Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
983 posts
Jan 03, 2007
7:23 AM
|
Why Birmingham Rollers Are Ash-Red & Blue Series:
In 1950-51, the NPA published a booklet called “Project On Genetics”, it was produced as a project of the National Pigeon Association Research Committee. It was revised in 1980 by W.F. Hollander (Genetics Department Iowa State U.) one of the original authors of the booklet among others.
In this booklet, Darwin’s “Reversion To Wild Type” is briefly discussed. In a nutshell: if you mated a Chinese Owl (Blue Bar) to a Strasser (Silver Barless) you end up with what Darwin called “reversion to wild type”: a common pigeon showing blue bar. Other examples are given.
This phenomenon tends to happen when assorted breeds are allowed to cross indefinitely with each other.
So here is my hypothesis:
Since the Birmingham Roller was originally developed from different breeds exclusively for its performance characteristics, it is not hard-allowing for Darwin’s reversion to wild type (coloration) to logically conclude that whatever the original colors or structural characteristics were of the contributing breeds, the coloration of this developing breed would have reverted back to wild-type as it development was focused NOT on color but on PERFORMANCE and the physical attributes to contribute to same.
At some point, this bird created by combining tumbling/rolling breeds became known as the Birmingham Roller and recognized as such by the fanciers and then later acknowledged in writings and then ultimately by official pigeon organizations.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
Bluesman
Pigeon Fancier
941 posts
Jan 03, 2007
9:26 AM
|
Tony.So according to your theory then all Birmingham Rollers should be Blue Bars.Right? David
|
longarm
29 posts
Jan 03, 2007
9:35 AM
|
ok now there is something I can understand. In turkeys this theroy is well proven when you take a royal palm ( white based black penciled ) and cross with a bourbon red ( rich deep red color with white tail and flights) you get a high number of wild looking turkeys. but as I understand it there are 4 natrual colors of pigeons so why are we not seeing them as well? c.j.
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
984 posts
Jan 03, 2007
9:47 AM
|
Hey David, so what part of Darwins' statement is not true? Where did the NPA Research Project get it wrong? Seriously, where?
No "straw men" allowed. LOL
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
Last Edited by on Jan 03, 2007 10:06 AM
|
AIREDALE
51 posts
Jan 03, 2007
10:10 AM
|
If we bred for color exclusively,we should have a problem.If we bred along the hard color line,stiffness?If we bred soft colorwise,we get lack of control and or character?Therefore,intellegent blending would be the answer?
John
|
knaylor
422 posts
Jan 03, 2007
10:12 AM
|
John, so you think the hard color line are stiffs?? If so you need to get out and see some good kits!!
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
985 posts
Jan 03, 2007
10:15 AM
|
Hey C.J., Well, I am not an expert on color or genetics, but I don't think you need to be an expert to understand my hypothesis. Even your post regarding the turkeys supports it.
From my research, there 3 basic colors in pigeons in this order of dominance:
1= Ash-Red
2= Blue
3= Brown
Reduce, Dilute, Pattern and modifiers provide everything else: Bar, check, grizzle...
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
986 posts
Jan 03, 2007
10:19 AM
|
Hey John, no "straw men". lol
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
belle
93 posts
Jan 03, 2007
10:29 AM
|
Darwin also said that we came from monkeys, just because darwin said it dose not make it true, darwin made a lot of what is called a theory.
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
1014 posts
Jan 03, 2007
10:35 AM
|
In this booklet, Darwin’s “Reversion To Wild Type” is briefly discussed. In a nutshell: if you mated a Chinese Owl (Blue Bar) to a Strasser (Silver Barless) you end up with what Darwin called “reversion to wild type”: a common pigeon showing blue bar.
This is actually quite easy to understand and should be for even the novice. What this illustrates is is the heterozygous state of recessive genes, both sex linked and non sex linked. The "wild type" described above is the easiest of them all because one of the parents was already wild type for color and one was physically wild type. The Owl expressed the wild type color, bar pattern along with possessing recessive genes for tuft, pants and short beak. The strasser is completely the opposite. It is a dilute of the wild type blue and is barless which is the lowest form of pattern and recessive to bar. It is also void of recessive genes such as those found on the Owl.
