Velo99
820 posts
Jan 03, 2007
4:03 PM
|
OK,I`ll bite.
I agree with Keith to an extent. If we breed our birds by performance standards,color is moot. They would stay the same as the original breeders and the modifiers and markings they carry.
Throw into the pot they should revert,given the color and modifiers are there to let them revert. I think?
Grizzle covers everything. If we have one in the mix,what happens next?
jmho
----------
If they don`t kit,they don`t score.
Color don`t roll and peds don`t fly.
It`s a comp thing,understand?
V99
Last Edited by on Jan 03, 2007 4:05 PM
|
bman
150 posts
Jan 03, 2007
4:32 PM
|
Hey Tony,
The waters are already muddy,as Brian pointed out nearly evry one here is looking for a little clarity.
----------
Ron
|
bman
151 posts
Jan 03, 2007
4:42 PM
|
Kenny,
Brian and David might have to correct me but!
homozygous grizzle x non grizzle = 100% grizzles
hetrozygous grizzle x non-grizzle = 50%grizzles and 50% NON-GRIZZLES.
In other words not everything.
----------
Ron
|
jammerlofts
88 posts
Jan 03, 2007
4:58 PM
|
tony
you are correct heterozygous grizzles mated to non grizzles will be 50% heterozygous grizzles and 50% non grizzles
homozygous grizzles x non grizzles will result in 100% heterozygous
jc
jammerlofts
|
jammerlofts
89 posts
Jan 03, 2007
5:03 PM
|
also 2 heterozygous grizzles put together will oproduce 50% heterozygous grizzles 25% homozygous grizzles and 25% no grizzles
jc
jammerlofts
|
motherlodelofts
1273 posts
Jan 03, 2007
5:10 PM
|
You guys lost me at "hypothesis" , and then once this was thrown in "also 2 heterozygous grizzles put together will oproduce 50% heterozygous grizzles 25% homozygous grizzles and 25% no grizzles"
I knew that I was over my head in this topic LOL
Scott
Last Edited by on Jan 03, 2007 5:13 PM
|
belle
94 posts
Jan 03, 2007
5:50 PM
|
I am sorry I was just making sure that every one knows that the THEORY of evolution is just a THEORY people forget that evolution is just a THEORY, If that makes any one mad I don't care. I am a straw man about time now that I am a straw man dose that mean I can get a hat? I was told that if you take one breed of every dog in the world and put them on a inland for 100 years you will get a medium brown dog with a culled tail (a dingo). Why would pigeons be different?
|
Ballrollers
568 posts
Jan 03, 2007
7:38 PM
|
Brian,
I think you touched on another very relevant point..."over the course of a very long time". Genetic reversions in the wild take eons in order for them to occur. So it's not gonna happen anytime soon. I guess, I don't see the point, either....
YITS,
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jan 03, 2007 7:40 PM
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1006 posts
Jan 03, 2007
8:36 PM
|
Okay All You Strawmen, get ready to duck: READY...AIM...LOL
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
1026 posts
Jan 03, 2007
8:43 PM
|
Tony, I just got back from our Wednesday night Trap League....its....PULL...BANG!!!...LOL>
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1007 posts
Jan 03, 2007
10:19 PM
|
Hey David and Brian, by it being pointed out that Ash-Red would not be part of wild type (Blue) I see I need to change the wording to have the hypothesis make more sense.
The way I have worded it, it does indeed indicate that the roller should be only Blue and not Ash-Red as I have hypothesized. I have modified the working hypothesis.
So here is my UPDATED hypothesis:
“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.
Reversion toward wild type, whether partial or complete happens anytime assorted breeds are allowed to cross or mongrelize with each other indefinitely.
Why Birmingham Rollers Are Ash-Red & Blue Series:
Since the Birmingham Roller was originally developed from different breeds exclusively for their performance characteristics, it is not hard-allowing for Darwin’s reversion to wild type (Blue coloration in pigeons) to logically conclude that whatever the original colors or structural characteristics were of the contributing breeds (probably Blue was there), it is perfectly reasonable to say that the new developing breed would have reverted back to wild-type in color but was prevented due to Ash-Red being dominant to Blue.
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.”
