# Everything came from a blue bar?



## AZCorbin (Feb 28, 2011)

Well personally I don't buy it. Makes no sense and everything we view seems to be contrary to that. In fact most say it themselves. What I mean by that is why would I breed a bird back to a blue bar to figure out what it has if everything came from a blue bar? 
People want to use the bb as a control but then at the same time say the exact opposite. 

Has anyone ever witnessed two bb produce something else? Like a brown bar or a barless or ANYTHING. _When I say BB I mean what you would refer to as 'wildtype' as I know the bird can carry genes and display them through offspring._

There seems to be inconsistencies. Why tell people what will hatch if in fact we really have no good idea. Now of course I know we do have ideas; So much so that if we know what the bird is carrying we can tell exactly what will be produced and how often.

Now I know I am speaking against popularity as TMK the entire pigeon community views things different.
I also understand that bb is what we see in the wild.
However that does not mean that the blue bar pigeon was always wildtype. I think there are assumptions there and I believe that is where the problem is.

*I am not starting this thread to get into an argument but rather a discussion. If you view things different great lets talk about it in a mature manner and not be nasty just because we are online and don't know anyone we are talking to. (Ive caught my self doing this one). Any negative comments will be reported in hopes of keeping this thread on topic and civil. If you care to debate evolution/creation directly PLEASE send me a PM and we can go from there as it is not proper to do so here. Remember the title of the thread when you respond. Thanks
-Corbin*


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2012)

I can say that I once raised a barless blue from 2 barred blues. It was from a line that I imported from a man who worked with the same family of birds for probably 30 years. He told me he NEVER had a barless bird in his loft... and I never did either in my loft. The barless bird popped out probably about 8 years after I imported them. And no I never crossed any different birds onto that family either. I exported the barless one back to him seeing as he was so intrigued by it, and also by the fact I don't like barless birds. So to answer you, yes I've seen it happen


----------



## Crazy Pete (Nov 13, 2008)

They can look like a bb and not really be a bb, if you see the even a speck of a third bar they are not just a bb. Some bb's have a slight trace of brown in them and can through any color.
Dave


----------



## John_D (Jan 24, 2002)

Hi Corbin ~ 

Since the wild type throughout Europe and western Asia is blue bar (barring 'sports' which could occur) I think we can pretty sure that old world pigeons did come from the blue bar.

However, it's not recorded, AFAIK, what coloring the pigeons had who were first introduced into N.America by Europeans centuries back as 'domestics'. I would have thought that would actually be the decisive factor in tracing origins as far as the States is concerned?


----------



## AZCorbin (Feb 28, 2011)

My point to the thread is to question the idea that originally there were only blue bars in the gene pool. The idea that mealy bars, brown bars, grizzle, almond and everything we see today mutated from two blue bars. The idea that at one point in time these genes did not exist and then one day some eggs popped out different then blue bars.



gbhman said:


> I can say that I once raised a barless blue from 2 barred blues. It was from a line that I imported from a man who worked with the same family of birds for probably 30 years. He told me he NEVER had a barless bird in his loft... and I never did either in my loft. The barless bird popped out probably about 8 years after I imported them. And no I never crossed any different birds onto that family either. I exported the barless one back to him seeing as he was so intrigued by it, and also by the fact I don't like barless birds. So to answer you, yes I've seen it happen


That is just a recessive gene buried in a pigeon. Blue barless is in the gene pool so it is easy to be hidden and be past down many lines without ever showing.
The popular belief is that random mutations produce random results.
If yours was a random mutation we wouldn't expect it to mutate exactly the same as another. 



Crazy Pete said:


> They can look like a bb and not really be a bb, if you see the even a speck of a third bar they are not just a bb. Some bb's have a slight trace of brown in them and can through any color.
> Dave


I am specifically mentioning 'wild type' meaning a plain blue bar with absolute no recessive genes. 