Therefore, assuming the Owl was a cock bird, all young from this pair would be blue bars and all would be heterozygous for the recessive tuft, pants, etc genes of the Owl, along with being split for barless and all cocks would carry dilute.
The above example Tony posted is about as easy as they get to describe. Ask him what happens when you cross a recessive red Trumpeter with a blue check Saxon Field Pigeon. You might find things get a little tricky now...lol.
I subscribe to many of Darwin's theories, mainly that we should be thinning the herd (doing away with inferior subjects both with our pigeons and in our society)
But the mere suggestion and propganda that we evolved from apes puts him on the other side of the fence with me. Monkeys...my ass!
Last Edited by on Jan 03, 2007 10:37 AM
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
987 posts
Jan 03, 2007
10:37 AM
|
Hey Belle, just for the record, I am a 6 day creationist. I don't agree with the theory of evolution.
What I quoted has nothing to do with evolution.
Another "straw man"...
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
988 posts
Jan 03, 2007
10:39 AM
|
Hey Brian, you throw up another "straw man" with your last 2 paragraphs.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
Last Edited by on Jan 03, 2007 10:40 AM
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
1015 posts
Jan 03, 2007
10:41 AM
|
WTF is this straw man shit?
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
989 posts
Jan 03, 2007
10:44 AM
|
Hey Ron, reread my first post.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
990 posts
Jan 03, 2007
10:51 AM
|
"The Straw Man Argument:
To identify a Straw Man Argument, you must be familiar enough with the topic in question to recognize when someone is setting up a caricature.
Understanding when someone is using this deceptive tactic is the best way to call attention to the weakness of the straw man position.
A Straw Man Argument is a statement a person makes if they want to more easily attack an opposing position."
Source: University of Michigan website.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
Bluesman
Pigeon Fancier
942 posts
Jan 03, 2007
10:54 AM
|
Tony.I agree with what Darwin said.What are you saying? Are you saying you can breed for Color and Performance with rollers? David
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
991 posts
Jan 03, 2007
10:59 AM
|
Hey David, I am not responding to a strawman argument. Just refute the merit of my hypothesis.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
1016 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:07 AM
|
WTF does that straw man bullshit have to do with other's posts? For instance, what does describing in detail what your initial post was referring to, or providing the example of one that would be far more extreme have to do with attacking the opposition? I think you really just don't know what you are talking about and feel threatened when someone adds "clarity" to something you say. Your only defense is "straw man".
I think this is just another one of those threads started by you where everyone who posts will be called that bullshit name. Remember that one? Amazing. Try to post something that goes long with what someone says and it is inflammatory?
Probably why when I went over 1,000 posts here, I didn't even get a hat...lol.
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
992 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:12 AM
|
Hey Brian, I said the last 2 paragraphs of that post. The preceding is not what I was referring to. It does not invalidate what I said in my first post.
I am getting to the hats and shirts for good volume posters, just not there yet. Please hold...lol
Strawman...LOL
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
Bluesman
Pigeon Fancier
943 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:20 AM
|
Tony.You can call me a Straw Man all you want.Your topic of this thread was "Why Birmingham Rollers are Ash Red and Blue Series."
Accoding to your theory and Darwins everything would have reverted back to Blue Bar.
Where does the Ash Red come in at unless they were selected for? Nothing Straw man about it.You made the statement;I am asking how. David
|
AIREDALE
52 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:22 AM
|
Hey Tony, Just remember I was the First "Straw Man". Right?
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
1017 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:24 AM
|
David, just remember back to that thread about a month ago that started off just like this. You won't win. He will say you are arguing or trying to invalidate his comments by calling you a straw man. Kinda goofy, but hey, its his site. He with the keys to the house always wins, even if they are wrong. Since I like to argue, I call stick man on Tony for failing to come up with a logical answer to my more elaborate example.
Here's one for ya. How long will it take a loft full of recessive red rollers to revert back to wild type blue bar?
Last Edited by on Jan 03, 2007 11:27 AM
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
993 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:25 AM
|
Let me add something to the reversion idea, perhaps this might help.
I maintain that when differing breeds are allowed to cross breed in an open loft environment, they will lose whatever it was that made that breed unique. That is really the extent of the revision back to wild type that I am referring to. Does not have to mean that they go back to the "rock dove".