END
My reason for referencing the above NPA Project On Genetics booklet is to point out the science behind my hypothesis: that traits unique to a breed are maintained as long as the pairings stay within the breed, but when crossed, “domestic pigeons mongrelize and breed features are dispersed”. Reversion.
Side note: Color considerations in breeding would have gotten in the way of the early efforts to produce the ultimate performing breed.
Look how difficult it appears even now for "color breeders" to produce consistent and widespread results.
I am not talking about anecdotal stories we hear about individuals but where are the dozens and dozens of breeders having success with it?
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1008 posts
Jan 03, 2007
10:25 PM
|
BMC
“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.”
Brian, I am discussing Birmingham Rollers, not Trumpeters and Saxons. The example given is all that is needed to make the point.
Play color games with Axel Sell and his book “Breeding and Inheritance In Pigeons” available on this site, don’t forget to bring your crayons. Read page 58 LOL
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
1027 posts
Jan 03, 2007
11:09 PM
|
I have Axel's book and every fancier should have one. Mine is on loan to a friend who didn't want to cough up the bucks for one. When I get it back I'll be sure to break out my crayons...lol
BTW, were you trying to make a point?
|
rollerman132
45 posts
Jan 04, 2007
1:26 AM
|
Wasn’t the scare crow from wizard of oz a straw man? I think he’s calling you guy’s brain less LMAO. and I thougt he was a nice guy.LOL
|
nicksiders
1165 posts
Jan 04, 2007
2:19 AM
|
one two three four five six seven eight nine ten......sigh
----------
Snicker Rollers
|
highroller
14 posts
Jan 04, 2007
2:51 AM
|
OK, If we're talking only rollers should we really start off with a hypothesis based on a project with owls and strassers?
|
Bluesman
Pigeon Fancier
951 posts
Jan 04, 2007
2:52 AM
|
Tony.You said:it is perfectly reasonable to say that the new developing breed would have reverted back to wild-type in color but was prevented due to Ash-Red being dominant to Blue.
Ash Red is dominant over Blue/Black but only in a controlled enviroment.Where it is selected for.In the wild Blue/Black will overtake Ash Red.How many Ash Reds have you ever seen in the wild?
So if Ash Red is selected for in a Loft of rollers is this not selecting for Color and Performance? David
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1009 posts
Jan 04, 2007
7:57 AM
|
David Wrote:
…So if Ash Red is selected for in a Loft of rollers is this not selecting for Color and Performance?
David, that the Birmingham Roller is Blue and Ash-Red is merely the “by-product” of the effort to produce other characteristics in the Birmingham Roller that worked.
At best or worst depending on where a person stands on the color issue, the originators of the breed found that Blue and Ash-Red color birds held up better to the stresses and strains of the rolling process.
So to some of the more enthusiastic color breeders, this might be considered all the validation and justification they need to cross-breed for color while pressing for the roll.
I think the explanation is simpler and less profound: the originators of the breed found the Blue and Ash-Red color series birds as a group held up better and did not hinder the breed development.
Let me add, in the same publication “Project On Genetics” by the NPA Research Committee, crossing breeds or mongrelizing made for more vigor, I can see where this vigor might have been needed in producing a bird that could do something so unnatural to it.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1010 posts
Jan 04, 2007
8:29 AM
|
David Wrote:
“Tony. You said: it is perfectly reasonable to say that the new developing breed would have reverted back to wild-type in color but was prevented due to Ash-Red being dominant to Blue.” End Quote
Ash Red is dominant over Blue/Black but only in a controlled environment. Where it is selected for. In the wild Blue/Black will overtake Ash Red. How many Ash Reds have you ever seen in the wild? David
Good input David,
I will change the sentence to this:
“…it is perfectly reasonable to say that the new developing breed would have reverted back toward wild-type in color but was prevented due to Ash-Red being dominant to Blue contained in the controlled environment of the loft.”
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
Bluesman
Pigeon Fancier
953 posts
Jan 04, 2007
9:57 AM
|
Tony.Now that we got that established you need to change the Topic to;Why Birmingham Rollers are Ash Red,Blue and Brown Series.You do know that Brown came from Birmingham also? David
|
bman
152 posts
Jan 04, 2007
10:03 AM
|
Or maybe they come in ash-red and blue because that is two of the three primary colors that exist.
