Scammed by Andrew Michael Popp Las Vegas, NV

Originally Posted by Chris Kennard

I don't think asking valid questions or pointing out clear contradictions makes me a "detractor".

In fact, those actions make you a productive member here. As much as some people try, and I think Chris Davis is trying, one cannot force a conclusion on readers.
If readers ask questions, it is ordinarily to get some clarifications in an effort to get at the truth. Hiding the truth or mocking the question asker calls into question the motives of the hider/mocker.

Chris, perhaps you wish to be in complete control of not only the conversations but the very thoughts of readers. The harder to try to achieve complete control by hushing and mocking, the more questions arise.
If not being in complete control of a situation makes you anxious, perhaps you should address that issue, in your own thoughts and in the privacy of your home and then return here to Fauna where questions often lead to truths.

Originally Posted by Lucille

In fact, those actions make you a productive member here. As much as some people try, and I think Chris Davis is trying, one cannot force a conclusion on readers.
If readers ask questions, it is ordinarily to get some clarifications in an effort to get at the truth. Hiding the truth or mocking the question asker calls into question the motives of the hider/mocker.

Chris, perhaps you wish to be in complete control of not only the conversations but the very thoughts of readers. The harder to try to achieve complete control by hushing and mocking, the more questions arise.
If not being in complete control of a situation makes you anxious, perhaps you should address that issue, in your own thoughts and in the privacy of your home and then return here to Fauna where questions often lead to truths.

Thank you. Nicely put! I don't think there is anyone here who doesn't "get" why he chose a path of slander, as opposed to simply adding to the legitimacy of his case by answering easy questions and proving proof he so adamantly based his campaign on. Case in point (as just one example), he stated in post #23, that he "will post EVERY SINGLE TEXT MESSAGE between me and this slick talking thief" He post only seven texts, conveniently leaving out the rest. I asked for the whole conversation...NADA! Regardless of who is right or wrong, Chris mocked and abused this forum by bending the truth and soliciting sympathy and support under false pretenses. Chris owns that.

Just out of curiosity, what are the chances of "hets" not producing visuals in their first clutch? I've heard of this happening with snakes. I'm not a turtle guy. Just curious. Any thoughts?

Originally Posted by Chris Kennard

Just out of curiosity, what are the chances of "hets" not producing visuals in their first clutch? I've heard of this happening with snakes. I'm not a turtle guy. Just curious. Any thoughts?

Its going to be the same as with snakes assuming that you are dealing with simple recessive/dominant gene combos. A single het to het breeding should produce phenotypically 3 normal patterned to one phenotypical recessive.

some comments

Ed

to go along with your comment about hets, I think its safe to say again that "fact" leaves no room for possibility. its always "possible" for a het not to produce a visual morph in any species. I am by far no expert as I have stated but I still don't think a court could issue judgment against someone if he found one single credible case of a true het not producing a visual morph. i would assume the defense would search the earth for that information as well.

I think that's where the terms double het or 100% double het comes from. ...I could be wrong.

Yes it is a statistical probability, there isn't any guarantee that the first clutch would produce any individuals with the desired phenotype or the second or the third and so forth. The greater the number of eggs produced, the greater the probability of having one or more of the desired morphs appear. This is why sample size is so important in determining the probability of an event happening, for example the chance of coin flip showing heads is 50% but if you flip the coin only once, you could get a tails, if you flip it twice, you could get two tails in a row and so forth, three times three tails or two tails and one heads, the larger the number of times the coin is flipped the closer to the predicted 50/50 ratio you see.

some comments

Ed

Thanks for the response guys. So my next question, obviously, is how many eggs would be produced, typically, in the first clutch?

My point being, could a judgement be made accurately as to whether or not an animal is het by what is produced in the first clutch.

That is where things get hairy.

The percentages are per gamete pairing (or embryo/hatchling since it is comfortably conceptualized that way).

Speaking to the caramel piece alone and ignoring the albino piece -

While a homozygous X heterozygous pairing should yield a 50/50 shot of homozygous for caramel versus heterozygous for caramel, it is new gamble of chance with every embryo and every embryo's chances are independent of the others. You can calculate a string of chances, but it is not really predictive. Also, no matter how many chances of/in series are calculated when not proving out with a homozygous caramel, that calculation does not ever reach a chance of zero. By test-breeding, we can prove hets out but not technically disprove hets because there is always that chance of poor luck taking place. Since the last time I got into this discussion, I came across an instance of someone's animals taking over forty ( 40!!! ) offspring until the het parent proved out. That is very, very far from the norm. If you get enough offspring, the stats start to link up with the results, but sample size is key. When I had something (of a different species, but the math works the same way) that was supposed to be a het for me produce a season's worth of hets only and no morphs (at over forty-five hatchlings), I figured she was not going to prove out. I used to draw the line personally (for making decisions) at 20 results from homozygous to heterozygous pairings. I am giving that animal this season to be "functionally disproven" (not mathematically disproven) based on the freakish streaks. She can never be mathematically disproven because the chance of some absurdly long string of non-morph results still is and always will be greater than zero by calculation (because you are multiplying a percentage by a percentage with both values greater than zero; 0.0000000000001 x 0.0000000000001 is still not 0 by the math).

If the call is made by reasonable assumption at some point, then we could label it as disproven despite it not necessarily being accurate. Everyone has a different threshold, though. I have seen many cases where keepers flipped out on sellers because they hatched out four, six, or ten babies and were dissatisfied because they had no visuals and they believed it should have been half visual and half het. Life does not always work like that, though. I have had 10-long streaks in both directions. That is why I made my calls traditionally at 20. With the existence of at least one 40-long streak, it even gives me pause because I thought my 20-long threshold was adequate for making a decision. Pain in the cloaca, right there. I think the 10-streak is a little less than 0.0098% probable, but they have happened multiple times for me with hets that proved out despite that chance being perceived as very small. A 40-streak is something like slightly less than 9.095x10^-11% probable. Insane, yeah? Yet it has happened.

So my next question, obviously, is how many eggs would be produced, typically, in the first clutch?

I often get 4-6 if they are small-bodied females of this species. It can be three times that for me per clutch if large-bodied, but that is not what we would be seeing here in my experience. There should be several clutches in the season. Three to six clutches per season would be relatively common (depending on the individual animal) for me. Not all of these eggs would necessarily be viable and that would draw out the evaluation.

My point being, could a judgement be made accurately as to whether or not an animal is het by what is produced in the first clutch.

I would not bet the farm on the first clutch. I might even be wary with only a single season (depending on how many hatchlings I would actually get). I have had other animals not prove out with smallish clutches one season that then proved out the following season.

Originally Posted by EdwardK

Yes it is a statistical probability, there isn't any guarantee that the first clutch would produce any individuals with the desired phenotype or the second or the third and so forth. The greater the number of eggs produced, the greater the probability of having one or more of the desired morphs appear. This is why sample size is so important in determining the probability of an event happening, for example the chance of coin flip showing heads is 50% but if you flip the coin only once, you could get a tails, if you flip it twice, you could get two tails in a row and so forth, three times three tails or two tails and one heads, the larger the number of times the coin is flipped the closer to the predicted 50/50 ratio you see.

some comments

Ed

This. With less words than my post took.