What is progeny in animal breeding?
816309
Progeny is always the children.
49956
one species of animal is defined as a group of organisms that may breed to produce viable offspring. eg. "Mammals" are not a "species" as they are not all able to interbreed (never seen a rabbit-sheep cross, have you?) I would estimate at over 1000 "animals" although there must be many more species of organism, including many species of insects, plants, bacteria, fungi, viruses etc.\n\nLook up the science of "phylogenetics" or phylogeny for more details
1182923
Just one. \n\nVery few animals produce more than one offspring per egg.
1071890
Biotechnology is being used to address problems in all areas of agricultural production and processing. This includes plant breeding to raise and stabilize yields; to improve resistance to pests, diseases and abiotic stresses such as drought and cold; and to enhance the nutritional content of foods. Biotechnology is being used to develop low-cost disease-free planting materials for crops such as cassava, banana and potato and is creating new tools for the diagnosis and treatment of plant and animal diseases and for the measurement and conservation of genetic resources. Biotechnology is being used to speed up breeding programmes for plants, livestock and fish and to extend the range of traits that can be addressed. Animal feeds and feeding practices are being changed by biotechnology to improve animal nutrition and to reduce environmental waste. Biotechnology is used in disease diagnostics and for the production of vaccines against animal diseases.\n\nClearly, biotechnology is more than genetic engineering. Indeed, some of the least controversial aspects of agricultural biotechnology are potentially the most powerful and the most beneficial for the poor. Genomics, for example, is revolutionizing our understanding of the ways genes, cells, organisms and ecosystems function and is opening new horizons for marker-assisted breeding and genetic resource management. At the same time, genetic engineering is a very powerful tool whose role should be carefully evaluated. It is important to understand how biotechnology - particularly genetic engineering - complements and extends other approaches if sensible decisions are to be made about its use.\n\nThis chapter provides a brief description of current and emerging uses of biotechnology in crops, livestock, fisheries and forestry with a view to understanding the technologies themselves and the ways they complement and extend other approaches. It should be emphasized that the tools of biotechnology are just that: tools, not ends in themselves. As with any tool, they must be assessed within the context in which they are being used.
641011
Boy, did you get some stupid answers!  "Dog breeding is just mating dogs--nothing changes."  Sheesh.  They should watch a dog show sometime....
863149
The word you are looking for is "pedigree".
145878
In nature, living things evolve through changes in their DNA. In an animal like a chicken, DNA from a male sperm cell and a female ovum meet and combine to form a zygote -- the first cell of a new baby chicken. This first cell divides innumerable times to form all of the cells of the complete animal. In any animal, every cell contains exactly the same DNA, and that DNA comes from the zygote. \n\nChickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken. \n\nPrior to that first true chicken zygote, there were only non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the chicken's egg. So, the egg must have come first.
924637
According to Wikipedia, your hypothesis is wrong. Wolves ARE considered the progenators of domestic dogs...\n\nWolf\nThough due to behavioral and other factors the two species are now effectively isolated reproductively from one another, in genetic terms dogs are essentially Grey Wolves (Canis lupus), and the wide variation in their adult morphology likely results from simple changes in developmental rates and timing.[2]\n\nThe assessment that the wolf is the progenitor of the dog is a working hypothesis that currently is supported by several lines of independent evidence: behaviour, morphology and genetics. The parallel conclusions of these investigations strongly suggest, given current knowledge and understanding of evolutionary process, that the wolf is the domestic dog's most recent ancestor.[3] The earliest proven association between the two species is from the Natufian burial at Ein Mallaha in Israel. At Ein Mallaha, a 12,000 year old site, a burial was found of an old woman with a puppy held in her left hand. The next appearance of the domestication of the dog is from 8.5-9,000 years ago with the Zarzian culture of the Zagros Mountains, in Iraq.[citation needed] The Mesolithic Star Carr settlement in Yorkshire shows dogs were widely present part of their culture.
280647
"In nature, living things evolve through changes in their DNA. In an animal like a chicken, DNA from a male sperm cell and a female ovum meet and combine to form a zygote -- the first cell of a new baby chicken. This first cell divides innumerable times to form all of the cells of the complete animal. In any animal, every cell contains exactly the same DNA, and that DNA comes from the zygote. \n\nChickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken. \n\nPrior to that first true chicken zygote, there were only non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the chicken's egg. So, the egg must have come first."
901776
It is E\n\nThe reason: \na) Reproductive variations lead to the "better producer" making more offspring and thus leading to more chances for their offspring to reproduce.  For this one, think of gorillas...the dominant Male (silverback) will mate with the females so it is his offspring who carry the genetics into the next generation, and the other males in the group dont pass on their genes. \n\nb) There has to be some offspring that simply don't survive...this is the whole "don't interfere and let nature take its course" thing.  This means that after the "unhealthy" individuals die, the rest (on average) will be better suited to their environment.  Think of it like this... a  human family has three babies but one of them dies; the one that died may have had a defect that shouldn't have been passed on.  Since the parents had two other babies, they have replaced themselves in the population so there will not be a net loss of population when they eventually die. \n\nc) There has to be variations in the genetics of the offspring.  This is due to the fact that for us to become better suited to our environment, there has to be a change in our genetics to produce that change.  If we were exactly like our parents, no changes could occur.\n\nd) Inheritance is hugely important.  Think about it like this: If a beneficial change develops (such as opposable thumbs), what good would it be if it couldnt be passed on to the next generation?  There must be a mechanism to pass the benefit on.  \n\ne) Even though there have been many catastrophic events that have allowed for natural selection, it is not required.  A large eruption may cause the animals who can eat more diverse variety of plants to do better than ones that can't but they may be able to out-compete the other animals anyway.