Red,blue/black and brown.Isn't everything else a pattern or modifier? If that is true the reversion to red and blue is simply the LACK of selection for color ie performance.
Doesn't necessarily mean that those were the only colors to hold up.It can be argued that the selection for performance only allowed them to revert back to the primary colors.
----------
Ron
Last Edited by on Jan 04, 2007 10:10 AM
|
Ballrollers
570 posts
Jan 04, 2007
11:01 AM
|
Tony,
It appears to me, the hyposthesis that you presented falls apart on the basis of logic and the scientific method. When applying deductive reasoning when comparing two models, it is necesaary that none of the variable are changed for the premise to hold true or be predictable in the second model. Darwin's proposition (which is not a scientifc fact, by the way) requires indefinite random crossing or mongrelization.
In your hypothesis, you changed the model and provide for selection....selction based on performance. This is no longer random and indefinite mongrelization, so the hypothesis fails on that basis. We don't get to alter the variables in the model, without altering the outcome.
There are well-stablished relationships between color and performance in some families of rollers, which may be genetically linked. Thus, it is highly likely that the selection for performance could inadvertantly favor the genetic expression of certain colors, interfering with the indefinite random crossing or mongreliztion required in Darwin's hypothesis , for reversion to wild type color to occur.
**What was the meaning you intended in your statement,
"Look how difficult it is even now for color breeders to produce consistent and widespread results" ? If you are speaking of true color breeders, who pair birds based on feather color and modifiers alone, they produce very consistent and widespread results with regard to color, and more inconsistent and limited results with regard to performance.
On the other hand, the men who select and breed for performance from families of rollers that possesse color modifiers, produce consistent and widespread results with regard to performance (the Oulette Almonds, the indigo/andalusians in several families, including the Turners.) Yet they produce less consistent and more limited reults with regard to color.
YITS,
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jan 04, 2007 11:12 AM
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1011 posts
Jan 04, 2007
11:13 AM
|
Cliff, what???
Mine is a "working hypothesis", open to improvement and modification. Will the facts that we know support my premise?
Yes, with some modification through the input of the site members, which I hoped for and expected I would get. My hypothesis is getting stronger, bud. LOL Get past the bashing and use our heads and we can come up with some good stuff.
Do the facts that we know, contradict the premise? So far, no. At worst, any errors on my part when corrected strenghten my position. They actually make a case for what I am saying, even if you don't like where it might go and ultimate conclusions that might be made from them. lol
Cliff, before you continue with running the premise down, where is it incorrect so far? I really do want to know.
Lets follow the leads and facts where they go as they deal with my hypothesis.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
nicksiders
1171 posts
Jan 04, 2007
11:13 AM
|
Well, OKAY then
----------
Snicker Rollers
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1012 posts
Jan 04, 2007
11:15 AM
|
Cliff, BTW, I am not talking about what guys are doing now, not relevant to this thread. Let's stay on topic. (Strawman)
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
bman
154 posts
Jan 04, 2007
11:17 AM
|
Okay Tony,
Refute my conclusions from your hypothesis.
----------
Ron
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1013 posts
Jan 04, 2007
12:00 PM
|
Hey bman, I don't see how your post #152 contradicts the hypothesis, actually it is very consistent with it. Well done! lol
I will look back at some of the others you presented in this thread and comment as time permits. I am doing all this between business and the birds so very very busy right now.
Many many have been ordering products and you are keeping us hopping which we like!
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
Last Edited by on Jan 04, 2007 12:01 PM
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1014 posts
Jan 04, 2007
12:43 PM
|
Ron Wrote/Quoted:
This partial quote is from the part that says Quote:
"...focused on performance..." , "...allowed to breed in an open loft..."
Which is it? Two different things in my book.
Hey Ron,you are right, they are two different things. The “open loft” you mention is merely to point out that when multiple breeds are in the same open loft and allowed to breed at random, they will stop showing the specific traits that distinguished them as unique breed. They will go backward from what made them a unique breed and become mongrels.
As for "...focused on performance...", since color was not a consideration in developing the breed, color unintentionally tended toward reversion of the basic colors of Ash-Red and Blue which were apparently in some or all the original birds used to develop the breed. Perhaps Brown was too.
