(10-01-2012 07:56 AM)Liriel Garnet Wrote: I have always noticed, however, they tend to run in certain lines, kind of like twins run in certain families in real life.
That's almost certainly a case of what I was speaking about. They probably don't really tend to run in families. That could simply be normal random variation within a small sample. But, also, it's easy to pick examples which would make it look so, and discard examples otherwise; and to do so is human nature.
(09-30-2012 04:24 PM)Trystan Parx Wrote: I'm beginning to become convinced that toy/teacup ARE genetic and not random. I have gotten a toy and a teacup from the same toy kitten and mate, and looked at the pedigree and there is toy and teacup all over. Attached image
I have the same belief for a while but I'm not sure at all. It is very hard to keep track of the grandparents to see if they had the size.
It would be easy enough to prove, put two teacups together, if its genetic, and teacup is the most recessive, then you're gonna get teacups every time. It appears to me from my admittedly limited experimenting that the Dominance would go Normal>toy>teacup
I have mated two teacups and gotten a normal sized box, so it's not a directly passable trait. I have always noticed, however, they tend to run in certain lines, kind of like twins run in certain families in real life.
Once again, I'm not saying you're wrong, but is it possible that they changed something recently? I'm going to continue my research here, but I find it hard to believe its a coincidence when this pair has had 2 kittens, one toy, one teacup. If you look at the picture I posted to start this, there are 9 cats in that family group. 6 are either teacup or toy. (The two child cats of "Bengie" at the bottom, "Sheldon and an unnamed boxed cat, are the teacup and toy I am referring to)
It's random. If this did NOT occur, sometimes, then it actually would NOT be random.
I saw this in the TV Show "Numb3rs" and had to do some digging to find an example for you. Here are three images. Only one is random. The other two are almost, but not quite random. Can you tell which?
*wants to play* I want to say 2 or 3 too Callie, but I see suspicious looking pair clusters in #3 surrounded by a less dense area of dots at (I can't really say regular) intervals. Then again, I see a teddybear in #1 *rolls eyes and facepalms* I can see traces of the teddy bear in #2 , and before you get me committed I'll go with 2
(10-02-2012 07:29 AM)Tad Carlucci Wrote: Should I let it ride for a few more days, or explain the answer now? I promise not to get all math-geeky and keep it short.
Tad, I get what you're saying. If you flip a coin and get long streaks of "heads" with rare tails, or vice versa, that is probably a "real" coin, not weighted or anything, whereas if it flipped heads-tails-heads-tails-heads-tails every time it that would be a trick of some sort, not random. But what you're forgetting is that this is a computer generated system, and therefore can NOT be truly random, and "Chaos theory" doesn't apply. Also, with regard to the genetics, also code, and thereby changeable by the coder at any point.
You have to remember that in this case there IS a "god", that is a known fact.
All that said, I still say that you very well may be correct, but there is no harm in me leaving certain cats together to see what happens.
No harm at all. In fact, it's that people do this which should ensure everyone that, yes, in fact, nobody has reached into the code and changed things. It's not that we don't trust them, it's that that trust is being constantly verified.
BTW, Chaos Theory can handle those two almost-random images and allow us to work on the emerging non-randomness. It can't do a thing with the random one because .. it's truly random .. there are not patterns to emerge.
(10-01-2012 06:45 PM)Tad Carlucci Wrote: It's random. If this did NOT occur, sometimes, then it actually would NOT be random.
I saw this in the TV Show "Numb3rs" and had to do some digging to find an example for you. Here are three images. Only one is random. The other two are almost, but not quite random. Can you tell which?
Actually 1 is the most accurate representation of truly random, then 2, then 3.
size traits
