|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
 Posted - 06/08/2008 : 10:14:22 [Permalink]
|
| Can you point to where it ruled it out ? |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
 |
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 10:29:15 [Permalink]
|
The relationship between the genotype and phenotype is a simple one ...
The Genotype codes for the Phenotype |
during investigation...let's investigate not from knowledge, but from asking: a change in phenotype such as from white to pink, through SOLELY an environmental change ( diet) produces two different phenotypes. that is clearly said, is it not ?
there is no genetic encoding for that change related to that environmental change (diet), and yet they say that two phenotypes result from a change in diet.
The "internally coded, inheritable information", or Genotype, carried by all living organisms, holds the critical instructions that are used and interpreted by the cellular machinary of the cells to produce the "outward, physical manifestation", or Phenotype of the organism. |
that's the difference in definitions seen, isn't it ?
There is a difference, when you use THE ASSUMPTION that this paragraph is referring not merely to showing how GENOTYPE WORKS TO INFLUENCE PHENOTYPE ( correct deduction) , but ALSO assuming that it is the only way phenotype changes. If this paragraph is strictly about the way in which genotype affects phenotype, fine. But in light of their other assertion that two phenotypes result from a change in diet only, this assumption fails. they clearly state that phenotype can change strictly from environmental cause, with no causal relation with encoding.
Thus, all the physical parts, the molecules, macromolecules, cells and other structures, are built and maintained by cells following the instructions give by the genotype. As these physical structures begin to act and interact with one another they can produce larger and more complex phenomena such as metabolism, energy utilization, tissues, organs, reflexes and behaviors; anything that is part of the observable structure, function or behavior of a living organism. |
So the human genotype does code for a haircut. |
Let's step back from this statement a second and ask what you mean by "enccodes for a haircut".| pinkness is not encoded into their genotype. The food they eat makes their phenotype white or pink. |
as the enironmental influence, "haircut" made my hair measurably shorter. Or "pigmenting, dyeing" produced a change in "phenotypic affect", "colour".
If it is encoded for, and produces a new phenotype when acted upon by environment, then indeed, I am a different phenotype after a haircut ?
both genetic and environmental influences were at work, producing a clear measurable difference. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 11:20:44 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 06/08/2008 : 10:41:28 [Permalink]
|
I can't wait to see where this is going...
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 10:46:27 [Permalink]
|
guys, I discuss such issues with religious people,and I ALWAYS must stop the conversation when they insist on telling me what a passage means, rather than investigating what is actually written.
If I start to tell them what biologists "really mean", rather than allowing argument on the words as written, they will be sure to get me as a hypocrite.
I need explanations using "as-is" evidence, what is written , not arguing from an interpretation which I and some others insist is correct.
so with respect, can we use words as written ? |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 10:49:06 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 10:52:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I can't wait to see where this is going...
|
wait for it. it's invigorating. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 11:27:08 [Permalink]
|
Ok...
Phenotype is the observed expression of the genes.
It can be summarized as: Gene+Environment => Phenotype.
It does not concern the genetic that can not be observed (such as differences in non-transcribed DNA sections).
Nor does it concern factors totally independent from genetic (the haircut).
That's your short answer: no.
Now it is a conjunction of both genetic and environmental factors.
In the case of the pelicans, we have a change in environments (diet) between the pink and white birds.
Please note, that the genes are identical between the two populations. The genes allowing for the absorption of the carotene are present in both population. They just have no chance expressing themselves under a pigment free diet. |
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 - 06/08/2008 : 12:06:59 [Permalink]
|
Phenotype is the observed expression of the genes. |
OK...here is where I see two different definitions being applied. I see definition of phenotypic difference as dependent on observation, as in "seeing the colour of the feathers change".
I see definition insisting that diet alone, with no encoding for the change, produced two phenotypes. Is that correct interpretation of the Berkeley site or not, when it says the phenotypic difference is not encoded for ?| It can be summarized as: Gene+Environment => Phenotype. |
Please show me that definition source. In any case,
it appears to support seeing pink and white as two phenotypes, as genetic influence = 0 and environmental influence is 100% responsible for thechange from white to pink. The change, not the ability to be pink. Understand ? We must remember what we are checking for, ignoring supposed a priori knowledge. We are checking for the result of an environmental change, availability and eating of shrimp ( call it pigments).
It does not concern the genetic that can not be observed (such as differences in non-transcribed DNA sections). |
but what are we observing for in this instance ? We are observing for colour, not more. Not pigment, though we could. Not genetics in this observation alone. We are looking for change in colour, nothing more at this stage of investigation. Investigation, not telling a priori knowledge.
. We are observing colour, a quale.
Nor does it concern factors totally independent from genetic (the haircut).
