|
|
Post by catstina on Apr 28, 2013 9:03:25 GMT -5
Shoot I don't trust visual ID and i dont trust saliva based DNA either. I thought that was a great example of visual ID and how Wrong people are lol. The dog had a blood drawn panel, not saliva. Those are a lot more reliable that the saliva based DNA tests. I think it shows how many bloodlines can be in a dog. You think it's a lie? Or we lied about about the results? I will post them here if that would help. Not being a jerk, but do you know how DNA works? I didn't say I thought it was a lie, I said I thought the results were fucking bullshit, because they fucking are! I'm sorry, but do you seriously believe that two rare breeds are in the background of this dog!? And that two breeds under 20 pounds are in there!? Do you really believe that!? Do YOU know how DNA works!?!? Let me explain to you why I think it's bullshit in a way which may be just a weensie easier for you to understand. DNA testing to determine parentage or to test for genetic diseases in dogs are accurate, however, DNA tests to determine breed are not even a little bit accurate. Dogs are just not diverse enough to differentiate a breed genetically. Most breeds have not been around longer than 150 years! And, the thing is, these DNA tests don't even test for Pit Bulls!!! You could take a purebred ADBA Pit Bull whose bloodlines go back 100 years and he could come back as a mutt. Some test for AmStaffs, but that doesn't cover a lot of the Pit Bull bloodlines. So, when they get a Pit Bull that doesn't have any AmStaff bloodlines, they come up with all these random related breeds and sometimes completely unrelated breeds because they don't have anything close enough to the dog's actual breed in their system. So their algorithm just sort of picks random breeds that might account for certain traits. I'm thinking Rose Ears = Deerhound, Face shape = Boston/MiniBull, Body = MiniBull, Red/Liver Nose = Dachshund or Boston (Bostons come in a liver variety, maybe a liver dog was used in their Boston Terrier pool), Coat Length = Boston, MiniBull, Dachshund. The tests don't account for the rarity of certain breeds and the unlikeliness of said breeds running around and knocking up Dachshunds and Boston Terriers, they just sort of spit out some random things that could account for traits and call it a day. They are in no way accurate! In fact, if you call wisdom panel or put a message on their FB wall to complain about your results, they will run their algorithm again and give you a whole new set of possible results. What does that tell you? |
|
ames
Member
Posts: 93 
|
Post by ames on Apr 28, 2013 9:39:53 GMT -5
RELAX WHY ARE YOU SCREAMING lmfao
Wow did I say you didn't realize this? Ahhh no. Someone said like do they even have a red nose in a Boston terrier or some other stupid comment about a stupid nose color as a deciding factor lmao. In your description you mentioned red nose lmao like it's a magical thing and only OFRN can have a red nose!!. I figured maybe someone didn't since 2 people commented about it like it freaking mattered.
You really need to relax and stop assuming everything is so personal. I just stated a fact.
Now as far as DNA do you understand science? Do you believe in evolution or the bible? Maybe that's why people can't understand the concept of DNA. I'm really trying to understand why there is so much denial by people about a science. Being able to pin point specific markers. The only issue that I have is that it's only AKC breeds. Not that I don't believe they are scientifically able to determine what genes are the correct markers.
So again, WHAT is your problem with the results that PBLNN lied and they didn't get the results? That our follower lied and didn't get the results? Or that the company doing the results lied and they don't know what markers are for any breed dog, or just not pit bulls? (those who say the AmStaff is a pit bull)
Reminds me of OJ Simpson getting off lol people didn't believe DNA was possible back them THINK about how much that's changed. SCIENCE ROCKS!! Bet he would have been convicted now with the glove not fitting cause people accept it more.
It's fine. Some people hate change. I understand this. Just curious about which part you are in denial about is all.
|
|
ames
Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by ames on Apr 28, 2013 9:56:03 GMT -5
The above was posted before your reply. This app gives me an error when trying to connect by then I connected my draft posted before I could see your reply.