Performance characteristics would have been chosen over color all the time while development of the breed was in progress. That is why we have the reversion of color toward wild type.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
Steve_uk
28 posts
Jan 04, 2007
12:48 PM
|
You guys are crazy!
|
bman
156 posts
Jan 04, 2007
5:47 PM
|
Well I wouldn't compare it to the discovery of the "Rossetta" stone.LOL
----------
Ron
|
longarm
30 posts
Jan 04, 2007
11:08 PM
|
ok tony after spending some time ( to much time according to my wife) reading and rereading this thread I still have a few questions. The way I understand this is that you are talking about selectivly breeding for performance which in my mind signifies extreme human control and a forward prossess yet you talk about reversion to wild state colors. If indeed a loft of birds were to revert to wild nature then the roll as well would revert.
I think saying that one factor will revert while the other will progress is inconsistant at best.
I will be the first to admit that I am no genetic engineer I think that even with much time and a interfeance free enviroment that many flocks would not revert back to blue bar birds because of the selective breeding done prior. If you have a case where red is the dominant color in a breeding loft and there hasnt been a blue bird in many generations I belive that the reversion would not go much further. Other factors and modifiers may be breed out over time but there is also the possiblity of that line mutating into other modifiers to get colors outside of the norm for that line.
I also dont belive that the amount of time the roller has been in existance is sufficiant for said reversion assuming it is correct to have tkaen place you may be correct but about 100,000,000 years ahead of your time. LOL just my thoughts and questions on this subject c.j.
|
Mach
1 post
Feb 08, 2008
4:31 PM
|
Bump… Interesting but weird topic: Who wants to be the next straw man? LoL
|
rtwilliams
16 posts
Feb 08, 2008
5:36 PM
|
1st question
Were original birds already "wild type"? One can not revert if one is already at starting point. As stated color was secondary in selection process, therefore parents of the breed could have already been "wild type"
2nd
Evolution is fact. Darwin never stated we came from monkeys. He stated that the strong survive to pass on their physical characteristics. Strong in one place can be week in another. Therefore "wild type" in Europe can and mostly likely did have differing physical characteristics then “wild type” in the America's. So a definition of "wild type" can change depending on location.
Give me time I will think of more.
|
SiDLoVE
171 posts
Feb 08, 2008
8:02 PM
|
I live the moment and not the passed...i select the now and move forward regardless. ..so thats where am at NOW!
sidlOVE**
|
PR_rollers
502 posts
Feb 08, 2008
8:55 PM
|
Oh OH RT you mention monkeys i see a straw hat coming lol..
----------
Ralph....
|
wishiwon2
41 posts
Feb 08, 2008
10:49 PM
|
I am not sure why im commenting on this, because I really dont care. None-the-less, I see an assumption in Tonys hypothesis that potentially affects his conclusion.
It is; that performing abilities are independant from other phenotypical traits, such as color or pattern.
I am not saying that it is or isnt. It is an assumption however, to say that color would revert to wild type independant from performance and that selection based only for perfomance didnt include some undefined selection for color or type. Suppose performance IS related to color or pattern, (again im not claiming it is), then reversion to wild color would also result in some reversion to wild behavior (non rolling). So it is therefore an assumption to make that performance and color are NOT related, elsewise the hypothesis does not reach same conclusion as proposed by Tony.
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
2178 posts
Feb 09, 2008
11:37 AM
|
David Said:
"Tony. So according to your theory then all Birmingham Rollers should be Blue Bars.Right? David"
Quoting the N.P.A's Project On Genetics booklet, REVERSION on page 8 here is what it says:
"Most breeders have learned that crossing breeds is the way to get mongrels. Mongrels are usually worthless in comparison with the purebred parents, though the mongrels are more vigorous.
Many breed crosses produce offspring which closely resemble wild rock pigeons. This result was first discussed by Darwin who called it 'reversion to wild type.'
It may occur in the first generation of some crosses, in the second generation of some other crosses, or not at all. Reversion has been explained by studies of characteristics."
END QUOTE
So, when the Birmingham Roller was being developed by crossing breeds, there would have been this tendency to reversion toward "wild type" thus the harder colors we have today may very well stand testament to this.
That there are all the modifiers that we see today would in no way invalidate the quoted text. When breed characteristics are similar: (crest, peak crest, shell crest, broad crest, hood), they will still produce similar looking traits (modifiers) when crossed.
