First of all, thanks to everyone for your kind words :oops: :) ; but I gotta say that I am particularly pleased that my thread apparently has influenced Al Wolf in his decision to post again. :D Great to have you back, my friend! 8) [quote="boomslang"]Now, I have a question that I would like for you to ponder upon. 50 years ago It was nothing for dogs to live up into their golden years, assuming that they didnt live to tough a life. [..] Usually the people breeding these dogs, know nothing of genetics. They simply breed the most "visibly" fit and best performing specimins to a complimentary bitch. With obviously fantastic results. I personally believe that we as humans tend to overthink [..] why does everyone have to turn something so simple into rocket science?[/quote] OK, let me try to address this brilliant question. :) Modern science provides us with a depth of insight into dogs that is virtually unprecedented in history. With the completion of the dog genome, we now know that the canine genome contains about 19000 - 20000 genes dispersed over a sequence of 2.41 billion nucleotides. There are about 400 known hereditary diseases for dogs described in the literature. (For some reason, those sources didn't include "tailwagging idiocy" in their list :lol: ). Novel tools such as whole-genome Genechips for canines allow for comprehensive genetic profiling of a specimen's composition. Diagnostic molecular markers, X-ray and many more techniques are available today to investigate the predisposition of our dogs and take those findings into further consideration. Great stuff, if you ask me. Here's the thing though. Those technologies are essentially prognostic tools, and most of them very one-dimensional at that. They do NOT replace the methods that were used in the past. If one attempted to select breeding stock solely based on such analytical approaches, one would quickly be overwhelmed. In layman's terms, it would be like trying to control a sack of worms. Please allow me to give you an analogy that will illustrate the underlying problem. Suppose you find yourself in a ping-pong match, where you are standing on one end of the table with the BEST ping-pong racquet you can possibly buy, and a group of people on the other side of the table. Your job is to fend off the balls that these guys are hitting in your direction. Problem is, they have 400 balls at their disposal (symbolizing the 400 possible hereditary diseases). You can easily imagine that eventually, some balls will get through to your side; in the end, I'm sure you'll lose the game - regardless of the quality of your "high-tech"-racquet (or is it racket?) ....... UNLESS........you change the playing field to your advantage (literally). Position the ping-pong table on a hill with a steep slope, so that your opponents will have to hit the balls uphill. :wink: Gravity will play in your favor and return the opponent's balls right back into their quarters. That gravity essentially represents the environmental pressure. If the slope is steep enough, you'll likely succeed. What I am trying to say is that "high-tech" obviously can be a great tool, but it won't be able to replace the 'help' of nature, when you face a "multi-dimensional" challenge. What people in the old days simply did is to choose a "slope" THAT "steep", that they wouldn't even have to think very hard about the complex theory behind successful breeding. For the most part, nature would take care of it. Now back to your question, why don't we simply do what people way-back-when did? Well, unless you have dozens of dogs, hundreds of sheep and thousands of acres of mountainous pastures, it won't be easy to find that "steep slope", i.e. this harsh environmental pressure on your population, that is really necessary. This is where "high-tech" comes in as a measure to somewhat compensate for the shortcomings and limitations of our modern world. Knowledge about the fundamentals of genetics will undoubtedly be beneficial in those endeavors. So we oughta think about how we want to breed dogs. It is my belief that today, we will have to employ both strategies simultaneously to be able to maintain a high quality in dogs. The emphasis however, should always lie on the "old ways", as those truly are the PROVEN concept. 8) Regards, Dan P.S.: Igmuska, thanks for suggesting a separate forum topic on breeding & genetics - Great idea! Thanks so much for realizing it, Gary! And great discussion by the way... :D