Yes I know how it works. Most people consider the American Staffordshire Terrier to be a pit bull, I thought some people on here also called an AmStaff a pit bull so that's why I was confused as to not even testing for a pit bull. They test for AKC dogs not all
Dogs. Most people accept AmStaff as a pit bull. I don't know how all DNA testing works just the blood panel ones. Saliva or swap shoot you go fpr a walk and your dog licks something and get that dogs saliva and now you get those results. Or contamination of course. Blood is handled and tracked more than the swab tests. And it's understood the dogs are very closely related which is why they can get varying results since humans take a trait and apply it to a look which might not be what the breed is. Instead of saying this trait is for floppy ears and this one is for not floppy ears its not about what a dog looks like its about what it's bloodlines are apply i
typically it's 4 generations before traits are bred out. I think it's funny that you doubt so much yet don't realize how it could still have some strains in the blood. So if they are so closely related that they are deemed this verses that breed maybe just maybe that's how many breeds are in one particular mutt. Not hard to ration with so many accidental breedings that occur. Just because a dog breed isn't common around you doesn't meant its not common in another area.
|
|
ames
Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by ames on Apr 28, 2013 10:04:52 GMT -5
I have never seen results of a well known ADBA bloodline come back as other things. I have looked. most people refuse to pay the money for the blood panel. I tried to get some grants going so I could take known history of dogs and donate blood test but haven't been able to get that going. I only know that to be true from swab tests not from blood panel. If you can point me to ADBA dogs that have had the blood panel done I would welcome it as I have been looking!
I'm not saying anything is 100% I am just saying because a dog doesn't look like a breed it doesn't mean that it is or isn't that particular breed. I'm also not gonna call bullshit when I haven't seen anything to make me feel its bullshit yet. Reading what thy say and those who have studied it from a scientific side seems very plausible.
|
|
|
|
Post by adoptapitbull on Apr 28, 2013 10:18:54 GMT -5
In reference to the rare breed thing...
I'm just going to point out that, sure, a Husky or Mal is probably a lot more common in Alaska than a Xoloitzcuintli. Even if there are a lot more of a certain rare breed in a geographical location, how does that account for these dogs from all around the country popping up to supposedly have that breed? Do you think breeders of uncommon breeds are so lax to allow their dogs to mate with mutts?
There was a link posted here and on FB where a shelter had something like 40 dogs tested, and I believe something like 10% of those tested claimed to have Puli in them. My numbers may be off, but the point is that NOWHERE in the country is Puli that popular that a staggering number of dogs in a shelter would have such a rare breed mix. No way in hell.
Aside from looking at a dog whose "DNA test" claims to be 1/4 Puli, 1/4 English Bulldog, 1/4 Xolo, 1/4 Plott just looking at the results without viewing the dog should give you an idea of how bogus it can be.
I'm not saying that science can't tell us a lot. I'm saying that doggie DNA blood/saliva tests just don't have that science figured out.
|
|
|
|
Post by catstina on Apr 28, 2013 14:56:33 GMT -5
Now as far as DNA do you understand science? Do you believe in evolution or the bible? Maybe that's why people can't understand the concept of DNA. Is this honestly how you talk to people? I wonder why you have such difficulty getting through to people! You are absolutely ridiculous. Why don't you have a look around and read some of the topics already discussed, especially some of the stickies in the Pit Bulls! section. Stop assuming you're the smartest person here. You aren't. Not by a long shot. |
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Apr 28, 2013 21:33:22 GMT -5
I have never seen results of a well known ADBA bloodline come back as other things. I have looked. most people refuse to pay the money for the blood panel. I tried to get some grants going so I could take known history of dogs and donate blood test but haven't been able to get that going. I only know that to be true from swab tests not from blood panel. If you can point me to ADBA dogs that have had the blood panel done I would welcome it as I have been looking! I'm not saying anything is 100% I am just saying because a dog doesn't look like a breed it doesn't mean that it is or isn't that particular breed. I'm also not gonna call bullshit when I haven't seen anything to make me feel its bullshit yet. Reading what thy say and those who have studied it from a scientific side seems very plausible. What DNA test has ADBA bloodlines included in its database.? Please reference any "science" that verifies/supports the DNA breed results for actual dogs. p.s. please proofread your posts before you put them up because they are becoming increasingly hard to comprehend |
