how to stronger plants

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darealbrain

Good or bad, the plants adapt to their enviornment.

now isnt that the same thing i been saiing.

---

I don't think so.

I think that is taking things a bit out of context.

I could be wrong but respond would have been a better word than adapt.

A plants will respond to its environment to some degree without actually evolving, every thing wants to survive and will cope slightly to do so.

If you were inside and walked outside on a hot summers day and started sweating would you call that evolution? Or, would you call it what it is, responding to your environment?

Responding to ones environment and evolution are two very different things.

To respond is to react positively or favorably, even that being said not all responses are favorable when it comes to horticulture, sometimes plants can not cope and die.


Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. Successiveness is many generations, one right after another, not carbon copies of another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darealbrain

Good or bad, the plants adapt to their enviornment.
now isnt that the same thing i been saiing.

---

You are confusing adapting with evolving. There's a huge difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darealbrain

yet their saiing it takes generations for a plant to do it.

---

It takes days, sometimes hours, sometimes minutes, for a plant to adapt to the enviornment. It takes many generations to evolve an 'alternate' response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darealbrain

once you take a clone or any plant away from its enviroment it starts triing to adapt.just like taking a plant from indoor to outdoor.if nothing else it has to adapt to the sun.it dont take years a few days maybe.

---

It still has the same 'response' list to chose from, which is adaptation, not evolution. Evolution only happens after the pollination and subsequent germination of the resultant genetics. (unless you back-cross it to itself, of course)

Cannabis is an annual that dies-off every year. It's genetics, it's response techniques and it's adaptations to light spectrum and schedule, nutrients, weather, humidity, ph balance, rootspace, etc... are imprinted on the genes. This is why virtually every strain of cannabis can be forced to hermie. It's a genetically imprinted response that has worked to keep the species alive for ten thousand years. Having it NOT hermie is quite an accomplishment given what we put the plants through.

You are saying that a carbon-copy has the ability to eventually evolve and handle similar situations differently, which it is unable to do. It has a diary (or playbook) of responses it has to chose from, and no ammount of wishful thinking will alter that playbook. It's ability to handle those responses effectively fades as the plant's over-matured system declines. Different strains have different genetic responses imprinted on the 'playbook', but they will always have the same playbook until you add different genes, which may or may not alter the ability to adapt. (evolution in nature is basically a crap-shoot)

This is how Monsanto uses genetics. 2 parts from soy plant strain "A" , 2 parts from soy plant strain "B", 12 parts from soy plant strain "C", and you end-up with a frankenplant soy bean with the ability to be disease resistant, drought and mold tollerant, grows larger beans and commits genetic suicide after 1 season, so you have to buy their seeds every year. Pretty nifty, huh...?

Sweating is an adaptation response already imprinted on our genes. A genetic alteration of the ears to radiate the heat away would be evolution. As would changing the tongue structure to 'pant' the heat away.

If the devolution of your clones is providing what you are looking for, then the degredation is desirable. But I think you are confusing degredation with evolution.

If I am wrong in this, please...someone let me know. After all...I did go to school back when they were teaching instead of indoctrinating, which was a long time ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

You are saying that a carbon-copy has the ability to eventually evolve and handle similar situations differently, which it is unable to do. It has a diary (or playbook) of responses it has to chose from, and no ammount of wishful thinking will alter that playbook. It's ability to handle those responses effectively fades as the plant's over-matured system declines. Different strains have different genetic responses imprinted on the 'playbook', but they will always have the same playbook until you add different genes, which may or may not alter the ability to adapt.

---

I think this set things squarely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slevinkal

Like Sammer said:

The clones are an exact copy, they dont change.

Since you're constantly taking carbon copies and not offspring you have kept evolution out of the loop.

---

i never said they evolve these guys did.i said they adapt and if you keep choosing the strongest clones for mothers they get stronger and grow better and better.

i was moonlight gardening thats what it was.lol

Maybe...

:beatdeadhorse:

LOL

what you guys are saiing is that all clones are alike and they are not.

all clones are different even though they have the same dna.or genetic make up.

each branch grow different.why cant clones?

all clones are not pulled from the same branch or at the moms same age.is the branches all the same age?

if a person make a whole bunch of tops and clone them will the clone be stronger than clones taken from lower branches?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darealbrain

if a person make a whole bunch of tops and clone them will the clone be stronger than clones taken from lower branches?

---

Stronger genetically, no. Stronger due to the fact that lower branches usually root faster thus making it grow faster than clones taken from the top? yes


lower branches are usually more suitable for cloning, and seem to develop roots quicker. Theyre not actually stronger plants, they just had a better jump on growth than other clones. A clone is exactly what it sounds like. An EXACT genetic copy.

Just like if we cloned you, we wouldnt be able to tell a single difference.

Perhaps this might help you understand...

Next Sunday, grab your local paper's Sunday edition. Photocopy (clone) the front page on Wednesday. Then, photocopy (clone) that copy on Friday. Are the stories any newer because you photocopied them Friday, or is the information on all three copies the same chronological age? Just because you use fresh ink (nutrients) and fresh paper (soil) doesn't mean the text (genes) are any different.

Oh screw it. I'll do most of your homework for you:
Chronological age of clones