John_D said:


> Hi Corbin ~
> 
> Since the wild type throughout Europe and western Asia is blue bar (barring 'sports' which could occur) I think we can pretty sure that old world pigeons did come from the blue bar.
> 
> However, it's not recorded, AFAIK, what coloring the pigeons had who were first introduced into N.America by Europeans centuries back as 'domestics'. I would have thought that would actually be the decisive factor in tracing origins as far as the States is concerned?


I think you misunderstood my question/challenge as well.
To say all pigeons came from blue bars because that is what we find in the wild is a big assumption.

Honestly, perhaps you should just close this thread because in the end it comes down to were pigeons created by God or did they come from nothing (evolution).
I should have not made this thread. It is not really about pigeons or evidence at all. The base of the matter is which world view do you hold. Because whether people are conscious of their worldview or not everyone has one and it obviously determines how we see the world and how we make life intelligible (or at least which one makes life intelligible PM me for further).

There is no evidence of this claim which is so widespread and as a community people speak contrary from it when discussing genetics. In other words we say (believe) one thing but in reality it is not what we see.

Please close or delete this thread.
Unless the deeper aspects of the topic are welcome (though I doubt this could happen in a mature manner).
Thanks
-Corbin


----------



## newday (Dec 12, 2004)

*"wild type"*

Of course mutations (variations) occur in the wild. In the "wild" environment the survival for the rock pigeon is the greatest for the bb type, thus a natural selection against variation.

But once humans started raising pigeons and preseved the variations it has been possible to breed the wide range of colors, feather styles, beak designs and sizes just to satisfy our human interests. 

We use the "wild" type as the control for breeding to see what is involved with color genetics.


----------



## NZ Pigeon (Nov 12, 2011)

I think Charles Darwin prooved that pigeons evolved from wild type, Blue bar. This was the meduim he used to proove evolution

Also AZ - with regards to breeding all modifiers back to blue bars, That is the best way to see what the modifier is as it always shows best on wild type.

Regardless of what the original wild type was we still need a standard to compare mutations against and blue bar is it.


----------



## beatlemike (Nov 28, 2009)

But there again,what if you dont believe in Darwins theory of evolution?


----------



## AZCorbin (Feb 28, 2011)

This thread was a mistake to post and I decided I will not be responding to post. The reason I am doing this is because I know how quickly things like this go south and I really don't want to be a part of it.
I do apologize for posting this as it was bad judgment on my part.
I hope John_D closes it but if he leaves it open so be it.

Please PM me if you do really want to discuss things as I would love to debate anyone on the matter.



beatlemike said:


> But there again,what if you dont believe in Darwins theory of evolution?


Then you hold a different world view.


*Again I will no longer be answering any post. Feel free to post what you want but if you care to discuss things with me PM me and we can go from there. I am also willing to do phone calls/email as these types of things take a long time via the net.
*

Thank you all for understand
-Corbin


----------



## Print Tippler (May 18, 2011)

Evolution can not be proven by evidence. To believe so would be to commit the pretended neutrality fallacy. We can not look at evidence in a natural way. It is all based upon what we believe. Two people can look at the same thing and come to completely different conclusions. We all have things we presuppose on the onset of investigation. Without going into details some of those would be universal laws of logic, universal absolute morality, and uniformity of nature. These are not things you come to believe but are the foundation by which you believe anything. But what worldview dn account for these things we take for granted? What are the laws of logic and where do they come from? I'm happy to talk about this all day. Definitely not the first time I've gone through this. Remember this is philosophical and not empirical.

John, I think it should be allowed. If creation is not allowed to be talked about nor should evolution or anything concerning it. Which is talk about _all_ the time.

Also let's define some terms here. When I say evolution I refer to everything but what others call "micro evolution" or variations within a kind. Everything but that includes cosmic evolution, planetary, biological and of that nature. Ultimately the ideal that everything evolved from a big bang. The ideal of life coming from non life, intelligence from nonintelligence, morality coming from no morality.


----------



## loftkeeper (Sep 21, 2010)

Have Always Wonder Why . If Ash Red Is Dominat Why There Are Not More Of Them In The Wild


----------



## John_D (Jan 24, 2002)

OP has requested this be closed, so do what he says - discuss offline.


----------

