Why Are They Not Hairless?

Not being able to predict the unexpected, doesn't make it inexact. :P
It's very precise.

It will never be exact. Its still a roll of the dice. If you breed an animal that carries only a recessive trait to an animal that is heterozygous for that same recessive trait, genetics tell us that half of the babies will express that recessive trait.

Well, last I checked, that is an approximation. If you have 12 babies rats from a dumbo x het dumbo breeding maybe six of them will be dumbo, maybe two of them will be dumbo, maybe none of them will be dumbo, maybe all of them will be dumbo.

It is still a roll of the dice. It just means that each baby has a 50/50 chance of being a dumbo rat. That does not mean that exactly half the babies will be dumbo. A quarter can be flipped heads or tails. Does that mean that it would be impossible to flip heads 1,000,000 times in a row. Theoretically it is not impossible.

This is why genetics is not exact. You aren't always guaranteed to get exactly what you were aiming for.

If you don't think that's true try breeding Manx rats some time LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhasputin

Not being able to predict the unexpected, doesn't make it inexact. :P
It's very precise.

---

You're absolutely right. If I got some rat sperm and somehow separated the ones with the genetic information that I wanted from the rest of them and then combined them with eggs that had the genetic information that I wanted I'm sure that it would be 100% exact.

I keep giving my rats the little sample cups and the newest issues of "Rat Hustler" but they never get me any sperm samples to take to get analyzed LOL.

Your sarcasm isn't making your case very strong. :P

This whole argument seems like a matter of semantics and opinions, if you ask me.

Yes, it's pretty darned predictable that IF you breed a homozygous recessive to one exactly the same...then you can reasonably expect all the babies to also be homozygous recessive. So...in that respect, a person can be accurate in saying it an "exact science."

But it's NOT exact if ALL the facts aren't know...just as they aren't known in this particular question the OP brought up.

The problem is, that is not ALL of the science...it's just one minute little surface aspect of it. Huge strides are being made in genetic science and understanding...but there are still tons of mystery as well.

To claim that because you can predict that an albino ball x an albino ball will produce all albino balls makes this an "exact science" is rather short sighted. Or maybe not so much "short sighted" as it is simply not an accurate way to describe the predictability of certain known basic genetic traits.

My point is, if -you- personally don't know your animal's genetics, someone does. So whether or not one person can predict it, SOMEONE can. :P


I think we need to get some moderation in here. We've completely hijacked this post. :rolleyes:

:hijackd:

My head is now spinning after reading through this thread.. But I got a good answer for the original poster.. You said after a few weeks one of the Rats had a litter, could it have been a little less then a few weeks, and maybe only a couple weeks? If so there is a possibility that the female was actually pregnant when you got it and the Father was a normal. That would explain all the Babies having Fur, but they are HET for hairless..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhasputin

My point is, if -you- personally don't know your animal's genetics, someone does. So whether or not one person can predict it, SOMEONE can. :P


I think we need to get some moderation in here. We've completely hijacked this post. :rolleyes:

---

And what about if no one knows the genetics? What if this guy and his cousin have a new strain of hairless genetics that haven't been documented yet? How about the various bp ghost genes that LOOK the same but aren't compatible? How does one go about predicting those? I guess MY point is that while many of us may be very familiar with the simple aspects of recessive genetics, there is also a LOT more to it that no one has figured out yet.

And I don't think anyone is gonna moderate the admin. :P I think the thread hasn't been hijacked as the discussion is relevant to the original question....even if the argument IS rather pointless in the long run.

one of the major flaws of genetics is that it is impossible to know ALL of the animals heritage and background since animals like rats existed in theory before humans.

Tom, this conversation sounds like one you argued with me pre Manx rat huh?

Manx+ het manx= manx...how's that working out for you? :rofl::rofl::rofl: