Flax Genome Theories - Revision history

Eldrad at 15:12, 8 January 2010

2010-01-08T15:12:13Z

Eldrad at 16:39, 5 January 2010

2010-01-05T16:39:09Z

Eldrad at 16:37, 5 January 2010

2010-01-05T16:37:26Z

Eldrad at 16:36, 5 January 2010

2010-01-05T16:36:44Z

Agamemnus at 21:10, 23 September 2009

2009-09-23T21:10:41Z

Agamemnus at 21:10, 23 September 2009

2009-09-23T21:10:31Z

Agamemnus at 21:10, 23 September 2009

2009-09-23T21:10:22Z

Agamemnus at 20:03, 23 September 2009

2009-09-23T20:03:33Z

Eldrad: updated weed/water default to zero to be consistent with new theory

2009-09-20T19:27:32Z

updated weed/water default to zero to be consistent with new theory

Eldrad at 20:10, 4 September 2009

2009-09-04T20:10:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:12, 8 January 2010
Line 34:		Line 34:
	If the genome size is small, the recombination of a very good flax genome (with many beneficial phemones) risks wrecking the genome. If it is large, we would have constant improvement in seeds because the risk of beneficial phenome breakage is low. Witnessed by the Tedra line, it takes more and more attempts to get a good seed. Thus, it is extremely likely that genome sizes are limited. Otherwise, we would have larger and larger genomes that provide better and better results, on a linear scale.		If the genome size is small, the recombination of a very good flax genome (with many beneficial phemones) risks wrecking the genome. If it is large, we would have constant improvement in seeds because the risk of beneficial phenome breakage is low. Witnessed by the Tedra line, it takes more and more attempts to get a good seed. Thus, it is extremely likely that genome sizes are limited. Otherwise, we would have larger and larger genomes that provide better and better results, on a linear scale.

−	~~This theory is incorrect~~. ~~Genomes~~ can ~~be increased in~~ size ~~by one with roughly at 1 in 10 (very roughly) chance every~~ time you cross breed ~~them. However they have~~ a ~~roughly equal chance~~ of ~~decreasing size by one instead. This is assuming cross breeding~~ two genomes of equal length~~, if~~ the ~~genomes are not equal~~ in ~~length~~ the ~~result will be between~~ the ~~lengths~~ of ~~two old genomes +/- 1~~. So it is possible to ~~continually~~ increase the length of a genome however it ~~is difficult to do predictably~~.	+	Genome sizes of a given breed are fixed (for example nile green has 27 genes and old egypt has 39). However using cross breeding you can increase the size of a genome. Each time you cross breed two plants a length is chosen between the length of the two parents (I believe it's a weighted average based on where the split occurs but did most of my research with genomes of equal length) then about 1 in 10 times the genome's length is increased by one or 1 in 10 times it is decreased by one. This increase comes in the form of doubling the gene on one side of the split (I believe it's always the gene from the right hand side but I don't remember). So it is possible to increase the length of a genome arbitrarily however it's time consuming and expensive.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:39, 5 January 2010
Line 34:		Line 34:
	If the genome size is small, the recombination of a very good flax genome (with many beneficial phemones) risks wrecking the genome. If it is large, we would have constant improvement in seeds because the risk of beneficial phenome breakage is low. Witnessed by the Tedra line, it takes more and more attempts to get a good seed. Thus, it is extremely likely that genome sizes are limited. Otherwise, we would have larger and larger genomes that provide better and better results, on a linear scale.		If the genome size is small, the recombination of a very good flax genome (with many beneficial phemones) risks wrecking the genome. If it is large, we would have constant improvement in seeds because the risk of beneficial phenome breakage is low. Witnessed by the Tedra line, it takes more and more attempts to get a good seed. Thus, it is extremely likely that genome sizes are limited. Otherwise, we would have larger and larger genomes that provide better and better results, on a linear scale.

−	This theory is incorrect. Genomes can be increased in size by one with roughly at 1 in 10 (very roughly) chance every time you cross breed them. However they have a roughly equal chance of decreasing size by one ~~as well~~. This is assuming cross breeding two genomes of equal length, if the genomes are not equal in length the result will be between the lengths of two old genomes +/- 1. So it is possible to continually increase the length of a genome however it is difficult to do predictably.	+	This theory is incorrect. Genomes can be increased in size by one with roughly at 1 in 10 (very roughly) chance every time you cross breed them. However they have a roughly equal chance of decreasing size by one instead. This is assuming cross breeding two genomes of equal length, if the genomes are not equal in length the result will be between the lengths of two old genomes +/- 1. So it is possible to continually increase the length of a genome however it is difficult to do predictably.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:37, 5 January 2010
Line 34:		Line 34:
	If the genome size is small, the recombination of a very good flax genome (with many beneficial phemones) risks wrecking the genome. If it is large, we would have constant improvement in seeds because the risk of beneficial phenome breakage is low. Witnessed by the Tedra line, it takes more and more attempts to get a good seed. Thus, it is extremely likely that genome sizes are limited. Otherwise, we would have larger and larger genomes that provide better and better results, on a linear scale.		If the genome size is small, the recombination of a very good flax genome (with many beneficial phemones) risks wrecking the genome. If it is large, we would have constant improvement in seeds because the risk of beneficial phenome breakage is low. Witnessed by the Tedra line, it takes more and more attempts to get a good seed. Thus, it is extremely likely that genome sizes are limited. Otherwise, we would have larger and larger genomes that provide better and better results, on a linear scale.

−	This theory is incorrect. Genomes can be increased in size by with roughly at 1 in 10 (very roughly) chance every time you cross breed them. However they have a roughly equal chance of decreasing size by one as well. This is assuming cross breeding two genomes of equal length, if the genomes are not equal in length the result will be between the lengths of two old genomes +/- 1. So it is possible to continually increase the length of a genome however it is difficult to do predictably.	+	This theory is incorrect. Genomes can be increased in size by one with roughly at 1 in 10 (very roughly) chance every time you cross breed them. However they have a roughly equal chance of decreasing size by one as well. This is assuming cross breeding two genomes of equal length, if the genomes are not equal in length the result will be between the lengths of two old genomes +/- 1. So it is possible to continually increase the length of a genome however it is difficult to do predictably.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:36, 5 January 2010
Line 33:		Line 33:

	If the genome size is small, the recombination of a very good flax genome (with many beneficial phemones) risks wrecking the genome. If it is large, we would have constant improvement in seeds because the risk of beneficial phenome breakage is low. Witnessed by the Tedra line, it takes more and more attempts to get a good seed. Thus, it is extremely likely that genome sizes are limited. Otherwise, we would have larger and larger genomes that provide better and better results, on a linear scale.		If the genome size is small, the recombination of a very good flax genome (with many beneficial phemones) risks wrecking the genome. If it is large, we would have constant improvement in seeds because the risk of beneficial phenome breakage is low. Witnessed by the Tedra line, it takes more and more attempts to get a good seed. Thus, it is extremely likely that genome sizes are limited. Otherwise, we would have larger and larger genomes that provide better and better results, on a linear scale.
		+
		+	This theory is incorrect. Genomes can be increased in size by with roughly at 1 in 10 (very roughly) chance every time you cross breed them. However they have a roughly equal chance of decreasing size by one as well. This is assuming cross breeding two genomes of equal length, if the genomes are not equal in length the result will be between the lengths of two old genomes +/- 1. So it is possible to continually increase the length of a genome however it is difficult to do predictably.

