|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 06/10/2008 : 08:29:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Getting back on topic (something you seem to find anathema), your position appears to be that we should consider all things measurable to possibly be a part of a creature's phenotype because those things might be a part of its phenotype. Clearly, that doesn't sound like science, so you throw around words like "quale" and "epigenetics" as if they're somehow relevant, while in fact regardless of whether we consider epigenetics or not your position wouldn't change from what I summarized, above (in still other words, without knowledge of epigenetics, it's still possible that any measurable thing on a creature might be phenotypic).
If this does not accurately describe your position, please let me know what would.
|
Bolding mine.
MG, this post seems to have been left unanswered for some reason. Enough with trying to figure out just what you are suggesting. Answer the question, would you? Then we can proceed, if there is anywhere to proceed to.
Do not say that you have already answered the question because even if you have, your communication skills are not what you think they are or everyone here would have already understood what you are saying, and that is clearly not the case. If you must, take your time and make sure there can be no ambiguity in your answer.
Stop answering questions with questions. It takes some arrogance to come in here and play teacher. So knock it off.
After 12 pages of this, the time has come to move forward (if there is a forward to move to) so make yourself understood if you can.
Be clear and concise. Answer the question that Dave has asked in the above quote. No more side trips. Just do it!
And let me offer a little pre-warning to spice things up. If you decide not to take this post seriously, administrative action might be forthcoming. Enough is enough...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 11:54:44 [Permalink]
|
it is simply observation and report.
|
Yes; you observe and report on something, namely, what I'd call, a trait. |
OK. | In science, there is a conscious effort to only use terms which have a precise and unambiguous definition. |
Yes, and that's is why I don't find it helpful to switch terms, back and forth. We have to be talking about the same thing.
So far, all agree that very often we are not. This is not entirely my fault. As I said earlier, I made an attempt to limit my diction, if you will, and not use terms that are loaded, unless necessary.
That is one of the difficulties here. People are attaching their own meanings to words - without first thinking about them, and then testing the word by application to the subject. I'll do that here.
I noticed that you saw my "observation and report" as relating to your "trait", as in observing and reporting on "something".
Can you clarify if there is another meaning hidden in "something". I don't think so.
I like it a lot. Now as to trait...are you sure it has no other hidden meaning ? Just "something" became "trait". I can handle that. I use "something", but I will use "trait" if there is no hidden meaning.
But why do you call it a "trait", and not just "something" ? What has been clarified, by going from "something" to "trait" ?
Does "something" have a genetic encoding,for it, perhaps ?
Is there a hidden meaning,a high school meme, involved ?
When discussing with a group:
Each person each has different comprehension of, and wording for, the same matters. Many modifiers will no doubt be used too, e.g."innate". "genetic", "heritable", "physical". and many others.
If someone says "trait", I usually know what they mean. But then modifiers start popping in without proper basis or definition.
I can accept "trait" easily in conversation, but once we start a proof , let's use "trait" and stick to it, if you like the word "trait"
I will have to ignore questions that do not use trait specifically when it is a trait they are talking about, and
Nothing gets talked about in genetics without "trait" somewhere in the mix. It's necessary for meme reproduction.
That's the way it has to be with this group, behaving as though I am talking BigFoOT and Worm Holes.
I'm not, and I'm not being intentionally terribly offensive.
Others started the rudeness and continue it.
I don't need any rudeness in order to hold their interest thus far, but suddenly there seems a need to save bandwidth.
They raised the stakes when they didn't have a good swarming....
This is not about Holocaust Denial, nothing contentious except to the overly-cautious and the impatient. There is heavy meme plaque to brush off, and some are a bit antsy.
I really did not realize the level of resentment you guys might feel when I make my weakly lurches in attempts to kick tires at the Used Car Lot.
With a fixed definition for "trait" we can proceed. You know? Someone tried to railroad me with the word "trait" as a substitute for my words. Really !
Do we have a fixed definition? Does "trait " carry a meaning with genetic import ? Is it a loaded word ? or is it simply as you saw it "something we observe and report on", I'll proceed and see how "traits" works for you.
Of course, scientists are people and people get sloppy and lazy; but in general scientific terms have a pretty narrow definition.
The definition I have for phenotype is: 'The observable manifestation of a gene or a group of genes'.
That is the definition I have always used and seen used. |
that is a beautifully crafted definition; simplicity in wording.
You know, the uproar here is partly caused by people using and switching terms to fool themselves with.
If it had been me, elsewhere( people here are familiar with it now), and I announced that "Berkeley says , but it really does not mean that. Biologists don't mean it like that",
I would get lambasted for sure.
