Possible super pinstripes

[TessadasExotics]

My favor? explain to me how I benefit from this at all? Why do I keep answering your same questions in every thread about this? I don't want others taking your non-acceptance of this as fact, because evidence points in the other direction.

I'm explaining conclusions based off of evidence, that is it. Spider has nothing to do with pinstripe, how could it? I linked to data I have seen about the spider, do you know of anything else to draw a conclusion from? I don't so as far as I can see, anything said about the spider gene is inconclusive, unless you have more to add? can we move on to the topic at hand? wait no we can't.

I see repeat claims of there being no super doms, There are 3 known, I am simply bringing up that it is a false statement. So it is relevant. There being super congos and daddy genes doesn't prove anything about pinstripe, they all got proved out on their own. ok now we move on.

Pinstripe on the other hand, we have a case where someone breed a pin to a pin and a male offspring from that pairing produced 27 pinstripes in a row. If you want to call brian a liar thats fine, but through statistics that proves a homozygous pinstripe with leaps and bounds. Do you have any other evidence of someone attempting to prove a homozygous pin, besides this thread? do you have any other data to draw a conclusion from? looks like pinstripe is a simple dominant mutation and there absolutely nothing special or mysterious about it. Your blood type works the same way. AO=A AA=A OO=O. PN=P PP=P NN=N its basic, why is this so hard to accept?

If you don't accept the evidence thats your choice, but you have no arguement that there is no homozygous pinstripe, but still choose to say its the truth despite there being no evidence of it. Where are the multiple cases of people trying to prove out homozygous pins and failing? Show me the hard evidence.

I'm not a genetics genius, i'm just not afraid to move forward and make conclusions without needing someone else to tell me how it is. I'm not ignorant of the current model of genetics and open to new information. With that I draw my own conclusion with the current information at the time and use a little common sense and logic. I dont fall into the "what I want to be true" I just look at what I got, draw conclusion. If that's "theoretical genetics babble", I'm good with that. When A=B and B=C, i'm not afraid to say A=C.

- - - Updated - - -



post it

The problem is, is that you are combining two different versions of what Dominance is. In the Ball python breeders world a dominant morph snake looks exactly the same in its het form as it does in its homo form. The only difference is that it would only reproduce itself, NO NORMALS.(in its homo form) Where as a co-dominant form has one visual look for its "het" form and a different look for its Homo form. It also produces NO NORMALS. (in its homo form)

So far there are really NO Proven dominant forms but we do accept that Spiders, Pinstripes and some others as dominant as they show no super homo form.

by this standard a congo in its homo super form would look exactly the same but would never produce a normal.