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
nicksiders
1154 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:29 AM
|
LMAO.....I am THE Original Strawman. Look it up and you will see my picture. Hell, I don't know hardly a damn thing and yet I have over 1100 posts and a lot of them argueing about someting I know nothing about. THE Strawman here......LOL
My hat size is Xtra Large.
Strawman....I mean Nick
----------
Snicker Rollers
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
994 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:30 AM
|
Hey Brian, here we go. Now disparage the messenger, another dodging technique. LOL LOL
So, what part of the original hypothesis is incorrect? I am willing to move forward but no one is showing the way.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
AIREDALE
53 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:31 AM
|
Tony, How about Straw Hats for the Straw men? John
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
995 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:32 AM
|
BTW, I not saying YOU are a strawman, only the arguing technique is called strawman. Read the definition I posted from the MSU. lol
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
1018 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:36 AM
|
Tony, there is no moving forward. You gave comments about what darwin said about reversion to wild type with an example. I dissected what that example meant, and posed another, more involved example that would require extensive reasoning to map the course back to wild type. It is easy to get wild type blue when one of the parents is wild type blue. I challenge you to give us another, less likely example, possibly colors which are not one of the two that reside in your own personal loft? That is how we move forward from where you started....or you can answer my question...which is moving forward.
Last Edited by on Jan 03, 2007 11:37 AM
|
Bluesman
Pigeon Fancier
944 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:38 AM
|
Tony.This is what YOU said in your first post.
Since the Birmingham Roller was originally developed from different breeds exclusively for its performance characteristics, it is not hard-allowing for Darwin’s reversion to wild type (coloration) to logically conclude that whatever the original colors or structural characteristics were of the contributing breeds, the coloration of this developing breed would have reverted back to wild-type as it development was focused NOT on color but on PERFORMANCE and the physical attributes to contribute to same.
Notice the words NOT and PERFORMANCE.
Now what were you saying? Was you meaning something else? David
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
996 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:46 AM
|
Hey Brian, read my post #993 for some clarification of my statement regarding wildtype.
So what part of the hypothesis is incorrect and why?
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
nicksiders
1156 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:46 AM
|
David,
Can you imagine argueing like this in the "Other" site. The owner would be calling you at home(LOL) after he locked the thread of course(LOL).
Strawman Nick
----------
Snicker Rollers
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
997 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:47 AM
|
Hey David, I don't understand the question. Sorry.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
1020 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:47 AM
|
David, here use this against him..........his own words LOL
"A Straw Man Argument is a statement a person makes if they want to more easily attack an opposing position"
Sounds like Tony Straw manned his own initial thread....setting up the caricature to once again hammer on the guys who happen to breed for color. Man I'm glad I am having a bad morning at work, otherwise I would have just let this one lay.
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
998 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:49 AM
|
Hey Brian, stay with me, where is my hypothesis wrong and why?
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
Bluesman
Pigeon Fancier
945 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:50 AM
|
Nick.No one is arguing here.At least I'm not.The other site has nothing to do with this thread.LOL. David
|
bman
148 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:52 AM
|
"I maintain that when differing breeds are allowed to cross breed in an open loft environment, they will lose whatever it was that made that breed unique. That is really the extent of the revision back to wild type that I am referring to. Does not have to mean that they go back to the "rock dove"."
"Since the Birmingham Roller was originally developed from different breeds exclusively for its performance characteristics, it is not hard-allowing for Darwin’s reversion to wild type (coloration) to logically conclude that whatever the original colors or structural characteristics were of the contributing breeds, the coloration of this developing breed would have reverted back to wild-type as it development was focused NOT on color but on PERFORMANCE and the physical attributes to contribute to same"
Am I the only one who sees a contradition here?
----------
Ron
Last Edited by on Jan 03, 2007 11:53 AM
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
999 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:53 AM
|
Hey Brian, I lay a foundation for my hypothesis(NPA Research Project and Darwins well accepted wild type theory), by definition it is not a strawman. LOL
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
bman
149 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:57 AM
|
Qoute "focused on performance"
"allowed to breed in an open loft"
Which is it? two different things in my book.
----------
Ron
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1000 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:57 AM
|
Hey Brian, actually my hypothesis is meant to give those breeders with the opinion that the Birmingham Roller is actually a breed something to hang there hat on.