1069568
Ligers and Tigons are sterile from birth, so there would be no offspring.  However, if one were to unlock the secrets behind genetic recombination, you could sample DNA from both animals and possbly splice a new, third hybrid ... perhaps a Tigron.  Sadly, natural pathways for an enhanced hybrid from these two creatures is impossible.
493860
egg the proccesses of evolution take place in the next generation of a species
640681
It varies.\n\nIn some cases, a change in the genetic material is noticeable immediately.  For example albinism, or lack of pigment.  This genetic trait can be passed on and it is obvious.\n\nOther cases might require changes in more than one gene or DNA site to become obvious.  These changes can remain hidden for generations before the change becomes apparent.  Other mutations, such as male pattern balding, are not expressed in every generation, but often seem to skip a generation.\n\nThere are also mutations that are so sever as to cause the individual to not be viable.  Infertile plant seeds and bird & animal eggs or still-birth mammals can be examples of non-viable mutations.
967402
Because when you keep breeding close relatives you not only get the "good" traits but you get the "bad" traits in the next generation as well.  When you mix the genetic pool you cut the odds of the bad traits being carried to the next generation.\n\nAn example of this would be purebred dogs.  Many purebred dogs have specific defects in each breed because that gene was carried forward into the next generation as well as the good or desirable genes.\n\nMutts rarely have those types of problems.
906936
Assuming that the rough coat is dominant, and the smooth coat is recessive, the offspring must all have 1 r in their genotypes.  The smooth coated guinea pigs have the rr genotype, and the rough coated guinea pigs have the heterozygous genotype, Rr.  Heterozygotes express the rough phenotype.  The Punnett square would look as follows:\n\n\nFATHER              MOTHER:   r               r\n\nR                                           Rr             Rr\n\n\nr                                            rr                rr\n\n\nThe father's genotype must be Rr (and his phenotype must be rough coat).
684738
There are two conceptual models that overshadow current theories related to the production of diversification within organisms. Darwinian evolutionists propose that genetic variability is the result of random mutations that have accumulated gradually over millions of years. In contrast, creationists generally assume that God made all useful genetic information during the creation of the world. Both largely agree that groups such as the Family Canidae evolved from a common ancestor, and the rapid development of variety during the domestic dog breeding, was simply the result of shuffling preexisting genes. This common genetic theory fails to explain the rapid production of the significant diversity when presented with the assertion that the wolf was a pure breed while in nature. A purebred organism is a genetic homozygote for the characteristics in question, and will therefore pass its traits to every offspring produced. In other words, wolves only give birth to wolf pups, but from them a tremendous genetic and morphologically diverse number of dogs have been isolated in a relatively short period of time. Explaining this conundrum cuts to the very heart of the creation vs. evolution controversy.\n\nThe canine baramin (Biblical kind) likely speciated rapidly following the flood of Noah during geographic radiation, and each new population was then naturally selected until varieties such as the wolf, fox, hyena, jackal, etc., each became purebred. Selection is the process of inbreeding specific genes from a diverse genotype until alternate variations of genes (alleles) are eliminated, and the bloodline will only then breed true. As a result, the purebred organism is genetically limited, and in many respects the wolf should be considered no different in its ability to produce offspring diversity than any of the dog breeds we have today. Although speculative for some time, genetic studies have now thoroughly established that dogs were bred from domesticated gray wolves.1 It is also a matter of historic fact that most breeds have been selected to purity within the last few hundred years. However, when compared to the wolf, the domestic dogs are found to have divergent sequences not possessed by their progenitors. Due to these findings some geneticists now believe that wolf domestication must have begun more than 100,000 years ago despite the fact that archaeological findings can not verify their existence beyond 14,000 years.2\n\nIf one believes that the Biblical flood of Noah was a recent and global event, then another problem presents itself. Genes have fixed locations within the genome called loci, and sexually reproducing organism only carry two alleles (variation of a gene) per locus.(Figure 1) If the number of breeding pairs released from the ark can be taken as accurate data for this recent genetic bottleneck, then the maximum number of original alleles is known. According to the Bible, no more than seven breeding pairs were preserved for each baramin, and these 14 individuals can only carry 28 alleles per locus. Since only 8 people were alive following the flood, there should be a maximum of 16 alleles at any given locus in humans. However, it is now clear that many genes exist within populations as hundreds or even thousands of alleles. For example, 240 alleles have already been discovered in the human HLA-B locus. In spite of such concrete evidence, most creationists still tend to assume there is no mechanism for generating new genetic information,3 and indeed the following quote may be exemplary of the current state of thinking regarding intelligently designed genetic heredity. "Recombination explains why children look different from their parents. This shuffling of the genes can produce superior combinations of different genes. However, because we see that mutations are incapable of supplying useful variation, the useful genes that are there to be shuffled must have been created at the beginning.\n\n\nThis might do it
193309
the egg, because before hens existed there were proto-hens that laid eggs as well. One day one of those proto-hens evolved and the first hen was born.