Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 If I get a haircut 2
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 34

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 06/11/2008 :  04:03:04  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Continued (for some reason) from this thread...

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 06/11/2008 :  04:09:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
From this post:

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.
You have to be joking. This is what everyone here has been saying through the entire thread. Seriously. We have all know this.

Now that it's taken us 16+ pages to agree on something that no one has disagreed with (?), make your point.

(Edit: post #4000)
Edited by - Cuneiformist on 06/11/2008 04:47:55
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 06/11/2008 :  04:38:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein

So. Without adding anything, do you think it is a good statement as is - without your opinion of what it describes ?
Interesting: offer my opinion of the sentence without my opinion on its meaning. I think your sentence is grammatically torturous.
In other words, no mention of phenotype...does it still hold water ?
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."
If nobody has anything different to say, we go on.
Several of us have been begging you to restate your point, if you've got one. What is there to "go on" to until you do?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED

201 Posts

Posted - 06/11/2008 :  05:21:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send MuhammedGoldstein a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein

So. Without adding anything, do you think it is a good statement as is - without your opinion of what it describes ?
Interesting: offer my opinion of the sentence without my opinion on its meaning. I think your sentence is grammatically torturous.
In other words, no mention of phenotype...does it still hold water ?
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."
If nobody has anything different to say, we go on.
Several of us have been begging you to restate your point, if you've got one. What is there to "go on" to until you do?
]I I await your reply. I don't mind if you do think it does contain mention of phenotype, unbeknownst to me : is my statement acceptable"?
Interesting: offer my opinion of the sentence without my opinion on its meaning. I think your sentence is grammatically torturous.

It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW
Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/11/2008 07:21:31
Go to Top of Page

MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED

201 Posts

Posted - 06/11/2008 :  05:26:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send MuhammedGoldstein a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

From this post:

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.
You have to be joking. This is what everyone here has been saying through the entire thread. Seriously. We have all know this.

Now that it's taken us 16+ pages to agree on something that no one has disagreed with (?), make your point.

(Edit: post #4000)
If we all know this, then why not agree that my statement is correct, as it is ?

Your statements had holes in them. Mine holds water. Doesn't it ?

It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW
Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/11/2008 05:27:29
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 06/11/2008 :  05:26:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 06/11/2008 :  05:28:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
If we all know this,then why not agreer that my statement is correct, as it is ?

Your statements had holes in them. Mine holds water. Doesn't it ?
Mine had no holes in it. We all agree on what's happening in the flamingo case. Get to the point!
Go to Top of Page

MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED

201 Posts

Posted - 06/11/2008 :  05:32:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send MuhammedGoldstein a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Cuneiformist


It's certainly not what everyone has been saying for 16 pages.

It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW
Go to Top of Page

MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED

201 Posts

Posted - 06/11/2008 :  05:36:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send MuhammedGoldstein a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
If we all know this,then why not agreer that my statement is correct, as it is ?

Your statements had holes in them. Mine holds water. Doesn't it ?
Mine had no holes in it. We all agree on what's happening in the flamingo case. Get to the point!
yes, yours needed amendment in order to make sense.

You had environment acting on or with the genetics , and a white bird produced a pink bird. If the environment , however, does NOT contain pigment feed, then your statement is not correct. Thus you had a hole in it.

so stop the avoidance.

Yours
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 ?
no pigment feed = white bird. thus , your statement is not necessarily true.


Mine
why could it not be said that it is the bird's genetic encoding, which, when acted upon by environment, produce(s)* a white bird that can turn pink ?

It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW
Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/11/2008 05:52:50
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 06/11/2008 :  05:54:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein

Originally posted by Cuneiformist

Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
If we all know this,then why not agreer that my statement is correct, as it is ?

Your statements had holes in them. Mine holds water. Doesn't it ?
Mine had no holes in it. We all agree on what's happening in the flamingo case. Get to the point!
yes, yours needed amendment in order to make sense.

You had environment acting on or with the genetics , and a white bird produced a pink bird. If the environment , however, does NOT contain pigment feed, then your statement is not correct. Thus you had a hole in it.

so stop the avoidance.

Yours
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 ?


Mine
why could it not be said that it is the bird's genetic encoding, which, when acted upon by environment, produce(s)* a white bird that can turn pink ?
But obviously that's what we're talking about!!! This is getting ridiculous. Here:
why could it not be said that it is the white flamingo's genetic encoding, which, when acted upon by environment-- in particular, when it consumes a particular type of food-- turns it pink?
This is what everyone on the site has been saying since the beginning. The only one who denies this is you. But now it's irrelevant. We all agree. Get to the point, for crying out loud!!!!
Go to Top of Page

Paulos23
Skeptic Friend

USA
446 Posts

Posted - 06/11/2008 :  06:02:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Paulos23's Homepage Send Paulos23 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Cuneiformist




after reading the whole thread in one sitting, I feel your pain Cune.