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 * +1 Water and -1 Weed GYGYGY
 * ROY needed to get flax (without ROY but with RRGYGY in the genome, we got 1 rotten flax and zero flax; with ROY and with RRGYGY, we got 1 rotten flax and 1 flax)
 '''Genome Size Theory'''
 If the genome size is small, the recombination of a very good flax genome (with many beneficial phemones) risks wrecking the genome. If it is large, we would have constant improvement in seeds because the risk of beneficial phenome breakage is low. Witnessed by the Tedra line, it takes more and more attempts to get a good seed. Thus, it is extremely likely that genome sizes are limited. Otherwise, we would have larger and larger genomes that provide better and better results, on a linear scale.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:10, 23 September 2009
Line 30:		Line 30:

	'''Genome Size Theory'''		'''Genome Size Theory'''
		+
	If the genome size is small, the recombination of a very good flax genome (with many beneficial phemones) risks wrecking the genome. If it is large, we would have constant improvement in seeds because the risk of beneficial phenome breakage is low. Witnessed by the Tedra line, it takes more and more attempts to get a good seed. Thus, it is extremely likely that genome sizes are limited. Otherwise, we would have larger and larger genomes that provide better and better results, on a linear scale.		If the genome size is small, the recombination of a very good flax genome (with many beneficial phemones) risks wrecking the genome. If it is large, we would have constant improvement in seeds because the risk of beneficial phenome breakage is low. Witnessed by the Tedra line, it takes more and more attempts to get a good seed. Thus, it is extremely likely that genome sizes are limited. Otherwise, we would have larger and larger genomes that provide better and better results, on a linear scale.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:10, 23 September 2009
Line 28:		Line 28:
	* +1 Water and -1 Weed GYGYGY		* +1 Water and -1 Weed GYGYGY
	* ROY needed to get flax (without ROY but with RRGYGY in the genome, we got 1 rotten flax and zero flax; with ROY and with RRGYGY, we got 1 rotten flax and 1 flax)		* ROY needed to get flax (without ROY but with RRGYGY in the genome, we got 1 rotten flax and zero flax; with ROY and with RRGYGY, we got 1 rotten flax and 1 flax)
		+
		+	'''Genome Size Theory'''
		+	If the genome size is small, the recombination of a very good flax genome (with many beneficial phemones) risks wrecking the genome. If it is large, we would have constant improvement in seeds because the risk of beneficial phenome breakage is low. Witnessed by the Tedra line, it takes more and more attempts to get a good seed. Thus, it is extremely likely that genome sizes are limited. Otherwise, we would have larger and larger genomes that provide better and better results, on a linear scale.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:03, 23 September 2009
Line 28:		Line 28:
	* +1 Water and -1 Weed GYGYGY		* +1 Water and -1 Weed GYGYGY
	* ROY needed to get flax (without ROY but with RRGYGY in the genome, we got 1 rotten flax and zero flax; with ROY and with RRGYGY, we got 1 rotten flax and 1 flax)		* ROY needed to get flax (without ROY but with RRGYGY in the genome, we got 1 rotten flax and zero flax; with ROY and with RRGYGY, we got 1 rotten flax and 1 flax)
−	** In previous tellings ROY protected against some forms of pollution most likely this is what's going the pollution in the area without the protection of ROY is killing off the non-rotten flax production -Eldrad

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 *Seed Default is zero.
-*Weed and Water Default is -1.
+*Weed and Water Default is zero.
 *Flax Default is zero.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:10, 4 September 2009
Line 28:		Line 28:
	* +1 Water and -1 Weed GYGYGY		* +1 Water and -1 Weed GYGYGY
	* ROY needed to get flax (without ROY but with RRGYGY in the genome, we got 1 rotten flax and zero flax; with ROY and with RRGYGY, we got 1 rotten flax and 1 flax)		* ROY needed to get flax (without ROY but with RRGYGY in the genome, we got 1 rotten flax and zero flax; with ROY and with RRGYGY, we got 1 rotten flax and 1 flax)
		+	** In previous tellings ROY protected against some forms of pollution most likely this is what's going the pollution in the area without the protection of ROY is killing off the non-rotten flax production -Eldrad