|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
 Posted - 06/10/2008 : 18:41:41 [Permalink]
|
| I tried to make it so that "genetics...produces " is the meaning. I tried to use correct clauses, punctuation, and everything, to show the meaning. |
It's a little ambiguous:| 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 ? |
This sounds like you have a bird and the bird has a genetic encoding, and when the environment acts on the genetic encoding, it then creates a white bird that can, in the future, turn pink. |
I can see that objection as reasonable. I'm not sure I like yours better though, so let's work on it.
This might be better:| why could it not be said that it is the white bird's genetic encoding, which, when acted upon by environment, produced a pink bird ? |
|
This one, by the same token, could mean that a new bird is produced - offspring, in fact. Depends on context too much.
further, if you look more carefully, as I just did, I find that yours shows the same time lag as mine. The genes were there and then got acted upon by environment.
also, you switched tense on "produced" , and I don't like it now.
also, when you switched tense, you made it definite, that pink was produced.
therefore it would be a major error for me to agree to it.
Ask me why. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/10/2008 18:52:00 |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 19:24:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
This might be better:| why could it not be said that it is the white bird's genetic encoding, which, when acted upon by environment, produced a pink bird ? |
|
This one, by the same token, could mean that a new bird is produced - offspring, in fact. Depends on context too much.
further, if you look more carefully, as I just did, I find that yours shows the same time lag as mine. The genes were there and then got acted upon by environment. |
But that's what is happening. The genes were there, and then were acted upon by the environment (when the bird ate the shrimp). So perhaps this works:
why could it not be said that it is the white bird's genetic encoding, which, when acted upon by environment, subsequently turns the bird pink ?
| also, you switched tense on "produced" , and I don't like it now. |
Yes, that was a hyper-corrective error on my part.
also, when you switched tense, you made it definite, that pink was produced.
therefore it would be a major error for me to agree to it.
Ask me why. |
Slightly less obnoxious would have been just to say why. But yes, I'd say that if the bird has the proper genetic coding, and then eats the shrimp, we can be certain that it will turn pink. But you obviously think differently. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 06/10/2008 19:25:23 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 20:05:30 [Permalink]
|
with your statement, Cune, when the genetics are acted upon by the environment, the birds turn pink.
Unfortunately, not always so : If there is no pigment feed, no pink.
so bad. Bery bsd ! |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 20:18:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
with your statement, Cune, when the genetics are acted upon by the environment, the birds turn pink.
Unfortunately, not always so : If there is no pigment feed, no pink.
so bad. Bery bsd !
|
Huh? Are there flamingos that are white despite eating lots of shrimp? I'm confused. |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 20:33:03 [Permalink]
|
no, none that are normal*.
go back and look at your statement, not your after-thoughts.
It says, to me, that the environment acted on or with the genetics. It does not say the birds ate shrimp. Your after-thoughts are explanatory , yes. And necessary, for your statement
Could you try and fit it into one statement that fits our requirements ?
I see progress , some bit of progress on our misunderstandings of each other, is happening.
*in reference to Simon's post of mangled birds or eggs. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/10/2008 20:44:26 |
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 20:41:56 [Permalink]
|
Um. Wow. Hard to believe I just read through all of that.
Very similar topic was posted here last week. The questions in that OP were clearer than the ones MG has thrown forth here, & the writer opined that the Berkeley site's definition of phenotype didn't make sense. All in all, a breath of fresh air to read, in comparison....
Posted by raglanroad on 6/03/2008 at pricenetwork.ca
genetics: is it messed up stuff ?
As an example, it is unclear to me why pink flamingos would be a different phenotype than white.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evoli.../genovspheno_01
If you feed them differently, then kill all the white ones or all the shrimp fed pink ones in a group of flamingos you have, is the frequency of white or red going to change over time ?
After all it is only available diet that produces the colour.
Am I a different phenotype after a Christmas food binge ?
If I get a haircut, am i a different phenotype?
If so, isn't this kind of division, this categorization, truly containing a fat red herring ?
I mean, if we call people with a haircut a different phenotype, and selection occurs on that basis, and we take a bunch of people with long hair, give half of them a haircut, and make them all do dangerous tasks...long haired people being more likely to get wrapped up in machinery, for instance, is the genetic information selected against ?
