100 percent indica or sativa

[Moebius]

>>>> Human Paternity Evidence#1

With modern technology, you could design a test to establish paternity to virtually any degree of certainty you liked (even 100%), its just that the higher the level of certainty you demand, the more cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive the test needs to be. So the benchmark of 99.99%+ represents a realistic compromise between absolute accuracy, cost, turnaround time, and legal necessity.

No.

There is not a scientific test on the planet that returns results of 100% accuracy. but whatever. I'll let the scientists explain this.


edit:
Why will results claiming probable inclusion never equal 100%?

In paternity testing, no man will ever be 100% included as the biological father because there is always the slight possibility that the DNA profile of the alleged father matches the DNA profile of the child by mere chance. The likelihood of this happening is usually well below 0.001% (1 in 100,000), but it depends in large part on the ethnic origin of the individuals involved.
http://www.dna-geneticconnections.com/dna_accuracy.html

 

[Moebius]

>>>> Human Paternity Evidence#2

With modern technology, you could design a test to establish paternity to virtually any degree of certainty you liked (even 100%), its just that the higher the level of certainty you demand, the more cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive the test needs to be. So the benchmark of 99.99%+ represents a realistic compromise between absolute accuracy, cost, turnaround time, and legal necessity.

Forensic Evidence Labs Are under the Microscope

Accuracy of Scientific Evidence is Questionable

The report sheds doubt on the accuracy and reliability of many types of scientific evidence. The findings of the Academy are presented in "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward."
Scientific evidence often bears a lot of weight when it comes to investigating crimes and prosecuting criminals. Juries are carefully instructed about how they should evaluate this type of evidence.

Unfortunately, there is a misconception that scientific evidence is 100% accurate. That simply isn't true. For example, DNA evidence can't prove that a man is the father of a child. It can only prove that he could be.

http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Forensic-Evidence-Labs-Are-under-the-Microscope.html

 

[Moebius]

>>>> Back to Rasta Cannabis Strain.

DNA research uncovers new cannabis strain

Researchers in the ACT appear to have found a previously unidentified type of cannabis plant which they have dubbed 'rasta'.

There are currently thought to be only two types of cannabis, one prized for its rope-making qualities, the other cultivated for its drug properties.

New Scientist reports that Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT) scientists categorised almost 200 cannabis plants according to their DNA.

CIT spokesman Simon Gilmore says he and colleagues at the institute's Centre for Forensic Science appear to have uncovered another sub-species of the plant.

'Rasta' is not dissimilar to the sativa sub-species but New Scientist reports that it contains more THC, certainly more than the indica sub-species that is used for rope-making.

Mr Gilmore says it could be an ancient line they have identified through DNA.

"What we might be uncovering is really an ancient relationship," he said.

"Cannabis has been used a lot by humans in the last few thousand years and while we have a signature that there might have been three different types of cannabis, what could have happened with human cross-breeding [is] that those distinctions could have been lost by now.

"Three different mitochondrial DNA types in the cannabis that's grown these days, it might imply that cannabis had been domesticated on three separate occasions.

 

[Moebius]

>>>> Back to 100% Sativa

Ok, hopefully by now youve read the pieces of evidence regarding human paternity. I hope my sources have demonstrated that even with testing, 100% paternity cannot be claimed.

Seed companies are not doing any paternity tests on their strains but yet claim they have 100% Sativa.

edit:
This is beginning to bore me now, its self evident that no matter what evidence I post some people will think what they want.

My last post in this thread.

 

[Trousers]

Keep plucking that chicken.
Why don't you map the cannabis sativa genome and get back to us?

I am not surprised that seed banks are trying to sell their product using exciting language. I am confused you are surprised by this.
I will pass your concerns on to the seed producers when I place my next order.

You might be the only one that has a problem with a site selling "Landrace marijuana seeds."


Seed sellers also set their prices to end with .99
That is another sales technique that should not surprise you.

 

[Jogro]

>>>> Human Paternity Evidence#1
No.

There is not a scientific test on the planet that returns results of 100% accuracy. but whatever. I'll let the scientists explain this.

OK, there is always lab error, interpretation error, and other mistakes that can't be eliminated. But assuming enough care and rigor you can get close enough to 100% for any reasonable purpose.

edit: Why will results claiming probable inclusion never equal 100%?