Weak or strong, my hypothesis has not been budged up to this point.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
Bluesman
Pigeon Fancier
946 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:58 AM
|
Tony.Then your Topic should have said nothing about Ash Red,just the Blue Series and you shouldn't have added your comments about NOT selecting for color just Performace.David
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1001 posts
Jan 03, 2007
12:00 PM
|
Hey Ron, both quotes are referencing two different intents. Now here we go, I have to start explaining things, all this does is muddy the water and gets us away from the validity of my hypothesis.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
1021 posts
Jan 03, 2007
12:02 PM
|
Your hypothesis is partially incorrect because the reversion theory is based on the lack of human interference, hence throwing several breeds into a loft and letting them do their thing for a few years...you would experience some reversions.
Rollers, particularly as you described their development, would most likely not revert to wild type unless there was a predominant use of wild type expressing birds within the original first generations. And this likelihood would continue to dimenish the more humans were deciding what birds the mates would be.
There are different levels of "reversions". Color wise you have to know what what every color and combination that was present in the original crossings before you can quickly assume all would revert to wild type. Since you failed to answer my question, I'll apply it here because it will shed some light to what I am trying to explain. If the originators of the Roller only had recessive red pigeons to choose from, there would be NO reversion to wild type. NONE. Why? Because each contributing parent is homozygous for recessive red, even if they are all blue bar underneath, they will all appear red and will forever and ever. Now if under the recessive red some were ash red and some blue and few were blacks and some were lavenders, there would exist an invisible reversion to blue bar over the course of a very long time, provided there was no influence by the human factor. You following me here? This is where your statement is partially incorrect. I say partially because reversion does exist. It exists because all colors and patterns are sex linked while the rest of the factors involved are recessive. Reversion is nothing more than a single word used to describe the possible eventual result of genetic mapping as it slowly navigates its way back to wild type.
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1002 posts
Jan 03, 2007
12:03 PM
|
Hey David, okay, how should my hypothesis read to make sense to you?
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
maxspin
66 posts
Jan 03, 2007
12:04 PM
|
Tony,
We are not breeding at random with our birds. Therefore "your" theory does not hold. We need to follow the roll no matter what color. If your best most prepotent bird is not Blue or Ash-Red then that is the direction that your family will follow. Grizzle, spread, recessive modifiers etc.
If we just threw them in the loft an let them pair up how ever they wanted then "your" theory may hold.
Keith
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
1022 posts
Jan 03, 2007
12:05 PM
|
"Now here we go, I have to start explaining things, all this does is muddy the water and gets us away from the validity of my hypothesis".
This is the statement you will hear from people who make a statement and will not accept any challenge, pro or con. It is like saying "I said it, and that is that".
In all actuality, explaining the points of one's statement actually adds clarity, provided they knew what they wanted to say in the first place. Muddying the waters, or you really can't explain what it was you really intended to say?
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1003 posts
Jan 03, 2007
12:06 PM
|
OKAY, Brian, now that's better. I have to go fly my birds and feed the others.
Lets pause this for awhile.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1004 posts
Jan 03, 2007
12:08 PM
|
PS its not a theory, just a hypothesis...at this point.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
1023 posts
Jan 03, 2007
12:10 PM
|
OWNED!!! Go ahead, admit it....LOL
Good luck with the birds. I have to get back to work too.
|
Bluesman
Pigeon Fancier
947 posts
Jan 03, 2007
12:10 PM
|
Tony.Read what you wrote again.
So here is my hypothesis:
Since the Birmingham Roller was originally developed from different breeds exclusively for its performance characteristics, it is not hard-allowing for Darwin’s reversion to wild type (coloration) to logically conclude that whatever the original colors or structural characteristics were of the contributing breeds, the coloration of this developing breed would have reverted back to wild-type as it development was focused NOT on color but on PERFORMANCE and the physical attributes to contribute to same.
According to your hypothesis there would be no Ash Red. Just Blue.David
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1005 posts
Jan 03, 2007
1:25 PM
|
Hey Brian, I guess it got personal for you! LMAO It's not about being right or wrong, but being intellectually honest. I have always said I will follow the science...
Now David, he came up with something that actually contributed to the thread and I will see if I should add to or modify my hypothesis.
I said it was a hypothesis from the beginning! LOL I guess a working hypothesis at that! LOL
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|