may all expand our awareness. Sometimes it doesn't even matter who is right or wrong, it just matters that we all went through the process and gained the knowledge and wisdom from it to achieve what we wanted to achieve. Sometimes, the reward is knowledge and wisdom itself. Sometimes the proof is in the pudding.