In paternity testing, no man will ever be 100% included as the biological father because there is always the slight possibility that the DNA profile of the alleged father matches the DNA profile of the child by mere chance. The likelihood of this happening is usually well below 0.001% (1 in 100,000), but it depends in large part on the ethnic origin of the individuals involved.
http://www.dna-geneticconnections.com/dna_accuracy.html

You don't get it. This just explains why current commercial testing won't return a 100% certainty result. It absolute doesn't foreclose the possibility of doing so.

Stipulating that all human beings **EXCEPT FOR IDENTICAL TWINS** have unique genomes, again, its possible to return a result with ANY given level of accuracy you like, so long as you're willing to do the work and pay for it.

The reason these commercial tests only return 99% or 99.99% accuracy is because they only test a small number of variable genetic loci. Again, that's for reasons of cost and practicality. 99.999% accuracy is good enough for any reasonable purpose, so there is no need to obtain or pay for more.

But even right now, its technologically possible to do DNA sequencing and sequence the entire GENOMES of the mother, child, and prospective father. Compare these three genomes, and you could theoretically establish parentage with absolute certainty (or again, at least 99.99999+% certainty, in practice, as close as ANY test can do such a thing). The reason this isn't done is because the technology to do this isn't (yet) widely distributed, the testing would take weeks, and cost somewhere in the vicinity of $20,000 per test.

But with current rate of DNA sequencing and microchip advancement, its highly probable that commercially viable mass genomic sequencing will come about during our lifetimes, effectively making absolute paternity testing possible.

 

[Moebius]

You don't get it. This just explains why current commercial testing won't return a 100% certainty result. It absolute doesn't foreclose the possibility of doing so.

My reading of it is that it EXPLICITLY does exclude the possibility of doing so. .... its the absolute words 'ever' and 'never' that shuts out the possibilty.

I just don't know how to put it in clearer terms that's why I turned to external sources. If we can't agree on this, maybe we should move on.

Why will results claiming probable inclusion never equal 100%?

In paternity testing, no man will ever be 100% included as the biological father because there is always the slight possibility that the DNA profile of the alleged father matches the DNA profile of the child by mere chance. The likelihood of this happening is usually well below 0.001% (1 in 100,000), but it depends in large part on the ethnic origin of the individuals involved.
http://www.dna-geneticconnections.com/dna_accuracy.html

edit:
According to the American Association of bloodbank

991, 000 individuals were tested in Paternity cases last year. ... with an accuracy rate of 99.999% ... approximately 99.1 people will get false results.

with an accuracy of 99.99% - 991 people will get false results.
with an accuracy of 99.9 % - 9,991 will get false results.

Whether this is acceptable is open to debate and beyond the scope of this discussion I think.

(apologies if my math is wrong and for digressing)

 

[Moebius]

What do you think about that Rasta strain?

Looks interesting, although like you, I remain unconvinced. The only info I can find is several years old. Do you think its possible the scientists got it wrong and decided not to proceed further with their study?

I'm frustrated because I want to know more, I might have to start emailing to find out the current state of research on this.

 

[Jogro]

>>>> Human Paternity Evidence#2

Unfortunately, there is a misconception that scientific evidence is 100% accurate. That simply isn't true. For example, DNA evidence can't prove that a man is the father of a child. It can only prove that he could be.

http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Forensic-Evidence-Labs-Are-under-the-Microscope.html

So "criminallawyers.com" thinks that no testing is 100% accurate. Of course they do.

Again, stipulating that human limitations mean you can't get 100% certainty (about ANYTHING) its certainly possible to establish paternity or match individuals to DNA with a standard of greater than 99.99999% by genomic sequencing *IF YOU WANT TO PAY FOR IT*. OK, you're not at 100%, but you're WAY beyond the legal standard for criminal guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" or just about any other human endeavor.

Note that the rate of genetic sequencing advancement has been so rapid that this was NOT true even five years ago. Steve Jobs paid $100k to have his own genome sequenced only a few years ago. Today it could be done for under $10,000.

Very little of this has anything to do with the topic of "sativa" vs. "indica".

DNA research uncovers new cannabis strain

Researchers in the ACT appear to have found a previously unidentified type of cannabis plant which they have dubbed 'rasta'.