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Apr 29, 2013 7:34:49 GMT -5
I've seen red nosed Boston's and Dachshunds, but not Bull Terriers or Deerhounds. Also, just in case no one noticed, I made the dogs all to scale (except for the Pit Bull because there is no person in the photo to use for scale), because I'm awesome.  Red nose is just a color. There are tons of breeds that can have a red nose. Or a black nose. Or a blue nose. Nose color means nothing. Nose color was brought up in terms of what is possible genetically in which breeds. |
|
ames
Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by ames on Apr 29, 2013 10:23:31 GMT -5
Now as far as DNA do you understand science? Do you believe in evolution or the bible? Maybe that's why people can't understand the concept of DNA. Is this honestly how you talk to people? I wonder why you have such difficulty getting through to people! You are absolutely ridiculous. Why don't you have a look around and read some of the topics already discussed, especially some of the stickies in the Pit Bulls! section. Stop assuming you're the smartest person here. You aren't. Not by a long shot. Wow can't answer my Question lol it was an honest question. A lot of people I meet against science are bible thumpers. I don't try to have conversations with them to explain of try can't even grasp evolution. That why I asked. What's wrong with asking people if they believe in evolution? Who the fuck ever said I was the smartest person here or anywhere!?! Please stop taking things so personal. It's really honey questions I'm asking. I'm no being a bitch or trying to start trouble. I'm honestly trying to see how people's train of thoughts go to try and understand. Stop taking that to mean I think I'm smart or dumb. It's jut having a conversation lol untwist those panties and get back to it  seriously it's not that serious lol |
|
ames
Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by ames on Apr 29, 2013 10:35:59 GMT -5
In reference to the rare breed thing... I'm just going to point out that, sure, a Husky or Mal is probably a lot more common in Alaska than a Xoloitzcuintli. Even if there are a lot more of a certain rare breed in a geographical location, how does that account for these dogs from all around the country popping up to supposedly have that breed? Do you think breeders of uncommon breeds are so lax to allow their dogs to mate with mutts? There was a link posted here and on FB where a shelter had something like 40 dogs tested, and I believe something like 10% of those tested claimed to have Puli in them. My numbers may be off, but the point is that NOWHERE in the country is Puli that popular that a staggering number of dogs in a shelter would have such a rare breed mix. No way in hell. Aside from looking at a dog whose "DNA test" claims to be 1/4 Puli, 1/4 English Bulldog, 1/4 Xolo, 1/4 Plott just looking at the results without viewing the dog should give you an idea of how bogus it can be. I'm not saying that science can't tell us a lot. I'm saying that doggie DNA blood/saliva tests just don't have that science figured out. Ahhhh I see where you are coming from with that type of deduction makes sense as well. Thanks for giving me another way to look at it. Good points! And you're right I don't know how a rare breed pops up as much as you have said I haven't seen those kind of results. I really wish people could post and gather so some real testing can be done. The problem is people who are sure of their bloodlines don't line up to spend $300 to tell them what they feel they know lol can't blame them. Although I do hold the blood to a way higher standard than a saliva swab. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Apr 29, 2013 10:39:34 GMT -5
Shoot I don't trust visual ID and i dont trust saliva based DNA either. I thought that was a great example of visual ID and how Wrong people are lol. The dog had a blood drawn panel, not saliva. Those are a lot more reliable that the saliva based DNA tests. I think it shows how many bloodlines can be in a dog. You think it's a lie? Or we lied about about the results? I will post them here if that would help. Not being a jerk, but do you know how DNA works? Not what I took away from the example. I thought it showed perfectly how DNA testing is ridiculously ludicrous. And since when can you DNA a bloodline? I don't know how DNA "works," really. Can you explain it to me? |
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Apr 29, 2013 10:39:52 GMT -5
I'm just curious - I've asked this before. To those so willing to concede the accuracy of DNA results, what happens if/when they start being used against our dogs? DNA testing makes me nervous for this reason, even though right now I don't put too much stock in it. But, Wisdom, for instance, still DNA's ASTs and SBTs which are always lumped into the "pit bull" category in breed bans. Not saying it would happen now, but when the tests are cheaper and the technology isn't so new....maybe it could happen. Then what?
Right now it's all well and good, using tests to "prove" none of these dogs are "pit bulls". I get that.