==
Now, my initial post to start this thread is to present a hypothesis (not a theory), I am looking at the published information (see original post and extensive quote) and using it to come up with this thread. To those responding, have you read the book I am referring to? I am not making this "reversion to wild type" concept up out of thin air.
I am no physicist, but something I understand about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (be aware that this law is accepted unequivocally by both evolutionists and creationists so should have credibility), is that without outside intervention, "systems" deteriorate or in this case, breeds on breeds revert back to wild type.
Maybe this reversion to "wild type" concept is better explained like this, if all pigeon fanciers let all their pigeons go and they were allowed to mate on their own with no human intervention at all - whatsoever, then eventually, all colors would revert to "wild type" and all physical traits unique to any pigeon breed would eventually disappear.
I am simply saying that if you don't breed toward a color modifier but exclusively toward the physical attribute of rolling, it seems consistent to say that eventually, reversion to wild type (hard color) can be expected to show itself because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (I am no physicist or geneticist, just a rank amateur)
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
"Discussion is an exchange of knowledge...argument is an exchange of ignorance". by unknown
Support This Site With Your Pigeon Product Purchase-Over 100 Pigeon Products!
Last Edited by on Feb 09, 2008 11:40 AM
|
rtwilliams
17 posts
Feb 09, 2008
12:30 PM
|
For your theory to be tested one would have to gather a group of rollers from various families. Most colors would have to be available in the group. Then through a selectin process of only removing birds by a lack of performance. The pairings would have to be random (no human interferance). Of this was the case it would be interesting to see what colors would be present in the f1, f2, etc generations. I wonder how many generation it would take for the rollers to look alike?
How would you word your Null hypothesis?
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
2179 posts
Feb 09, 2008
3:19 PM
|
wishiwon2 Stated:
"...So it is therefore an assumption to make that performance and color are NOT related, elsewise the hypothesis does not reach same conclusion as proposed by Tony."
Hey wishiwon2, yes, there are assumptions being made, that sort of goes along with the definition of what a hypothesis is. For example, that what the N.P.A. Research Council wrote in its book is correct based on the credentials of the learned men whom wrote it. If it has been disproved, point me to where so I can read about it too.
I am merely presenting a "hypothesis" based on reading this booklet by the N.P.A. Research Commitee. Here is a definition that I think is appropriate: "A supposition or assumption advanced as a basis for reasoning or argument, or as a guide to experimental investigation."
Don't be confused and think that I am calling my hypothesis a fact such as when some call the "theory of evolution" a fact.
As for phenotypical traits such as "color or pattern" being indicative of performance, I don't know anyone who would go around the country and say or even agree with such a statement as for example: "blues bars are the best rollers" or anything like it.
While I believe that certain physical body styles lend themselves to better rolling, there are many who would say that it doesn't matter. Both are observable.
In the 15 years I have been breeding rollers, I have NEVER heard anyone say that a certain phenotype, certainly some color or pattern will automatically equate to a properly rolling pigeon.
The facts we can observe, certainly don't point in that direction. I think it IS A SAFE assumption that as a breed, phenotype (color or pattern) does not equate to any rollers ability to perform!
I think the observable facts would indicate that it is a SAFE AND REASONABLE ASSUMPTION to say that performance and color have NOTHING to do with each other. Otherwise, everyone would have good rollers because of selection using phenotype.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
"Discussion is an exchange of knowledge...argument is an exchange of ignorance". by unknown
Support This Site With Your Pigeon Product Purchase-Over 100 Pigeon Products!
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
2180 posts
Feb 09, 2008
3:39 PM
|
Hey RTWilliams, how does this sound; short and sweet?
My Null Hypothesis:
"When all dominant and recessive colors and modifiers are present in a colony of rollers and when their performance is maintained or improved due to fancier intervention specifically when the selection of kept birds is based solely on performance and no other considerations, eventually, the color in the colony will revert to wild type."
Can this be worded better?
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
"Discussion is an exchange of knowledge...argument is an exchange of ignorance". by unknown
Support This Site With Your Pigeon Product Purchase-Over 100 Pigeon Products!
|
nicksiders
2564 posts
Feb 09, 2008
9:58 PM
|
Hmmmm, might be why some long kept families begin to look like barn pigeons only smaller.
|