There are currently thought to be only two types of cannabis, one prized for its rope-making qualities, the other cultivated for its drug properties.

New Scientist reports that Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT) scientists categorised almost 200 cannabis plants according to their DNA.

CIT spokesman Simon Gilmore says he and colleagues at the institute's Centre for Forensic Science appear to have uncovered another sub-species of the plant.

'Rasta' is not dissimilar to the sativa sub-species but New Scientist reports that it contains more THC, certainly more than the indica sub-species that is used for rope-making.

Mr Gilmore says it could be an ancient line they have identified through DNA.

"What we might be uncovering is really an ancient relationship," he said.

"Cannabis has been used a lot by humans in the last few thousand years and while we have a signature that there might have been three different types of cannabis, what could have happened with human cross-breeding [is] that those distinctions could have been lost by now.

"Three different mitochondrial DNA types in the cannabis that's grown these days, it might imply that cannabis had been domesticated on three separate occasions.

Again, lay article with lay errors and quite a bit of speculation. There are three (not two) commonly accepted variants of cannabis sativa, if you include ruderalis. The sativa variant (NOT the indica one) is the one used for fiber with the indica one being bred specifically for drug/medical use. There are plenty of cultivars (previously) classified as sativa that have high THC content and medical use.

These researchers didn't wander into the woods and discover a previously unknown species of cannabis, what they did was uncover a previously unknown genetic relationship between already known strains, using that relationship to reclassify these plants into their own new sub-species which they called "rasta".

Stipulating that these researchers have found real genetic differences between the "rasta" Jamaican and African (etc) strains, and the others, that's mostly interesting from a historical standpoint.

But like lots of classification systems, until/unless this model adds information useful to cannabis GROWERS, its not going to be of interest to anyone other than researchers. Its the difference between theory (textbook) and practice (real world).

In practice, for the vast majority of growers, and even for current breeders, all these "rasta" strains are effectively sativas, being tall, long flowering, etc. And even the article states that they're highly similar to sativas.

 

[Jogro]

My reading of it is that it EXPLICITLY does exclude the possibility of doing so. .... its the absolute words 'ever' and 'never' that shuts out the possibilty.

I understand what it says. ITS WRONG.

Again, note that current genomic sequencing technology is probably six or seven ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more specific than "simple" RFLP testing, which is used for all the current DNA based forensic testing including paternity testing.

With the specific exception of parentage by an identical twin of the accused father, its now possible to prove paternity to a degree of certainty equal to or (more likely VASTLY exceeding) that of just about any other testing methodology used in any other endeavor (period). You can probably do it to a degree of certainty greater than the reciprocal of the number of adult males on the planet. If 99.999999% certainty isn't good enough for you, well. . .then no testing (of any kind) will ever satisfy you.

Of course a criminal defense lawyer will argue that 99.999999% certainty isn't 100%, but that's what they get paid to do, isn't it?

I just don't know how to put it in clearer terms that's why I turned to external sources. If we can't agree on this, maybe we should move on.

I don't think its good practice to quote lay sources on scientific/medical topics (which are typically oversimplified and/or absolutely wrong) if you're not conversant with the science underlying them.

Again, cannabis sativa rasta is interesting from a historical standpoint. Though I haven't read the article, the summary of certainly seems plausible, and I have no reason to think their discovery isn't correct. We know that the Jamaican strains, for example, are almost certainly derived from both subcontinental AND African cannabis strains, hybridized, then acclimatized to growing on the island. EG, the Jamaican term for cannabis, "ganja" is actually an Indian word. So it is any surprise, then, that Jamaican cannabis is genetically different than other strains?

But that cannabis *can* be classified this way doesn't necessarily make said classification useful to growers. If so, great.

 

[Moebius]

Yeah, I don't want to discuss the DNA thing anymore either.

I did find the 'Rasta' thing interesting though. I would like to read more than a lay article but havent found anything yet.

Maybe its all rubbish, probably is. (Im suspicious more info is not readily available.)

I'm buying that Zombie Rasta hybrid strain (Black Domina x Marley's Collie) tomorrow. I'll grow it out and post results in the W.O.H thread.

 

[haight]

Sativa and Indica are just names coined in the 18th century.