|
|
|
|
Post by catstina on Apr 29, 2013 10:40:55 GMT -5
PBLNN does NOT AT ALL agree DNA can verify a dog lineage. Not sure why you think we do, we must be doing something wrong if you think we believe DNA tests lol. ... There is also a great video of a Chacko dog , who bloodlines are known, getting the DNA test done and getting results that were so far off! it was crazy! lol |
|
ames
Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by ames on Apr 29, 2013 19:01:39 GMT -5
Shoot I don't trust visual ID and i dont trust saliva based DNA either. I thought that was a great example of visual ID and how Wrong people are lol. The dog had a blood drawn panel, not saliva. Those are a lot more reliable that the saliva based DNA tests. I think it shows how many bloodlines can be in a dog. You think it's a lie? Or we lied about about the results? I will post them here if that would help. Not being a jerk, but do you know how DNA works? Not what I took away from the example. I thought it showed perfectly how DNA testing is ridiculously ludicrous. And since when can you DNA a bloodline? I don't know how DNA "works," really. Can you explain it to me? I can explain what I know andhave learned but it might be easier to hear it from someone who is qualified to talk about it and who's job it is to study it. www.blogtalkradio.com/pit-bulletin-legal-news/2012/07/25/canine-dna--ready-for-prime-timeI didn't mean DNA was a bloodline, sorry I misspoke. The DNA markers are determined by what bloodlines make up the dogs profile. |
|
ames
Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by ames on Apr 29, 2013 19:05:31 GMT -5
PBLNN does NOT AT ALL agree DNA can verify a dog lineage. Not sure why you think we do, we must be doing something wrong if you think we believe DNA tests lol. ... There is also a great video of a Chacko dog , who bloodlines are known, getting the DNA test done and getting results that were so far off! it was crazy! lol exactly! We don't say YES or NO we just offer the results. Not sure what you are trying to prove here lol As I said Saliva vs Blood is a WHOLE other ball game. This dog was blood, so it depends on which test which I, Ames as an individual, thinks might or might not be correct. |
|
|
|
Post by catstina on Apr 29, 2013 19:36:48 GMT -5
I'm not trying to "prove" shit. I made this topic because I literally laughed out loud when I saw the "results." Where you see "a great example of visual ID and how Wrong people are lol." I see an example of just how ridiculously inaccurate these tests are. I don't care if it was saliva, blood or unicorn hair, DNA tests are currently inaccurate at identifying a dog's breed. Several people have explained to you why this is so, but you don't care, you would rather call me a bible thumper who doesn't believe in science or know how "DNA works" than even think about the fact that this is a new science and has not been independently verified by any studies that I have been made aware of. If you have any, I would absolutely LOVE to see them. No one ever seems to have any to show me any studies when I ask for them, though. Hmm... Shoot I don't trust visual ID and i dont trust saliva based DNA either. I thought that was a great example of visual ID and how Wrong people are lol. The dog had a blood drawn panel, not saliva. Those are a lot more reliable that the saliva based DNA tests. I think it shows how many bloodlines can be in a dog. You think it's a lie? Or we lied about about the results? I will post them here if that would help. Not being a jerk, but do you know how DNA works? Now as far as DNA do you understand science? Do you believe in evolution or the bible? |
|
|
|
Post by adoptapitbull on Apr 30, 2013 5:59:26 GMT -5
In reference to the rare breed thing... I'm just going to point out that, sure, a Husky or Mal is probably a lot more common in Alaska than a Xoloitzcuintli. Even if there are a lot more of a certain rare breed in a geographical location, how does that account for these dogs from all around the country popping up to supposedly have that breed? Do you think breeders of uncommon breeds are so lax to allow their dogs to mate with mutts? There was a link posted here and on FB where a shelter had something like 40 dogs tested, and I believe something like 10% of those tested claimed to have Puli in them. My numbers may be off, but the point is that NOWHERE in the country is Puli that popular that a staggering number of dogs in a shelter would have such a rare breed mix. No way in hell. Aside from looking at a dog whose "DNA test" claims to be 1/4 Puli, 1/4 English Bulldog, 1/4 Xolo, 1/4 Plott just looking at the results without viewing the dog should give you an idea of how bogus it can be. I'm not saying that science can't tell us a lot. I'm saying that doggie DNA blood/saliva tests just don't have that science figured out. Ahhhh I see where you are coming from with that type of deduction makes sense as well. Thanks for giving me another way to look at it. Good points! And you're right I don't know how a rare breed pops up as much as you have said I haven't seen those kind of results. I really wish people could post and gather so some real testing can be done. The problem is people who are sure of their bloodlines don't line up to spend $300 to tell them what they feel they know lol can't blame them. Although I do hold the blood to a way higher standard than a saliva swab. Let me see if I can find the actual test result page. I think that will give you some insight as to how messed up they can be. |
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Apr 30, 2013 8:56:54 GMT -5
Did everyone read the post I made about the DNA tests from The Bark? It pretty much says these tests do NOT DETECT BREED.
|
|
seriously it's not that serious lol 
I look forward to learning much here