That's your short answer: no.
Now it is a conjunction of both genetic and environmental factors.
In the case of the pelicans, we have a change in environments (diet) between the pink and white birds. |
flamingos are the example given
Please note, that the genes are identical between the two populations. The genes allowing for the absorption of the carotene are present in both population. They just have no chance expressing themselves under a pigment free diet.
|
now we are getting to the crux of the disagreement between the two definitions, or rather between definition and assumption about the definition.
When we observe, we observe measurable items, making no inferences.
We observe colour, actual;ly not pigmentation ( pigmentation is not colour) or the flamingo's ability to utilize it. We are LOOKING at colour only, not drawing inferences at this point.
thus when observing phenotypic change, we observe only a colour change,, resulting in two distinct phenotypes.
The underlying reason that the birds can utilize pigment is of course, a causal relationship with genes, and can be examined more closely in another experiment, dealing with what % of the flamingo population actually has the ability to go pink upon pigment feeding. In actuality for any experiment about diet, we use "normal" genotype animals, not ones with particular disease or mutation influencing the genetic makeup. Normal genotype flamingos all have the ability to go pink, after pigment feed change is applied.
This genotype can be named, for simplicity, anything we like.
If we name it using words that coincide with words we are already using in observation reports, it mixes the two.
So please give a name for the genotype that allows flamingos to utilize pigments, whatever the mechanisms are, which are involved.
One bag for all mechanisms...call it genotype " Pigment utilization: ENABLED", or "PE".
this example is easy, and the problem in understanding lies here. All normal flamingos have this "PE". It remains to be seen whether environment will offer or enforce an actual change in phenotype from the white to the pink.
Even if we kill all pinks for a hundred generations, all whites will produce pinks if fed pigments, thus showing the change is purely from environmental influence.the change, not the basic ability !That is what is being looked at. It's easy to see in this example, because the ability to use pigment is ubiquitous in normal flamingos.
Bottom line: phenotypic difference or affect seems related to the particular test we are applying. Our observations are on the test results, not the genotype. In this way : white or pink phenotypic ABILITY to change does rely on the existing ability to use pigments or not, genotype ("PE" vs. "non-PE"), but that is not what we are testing for. We are not testing for the innate ability to utilize pigments. There's a different test for that.
We are testing for environmental influence producing a measurable change in flamingo colour, to our eye.
We have to remember what it is that we are observing, which is colour. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 12:59:44 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 12:56:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
The relationship between the genotype and phenotype is a simple one ...
The Genotype codes for the Phenotype |
during investigation...let's investigate not from knowledge, but from asking: a change in phenotype such as from white to pink, through SOLELY an environmental change ( diet) produces two different phenotypes. that is clearly said, is it not ? |
Nope, since if I ate lots of shrimp, I don't turn bright pink. And, as noted here:| Simply feeding white birds, such as egrets, white ibis, and swans, with a carotenoid-rich diet will not turn their plumage reddish, as these birds lack the genes to produce the pigment cells in their feathers. |
So no, the change from pink to white is the environment + gene.
| So the human genotype does code for a haircut. |
Let's step back from this statement a second and ask what you mean by "enccodes for a haircut".| pinkness is not encoded into their genotype. The food they eat makes their phenotype white or pink. |
|
Not exactly: the food they eat, plus a gene that does something with it that doesn't happen in other birds or animals. |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 13:05:47 [Permalink]
|
| Nope, since if I ate lots of shrimp, I don't turn bright pink. And, as noted |
is this a true scotsman ? I'm not sure of the names for the fallacies, but I recognize them. All that shows is that you do not have "PE gneotype.
Normal flamingos have the ability, they have "PE" genotype, thus you have not controlled for genotype[genetics} when toggling diet ( environment}. . You toggled both at the same time.
You'd have to use humans with "PE", or ability to turn pink upon shrimp feed. You didn't. We don't..maybe. Also you didn't eat a heavy enough pigment diet as a flamingo would. You might ask yourself what is your injestion rate of shrimp, excluding the commercially popular, farmed "white shrimp", and remember, they must be SHELL ON.
Were they "shell-on"?
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 13:15:36 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 13:14:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
| Nope, since if I ate lots of shrimp, I don't turn bright pink. And, as noted |
is this a true scotsman ? I'm not sure of the names for the fallacies, but I recognize them. All that shows is that you do not have "PE gneotype.
Normal flamingos have the ability, they have "PE" genotype, thus you have not controlled for genotype[genetics} when toggling diet ( environment}. . You toggled both at the same time. |
Huh? You're not making sense. You said suggested that there was "a change in phenotype such as from white to pink, through SOLELY an environmental change ( diet)" (my emphasis) but this isn't the case. There is a genetic code in the flamingo that take the environmental change (addition of shrimp to diet) and so manifests itself in the bird. But not everything that eats lots of shrimp turns bright pink.