Changing this definition can only lead to confusion. |
[Edited to quote more correctly]
e.g. changing "The observable manifestation of a gene or a group of genes'." to
"trait" ?
I do hope this is not wasted on Kil. He wants production.
I do not agree that phenotype has genetic import in this way, and so this is a true substitution of meaning of my words. this is the way he wants me to be gone. Because of my not submitting to substitution of my words.
If you want to talk about something else or to widen the range of observations and include non genetically encoded phenomenon, it would be better to use another term. |
MG said to another:| you seem unable to grasp a simple fact, Naming it is just naming it. |
But it's not.
If you all the sudden decide to name blue object pink; you are impairing your communication. |
Obviously ! I'm sticking with "Phenotype". Not changing it. What I'm asking, is just what it contains...I believe Berkeley and others see the sentence "Pink is not encoded for" as saying that pink has a 100% correlation with pigment feed. There is no room left in 100 for anything but "pigment feed", meaning that phenotype can be about something which has no relation to the genotype of the flamingo.
I'm not changing anything about words. I'm saying that "Berkeley says such and such about phenotype, I agree, and this is why "
If you decide to replace the expression 'thank you' by the word 'fucker' you may very well be going to run into troubles. |
I find that I do not like language immersion, in case I say something really bad about someone's mom by accident.
The most basic use of a language is to be a tool for the interaction between two people and it relies on commonly accepted rules including shared definition for the words.
By unilaterally deciding to modify the accepted definition of a word; you are setting yourself up for confusing people.
|
Yep. I suppose.
Now it's only for people to dismiss Berkeley's statements as mistake or say "It really doesn't mean that" | pinkness is not encoded for |
And of course, I wish them all well, to continue as before. After all, Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/10/2008 15:05:51 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 12:26:23 [Permalink]
|
MG said:
You know, the uproar here is partly caused by people using and switching terms to fool themselves with.
|
You describe your behavior well, again. good job.
Berkeley says "pink is not encoded for
", but it really does not mean that. Biologists don't mean it like that",
I would get lambasted for sure.
|
Yeah, because you'd be an idiot.... oh, wait. To late to save you from that label.
The pink coloration of a flamingo is, as has been clearly stated, not directly coded for by any gene. However, the interaction of a compound in the environment [i]with an enzyme that IS directly coded for[i](which results in "pink" coloration), is considered part of the phenotype.
You cutting your hair is not. The collective behavior of haircutting, by h. sapiens, could be considered a phenotype trait... if it was in any way useful to do so.
Your failure to grasp this basic concept has become tiresome.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 12:31:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
...I believe Berkeley and others see the sentence "Pink is not encoded for" as saying that pink has a 100% correlation with pigment feed. There is no room left in 100 for anything but "pigment feed", meaning that phenotype can be about something which has no relation to the genotype of the flamingo. |
If it were 100% the food, then any animal fed a diet high in beta carotene would turn pink. They don't, therefore it's not 100% the food. Phenotype is the combination of genetics with environment. The flamingo's genes don't encode for pink, they encode for the high uptake of beta carotene in the feathers. If the beta carotene were green, the flamingos would be green, too.| I'm not changing anything about words. I'm saying that "Berkeley says such and such about phenotype, I agree, and this is why " |
You're reading something into Berkeley's words that isn't there: "pink is not encoded in the genes" doesn't mean "pink is 100% due to the food."| Now it's only for people to dismiss Berkeley's statements as mistake or say "It really doesn't mean that" |
It doesn't mean what you think it means after your week-long study of the subject. That's not a dismissal of Berkeley's statements, it's an attempt to correct your misunderstanding. That you think otherwise is nothing more than your arrogance talking. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 12:31:12 [Permalink]
|
Ok...
Every organisms can be described as a grouping of characteristics.
These characteristics can be called 'traits'.
Some of these characteristics are purely due to the environment (scars for example) while other are the expression of one of a group of their genes.
Such characteristics are called 'phenotypic' and the sum of all such characteristic; a sum that constitute the sum of the expressed genes; is termed the phenotype of an individual.
A point to keep in mind, is that the genes need to not be impaired.
If I smash the flamingo's eggs; obviously; the flamingo they would have produced will never be pink.
If I withdraw a essential precursor from the food of an organism; I prevent it to produce the produce.
I do change, then, its observed characteristic.
But, the characteristic I do change is no longer the expression of genetically encoded informations.
Hence, I do not change its phenotype. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 12:34:20 [Permalink]
|
You know, the uproar here is partly caused by people using and switching terms to fool themselves with.
|
You describe your behavior well, again. good job. |
Yeah, because you'd be an idiot.... oh, wait. To late to save you from that label. |
to late.