WTF ?
Or are the websites from universities all screwed, to give that kind of definition ? I think it misleads a great number of people. Usually we think that if all of a certain phenotype gets killed, the genetics of the population will surely be altered away from whatever allowed the animals to be killed by the environmental factors.
Not so. The remaining ones with short haircuts will still have the SAME genetics to produce long hair.
If we used genetic baldies vs. long haireds, I could see how the action would happen.
Where, in the common definitions, is there a tie-in between phenotypic characters and genetics ?
If we had to be sure that phenotypic differences WERE genetically influenced, in order to make the assumptions about selection, that would make sense, then.
what do you think ?
thanks,
Dave |
|
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 20:46:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Chippewa
As a sidelight:
All is quickly solved with reference to Professor François Boieldieu who has researched these questions thoroughly in his book: "M. Boieldieu sait tout sur Phenotypes et leur Application, avec décapage des conseils et des nouilles genetique".
Of "genetic encoding" relating to "physical alterations", Boieldieu wrote in 1948:
Bend et sur le point directement avec le doigt à ses fesses.
Later, in Chapter 4, Boieldieu instinctively implied:
Pour plus de se baisser et dans les fesses.
*The native French speaker raises an eyebrow*
O...kay...
Two things about the discussion... at this point.
Keep in mind that the diet is part of the environment.
Also, the genes acts before the diet.
The diet allows the genes to express themselves.
This then led to Boieldieu's greatest insight:
Regarder. Voir les fesses que l'on regarde et pointe directement vers elle.
And Boieldieu summed it all up with:
Où que nous allions, les fesses.
Q.E.D. (Applause)
|
|
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 : 20:47:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zebra
Um. Wow. Hard to believe I just read through all of that.
Very similar topic was posted here last week. The questions in that OP were clearer than the ones MG has thrown forth here, & the writer opined that the Berkeley site's definition of phenotype didn't make sense. All in all, a breath of fresh air to read, in comparison....
Posted by raglanroad on 6/03/2008 at pricenetwork.ca
genetics: is it messed up stuff ?
As an example, it is unclear to me why pink flamingos would be a different phenotype than white.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evoli.../genovspheno_01
If you feed them differently, then kill all the white ones or all the shrimp fed pink ones in a group of flamingos you have, is the frequency of white or red going to change over time ?
After all it is only available diet that produces the colour.
Am I a different phenotype after a Christmas food binge ?
If I get a haircut, am i a different phenotype?
If so, isn't this kind of division, this categorization, truly containing a fat red herring ?
I mean, if we call people with a haircut a different phenotype, and selection occurs on that basis, and we take a bunch of people with long hair, give half of them a haircut, and make them all do dangerous tasks...long haired people being more likely to get wrapped up in machinery, for instance, is the genetic information selected against ?
WTF ?
Or are the websites from universities all screwed, to give that kind of definition ? I think it misleads a great number of people. Usually we think that if all of a certain phenotype gets killed, the genetics of the population will surely be altered away from whatever allowed the animals to be killed by the environmental factors.
Not so. The remaining ones with short haircuts will still have the SAME genetics to produce long hair.
If we used genetic baldies vs. long haireds, I could see how the action would happen.
Where, in the common definitions, is there a tie-in between phenotypic characters and genetics ?
If we had to be sure that phenotypic differences WERE genetically influenced, in order to make the assumptions about selection, that would make sense, then.
what do you think ?
thanks,
Dave |
|
Zebra, that guy is very lucid, but I think I'll reserve my judgment on who got the better hang of it at the end. I think it's me |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/10/2008 21:18:37 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 20:56:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
no, none that are normal*.
go back and look at your statement, not your after-thoughts.
It says, to me, that the environment acted on or with the genetics. It does not say the birds ate shrimp. Your after-thoughts are explanatory , yes. And necessary, for your statement
Could you try and fit it into one statement that fits our requirements ?
I see progress , some bit of progress on our misunderstandings of each other, is happening.