Throughout the millenia these plants have exchanged genes naturally. Its strange to me that people call them 'Pure' since we all know how easy they cross-pollinate .... The science proves this too.

Yea and Granny Smith and Red Delicious are just names folks gave to idential apples. Throughout the millenia these plants have exchanged genes naturally. Its strange to me that people call them 'Pure' since we all know how easy they cross-pollinate .... The science proves this too.

 

[Pipe Dream]

To find a 100% indica or sativa you have to go for landraces, as pure as you can get. It's actually pretty simple, indicas originated from Afganistan and surrounding areas, everything else (before crossbreeding) was a sativa.

Some pure indicas: True kushes from kush valley (world of seeds), pakistan chitral kush (Ace seeds), talk of kabul (Mark Castle), Afgan (sensi seeds, DNA), Kashmir resin factory and Big Purps (dr Greenthumb), Deep Chunk (tom hill)

Some pure sativas: Thais (Ace, WOS), Nepalis (Bodhi), Haze (Ace, Seedsman, Tom Hill, Breeders choice Organization) Colombians (Gage Green, BCO), Malawi gold (holy smoke seeds), Prabang loa sativa (gypsy Nirvana)

 

[Trousers]

"Boy theses apples suck. What the hell are we going to do with them all?"
"Let's call them Red Delicious."

 

[Jogro]

Yeah, I don't want to discuss the DNA thing anymore either.

I did find the 'Rasta' thing interesting though. I would like to read more than a lay article but havent found anything yet.

Maybe its all rubbish, probably is. (Im suspicious more info is not readily available.)

Its probably not "rubbish" in the sense that their findings aren't real, though their interpretation of what the findings mean may be questionable.

Regardless, I suspect the reason you're having trouble locating more information on this is because it a topic that's almost certainly of more interest to historians than to growers. There probably isn't much to be found on this at all.

Again, stipulating that "rasta" strains do have their own unique genetic fingerprint, they're still "sativas" for the purposes of anyone growing the plant. Even assuming its true, you can't really "do" anything with the information, explaining why several years after publication, the concept/classification hasn't "caught on" in the cannabis community.

I'm buying that Zombie Rasta hybrid strain (Black Domina x Marley's Collie) tomorrow. I'll grow it out and post results in the W.O.H thread.

Relevant here, Marlie's Collie, is itself a 50-50% F1 hybrid of a pure Jamaican landrace sativa and a pure Afghani indica. Again, when I say "pure" I simply mean a true-breeding line (in this case, landraces).

Black Domina is a 4 way cross of two inbred Afghani lines with "worked" indoor indica-heavy lines. Black Domina has not been stabilized.

So on paper this ZR strain should be about 70-75% indica genetics, though again, you're probably going to see at least a little phenotypic variation here and some of the plants may be more "indica" than others.

Out of curiosity, any particular reason why you have chosen this one?

 

[Moebius]

So on paper this ZR strain should be about 70-75% indica genetics, though again, you're probably going to see at least a little phenotypic variation here and some of the plants may be more "indica" than others.

Out of curiosity, any particular reason why you have chosen this one?

Ive just ordered the Zombie Rasta. (I do know its not the 'Rasta' ganja mentioned earlier)

ermm Reason?
Because i'm an incurable stoner not immune to advertising spiel. lol

The legend of the afterlife returns and he's willing to seize power. Massive flowers, intense flavor, extremely aromatic with a high content of THC and CBD, and a marked Indica character.​

• Genetics: Black Domina (Afghan) x Bob Marley Collie (White Widow + Silver Haze + Northern Lights + Ortega + Afghani SA + Hash Plant)​
• Type: 20% Sativa - 80% Indica​
• THC: 23-26%​
• CBN: 2%​
• CBD: 1.1%
  ​

Zombi Rasta Seeds are 80% Indica for one of the most extreme physical stones you’ll ever feel. The over-the-top CBD level tempers what little bit of head high there is to create a strain that’s near-paralyzing. Be prepared to park your bum on the couch until the Zombi Rasta lets go!
To get this kind of power, Hero Seeds crossed the legendary Black Domina with the super-high Bob Marley Collie. With this combination, Zombi Rasta Cannabis Seeds have a touch of White Widow, a bit of Northern Lights, a little Hash Plant plus a few other legends for good measure. It’s a tough mix to beat!