The pink coloration of a flamingo is, as has been clearly stated, not directly coded for by any gene. However, the interaction of a compound in the environment [i]with an enzyme that IS directly coded for[i](which results in "pink" coloration), is considered part of the phenotype. |
you must add your own word to Berkeley's words, and it gives an entirely different meaning.
So now you turn their words into | pinkness in not DIRECTLY encoded for |
If you insist on inserting words , then your problem is with Berkeley, or with your memes.
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/10/2008 12:49:16 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 12:39:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
If you insist on inserting words , then your problem is with Berkeley, or with your memes. |
No, the problem is with your insistence that a week of study gives you special insight into what Berkeley meant. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 12:55:37 [Permalink]
|
| You're reading something into Berkeley's words that isn't there: "pink is not encoded in the genes" doesn't mean "pink is 100% due to the food." |
we all are prone to alter wordings, but when it's pointed out, it is only proper to retrace and start again.
Berkeley| Although we often think of flamingos as being pink, pinkness is not encoded into their genotype. |
Dave| You're reading something into Berkeley's words that isn't there: "pink is not encoded in the genes" doesn't mean "pink is 100% due to the food." |
Berkeley| The food they eat makes their phenotype white or pink. |
MG
Now it's only for people to dismiss Berkeley's statements as mistake or say "It really doesn't mean that" |
DAVEIt doesn't mean what you think it means after your week-long study of the subject. That's not a dismissal of Berkeley's statements, it's an attempt to correct your misunderstanding. That you think otherwise is nothing more than your arrogance talking.
|
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/10/2008 13:21:37 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 12:57:59 [Permalink]
|
| delete |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/10/2008 13:00:52 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 13:07:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
...I believe Berkeley and others see the sentence "Pink is not encoded for" as saying that pink has a 100% correlation with pigment feed. There is no room left in 100 for anything but "pigment feed", meaning that phenotype can be about something which has no relation to the genotype of the flamingo. |
If it were 100% the food, then any animal fed a diet high in beta carotene would turn pink. |
No, not so. In flamingos it is so.
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/10/2008 13:16:20 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 13:24:16 [Permalink]
|
MG said:
If you insist on inserting words , then your problem is with Berkeley, or with your memes.
|
My "problem" is your refusal to comprehend basic English sentences.
The Berkeley site contains only basic data. Just because they do not include more detailed info on phenotype does not mean that this is all the data there is on the subject.
Get over yourself and go learn something.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 13:57:45 [Permalink]
|
I had previously asked if there were any objections to using the site.
I take it that this information is too basic?
| The food they eat makes their phenotype white or pink. |
too basic or too clear ? Remember, this group is putting it out for teaching kids, this info from them.
Will kids, just learning, think it means what you think it means, or what Berkeley wrote ?
fancy it up for them, will ya ? |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/10/2008 14:05:00 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 14:20:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
No, not so. |
Unsupported nonsense. If it was the food alone, then any animal fed the same diet (adjusted for caloric requirments, of course) would have the same response. This is true of any food with any creature. It is the reason why some animals eat mostly plants, while some eat mostly meat. The plant-eaters are genetically equipped to digest meat, and vice versa. If you tried to feed a flamingo's diet to an elephant, it would die of malnutrition long before its hair turned pink.Because of their genetics, which is what makes pink and white phenotypes instead of solely environmental features. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 14:30:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
No, not so. |
Unsupported nonsense. If it was the food alone, then any animal fed the same diet (adjusted for caloric requirments, of course) would have the same response. This is true of any food with any creature. It is the reason why some animals eat mostly plants, while some eat mostly meat. The plant-eaters are genetically equipped to digest meat, and vice versa. If you tried to feed a flamingo's diet to an elephant, it would die of malnutrition long before its hair turned pink.Because of their genetics, which is what makes pink and white phenotypes instead of solely environmental features.
|
from the start I have said that it is the genetics which allows the creature to be a white bird that can turn pink.
So the bird turning pink when fed pigment is genetically caused.
why could it not be said that it is the bird's genetic encoding, which, when acted upon by environment, produce a white bird that can turn pink ?
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/10/2008 14:35:53 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 14:33:42 [Permalink]
|
MG said:
from the stat I have said that it is the genetics which allows the creature to be a white bird that can turn pink.
So the bird turning pink when fed pigment is genetically caused.
|
Thats what you were saying? Really? Because it seems as if you were saying something entirely different.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
If I get a haircut
Topic Locked