*in reference to Simon's post of mangled birds or eggs.
|
Ugh. It's like Jerome all over again, but without the smilies. Obviously, when I'm talking about the environment, I'm talking about the flamingos eating shrimp. That's the environmental factor. you obviously have some grand point to make, so why not take a few hours and compose some lucid essay to make your point. This dance-around-the-point thing is annoying. |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 21:06:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
no, none that are normal*.
go back and look at your statement, not your after-thoughts.
It says, to me, that the environment acted on or with the genetics. It does not say the birds ate shrimp. Your after-thoughts are explanatory , yes. And necessary, for your statement
Could you try and fit it into one statement that fits our requirements ?
I see progress , some bit of progress on our misunderstandings of each other, is happening.
*in reference to Simon's post of mangled birds or eggs.
|
Ugh. It's like Jerome all over again, but without the smilies. Obviously, when I'm talking about the environment, I'm talking about the flamingos eating shrimp. That's the environmental factor. you obviously have some grand point to make, so why not take a few hours and compose some lucid essay to make your point. This dance-around-the-point thing is annoying.
|
it may be annoying but let's see if we can get it into one statement. You just can't assume that a reader knows you're talking about shrimp as the vital ingredient that makes your statement more sound. It's not obvious, if someone does not know your argument, that that shrimp are involved, unless you add your after-thoughts. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/10/2008 21:07:14 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 21:15:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
with your statement, Cune, when the genetics are acted upon by the environment, the birds turn pink.
Unfortunately, not always so : If there is no pigment feed, no pink.
so bad. Bery bsd ! |
Oh, come on!
If a flamingo eats a lot of beta carotene, it presents a different environment to its genetics than if it does not.
The same genotype (flamingo) combined with different environments (high in beta carotene or not) results in different phenotypes (pink feathers or white feathers, respectively). |
- 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 : 21:21:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
with your statement, Cune, when the genetics are acted upon by the environment, the birds turn pink.
Unfortunately, not always so : If there is no pigment feed, no pink.
so bad. Bery bsd ! |
Oh, come on!
If a flamingo eats a lot of beta carotene, it presents a different environment to its genetics than if it does not.
The same genotype (flamingo) combined with different environments (high in beta carotene or not) results in different phenotypes (pink feathers or white feathers, respectively).
|
for sure ! good thought. We need to add it to make Cune's statement make sense if one is unfamiliar with all of this stuff.
Conversely, if a flamingo does not eat beta carotene, it presents a different environment to it's genetics than if it does. That different environment might make a white bird stay white.
so we need to cover that. it's not just any environment that turns them pink.
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/10/2008 21:26:52 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 21:36:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
with your statement, Cune, when the genetics are acted upon by the environment, the birds turn pink.
Unfortunately, not always so : If there is no pigment feed, no pink.
so bad. Bery bsd ! |
Oh, come on!
If a flamingo eats a lot of beta carotene, it presents a different environment to its genetics than if it does not.
The same genotype (flamingo) combined with different environments (high in beta carotene or not) results in different phenotypes (pink feathers or white feathers, respectively).
|
for sure ! good thought. We need to add it to make Cune's statement make sense if one is unfamiliar with all of this stuff.
Conversely, if a flamingo does not eat beta carotene, it presents a different environment to it's genetics than if it does. That different environment might make a white bird stay white.
so we need to cover that. it's not just any environment that turns them pink.
|
No! It's been covered. It's been covered from every direction possible for the last 15 pages now. Everyone here knows what will happen to the flamingo depending on what diet it gets. We don't need any more background information.
Get to the freaking point!!!
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 21:37:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
for sure ! good thought. We need to add it to make Cune's statement make sense if one is unfamiliar with all of this stuff. |
If one is unfamiliar with all this stuff, then one should study more than just the basics of biology before thinking that one knows enough to argue about the definitions of biological terms or about the quality of an introductory biology web site.
If one is unfamiliar with all this stuff, one would probably have a difficult time understanding the answers given to the question, "if I get a hair cut, is it a phenotypic difference?" It would be quite probable that one wouldn't even understand the question itself. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2008 : 21:47:45 [Permalink]
|
| so we need to cover that. it's not just any environment that turns them pink. |
Don't forget these other potential environmental routes to pinkness!
 |
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
If I get a haircut
Topic Locked