Edit: I notice that you for some odd reason cut off my original statement-- it's almost as though you didn't bother to read it! So I'll reprint it: And, as noted here:| Simply feeding white birds, such as egrets, white ibis, and swans, with a carotenoid-rich diet will not turn their plumage reddish, as these birds lack the genes to produce the pigment cells in their feathers. |
|
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 06/08/2008 13:17:13 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 13:18:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
| Nope, since if I ate lots of shrimp, I don't turn bright pink. And, as noted |
is this a true scotsman ? I'm not sure of the names for the fallacies, but I recognize them. All that shows is that you do not have "PE gneotype.
Normal flamingos have the ability, they have "PE" genotype, thus you have not controlled for genotype[genetics} when toggling diet ( environment}. . You toggled both at the same time. |
Huh? You're not making sense. You said suggested that there was "a change in phenotype such as from white to pink, through SOLELY an environmental change ( diet)" (my emphasis) but this isn't the case. There is a genetic code in the flamingo that take the environmental change (addition of shrimp to diet) and so manifests itself in the bird. But not everything that eats lots of shrimp turns bright pink.
|
That's what the Berkeley site clearly explains, no encoding exists for the change. First, let me get your overall take on this. Do you disagree with that statement directly from the Berkeley site ? | pinkness is not encoded into their genotype. The food they eat makes their phenotype white or pink. |
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 13:20:45 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 13:21:51 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist:
Nope, since if I ate lots of shrimp, I don't turn bright pink. And, as noted |
is this a true scotsman ? I'm not sure of the names for the fallacies, but I recognize them. All that shows is that you do not have "PE gneotype.
Normal flamingos have the ability, they have "PE" genotype, thus you have not controlled for genotype[genetics} when toggling diet ( environment}. . You toggled both at the same time. |
Huh? You're not making sense. You said suggested that there was "a change in phenotype such as from white to pink, through SOLELY an environmental change ( diet)" (my emphasis) but this isn't the case. There is a genetic code in the flamingo that take the environmental change (addition of shrimp to diet) and so manifests itself in the bird. But not everything that eats lots of shrimp turns bright pink.
|
That's what the Berkeley site clearly explains, no encoding exists. First, let me get your overall take on this. Do you disagree with that statement directly from the Berkeley site ? | pinkness is not encoded into their genotype. The food they eat makes their phenotype white or pink. |
so white and pink are phenotypes here. Just observed colour, without prejudice from knowledge, just observed colour, to the eye. before and after toggling diet. that is all.
[Edited to fix quoting hiearachy, and attribution. //Dr. Mabuse] |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 06/09/2008 06:07:54 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 13:31:26 [Permalink]
|
sorry that I was editing my mangled post when you posted
I did not ignore your information, I took it as irrelevant considering my objection to the previous statement.
I will address your further statement. I won't avoid anything. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 13:33:42 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 13:38:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
That's what the Berkeley site clearly explains, no encoding exists. First, let me get your overall take on this. Do you disagree with that statement directly from the Berkeley site ? |
Well, obviously it's not clear since we're arguing about it.
| pinkness is not encoded into their genotype. The food they eat makes their phenotype white or pink. |
so white and pink are phenotypes here. Just observed colour, without prejudice from knowledge, just observed colour, to the eye. before and after toggling diet. that is all. |
Ugh. No, it's not all. If you fed shrimp to a different white bird, they would not turn pink. It is only because of the genetic code of the flamingo that eating the shrimp turns them pink. Despite your objections, this is hardly irrelevant. It's key to understanding the whole thing. |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2008 : 13:41:17 [Permalink]
|
| Simply feeding white birds, such as egrets, white ibis, and swans, with a carotenoid-rich diet will not turn their plumage reddish, as these birds lack the genes to produce the pigment cells in their feathers. |
of course not, they won't do as flamingos do, necessarily, if they lack "PE", or "the ability", provided for by the genes.
Still, in set theory, we can look at this more rationally.
Flamingos are in set "A", birds which have the ability to turn pink when fed the shrimp pigments.
This is evidenced by the fact that all normal flamingos do turn pink. All of them, when fed the pigments.
The Ibis, on the other hand, has not been established to be within group "A", and in fact, by doing the ibis pigment feed experiment, we could see that they didn't turn pink, and conclude that they aren't in group "A".
By substituting a different genotype for the flamingo genotype, you altered genetics for this experiment, of testing for abilty - through , at the same time as you toggled for genetics, toggling for environment. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/08/2008 13:42:47 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
If I get a haircut
Topic Locked