You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
Go to Top of Page

MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED

201 Posts

Posted - 06/11/2008 :  06:07:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send MuhammedGoldstein a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm writing to Berkeley to see if they can help out.

sound good ?

It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW
Go to Top of Page

MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED

201 Posts

Posted - 06/11/2008 :  06:12:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send MuhammedGoldstein a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein

Originally posted by Cuneiformist

Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
If we all know this,then why not agreer that my statement is correct, as it is ?

Your statements had holes in them. Mine holds water. Doesn't it ?
Mine had no holes in it. We all agree on what's happening in the flamingo case. Get to the point!
yes, yours needed amendment in order to make sense.

You had environment acting on or with the genetics , and a white bird produced a pink bird. If the environment , however, does NOT contain pigment feed, then your statement is not correct. Thus you had a hole in it.

so stop the avoidance.

Yours
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 ?


Mine
why could it not be said that it is the bird's genetic encoding, which, when acted upon by environment, produce(s)* a white bird that can turn pink ?
But obviously that's what we're talking about!!! This is getting ridiculous. Here:
why could it not be said that it is the white flamingo's genetic encoding, which, when acted upon by environment-- in particular, when it consumes a particular type of food-- turns it pink?
This is what everyone on the site has been saying since the beginning. The only one who denies this is you. But now it's irrelevant. We all agree. Get to the point, for crying out loud!!!!
I see you've amended it.

Though it may be true now, it sounds quite mysterious, don't you think ?

A "particular type of food". That would get the kids guessing, I bet !

It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW
Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/11/2008 06:25:33
Go to Top of Page

MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED

201 Posts

Posted - 06/11/2008 :  06:19:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send MuhammedGoldstein a Private Message  Reply with Quote
why could it not be said that it is the white flamingo's genetic encoding, which, when acted upon by environment-- in particular, when it consumes a particular type of food-- turns it pink?
And, it seems to me, that we have another problem.

I don't know if you can see it, but I think that the way you've phrased it has the bird's genetic encoding consuming a particular food

It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 06/11/2008 :  06:54:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Dammit, I'm running out of popcorn.... Woman! Fetch me some more at once! And beer! I require beer!

Flamingos turning pink due to the species of crustations they commonly feed on is not all that big of a deal. Spoonbills and, I think, a species of ibis do as well.

Never eat a barracuda caught around a reef, as they feed on parrot, angel & surgeon fish, and become toxic (open-seas or bay 'cudas are delicious). Poison arrow frogs become toxic from some of the insects in their diets as does a species of bird in New Guinna. Closer to home, the monarch butterfly and it's larvae are toxic due to something of a symbiosis with the common milkweed plant upon which the adults lay their eggs and the larvae feed.

Lemmee boil this whole thing down into one, simple phrase: "You are what you eat." That flamingos, et al., feed on species' that turn their feathers pink is merely another by-product of evolution and only significent in that it happens. I do not know (nor care) how many molts it would take for an adult's feathers to become white after the necessary crustaceia were removed from it's diet. Concievably, it might never due to the chemical build-up in it's system.

Ahh, popcorn ! And beer ! Thank you!




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED

201 Posts

Posted - 06/11/2008 :  07:05:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send MuhammedGoldstein a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by filthy

Dammit, I'm running out of popcorn.... Woman! Fetch me some more at once! And beer! I require beer!

Flamingos turning pink due to the species of crustations they commonly feed on is not all that big of a deal. Spoonbills and, I think, a species of ibis do as well.

Never eat a barracuda caught around a reef, as they feed on parrot, angel & surgeon fish, and become toxic (open-seas or bay 'cudas are delicious). Poison arrow frogs become toxic from some of the insects in their diets as does a species of bird in New Guinna. Closer to home, the monarch butterfly and it's larvae are toxic due to something of a symbiosis with the common milkweed plant upon which the adults lay their eggs and the larvae feed.

Lemmee boil this whole thing down into one, simple phrase: "You are what you eat." That flamingos, et al., feed on species' that turn their feathers pink is merely another by-product of evolution and only significent in that it happens. I do not know (nor care) how many molts it would take for an adult's feathers to become white after the necessary crustaceia were removed from it's diet. Concievably, it might never due to the chemical build-up in it's system.

Ahh, popcorn ! And beer ! Thank you!




filthy, that's true; the wrong kind of barracuda were sold in S.F. in the street market. Several people were taken to hospital and somebody died , it think. Wonder what fugu fish eat ?

It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW
Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/11/2008 07:26:44
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 34 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.3 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000