|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
 Posted - 06/13/2008 : 12:40:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Zebra, perhaps we should list the ways in which "phenotype" is used. The different things ( a single character, a specimen of a species, or organism, a group of the organism ) it can apply to, in regard to studies it can be used in.
For instance, let's look at the cats with the deformed ears from the Berkeley site. If we look at a roomful of them, we name the phenotype of the "funny ear" (vs "regular ear"}, as a group phenotype.
Let's say this was the first time seeing it appear in cats.
We know nothing of the cause as yet.
We want to determine the cause...is it caused by a poisoning of the mother ? a certain cat food or human food ? A medicine ? Was it caused by some environmental factor or genetics ? We don't know. But we can find out if it is genetically related, *****BECAUSE****** we can test and study, controlling the variables. This is the essence of science in this instance.
so we want to STUDY this using "phenotype and genotype".
so we attempt to label the ear difference as phenotypes, and do the breedings.
But NO ! Since we do not yet KNOW that the funny ears are genetically caused, are heritable , we CANNOT call them a phenotype yet !
Please tell me of what investigative use "phenotype" can ever be, if we must use
a priori knowledge of the cause in order to study the cause ???
|
That is the way science works actually.
You need to make hypothesis and then test them.
You gather observations.
Then propose a testable hypothesis to explain this observation.
Then you use this testable hypothesis to make predictions.
Then you gather more data and see if they are what the hypothesis suggest they should be or if they contradict (and disprove part or the totality) or your initial hypothesis.
If we take your feline example.
You gather observations: some cats have the trait 'funny ear' and other have the trait: 'regular ear'.
You then build-up a hypothesis: the trait would be genetically encoded and, hence, would be phenotypic.[quote][size=4 NO[/size=4] it is a phenotype, regardless of if hte difference has a genetic causal relationship or not!
that's the whole point , Simon !
You can then start a breeding program and see if its results fit predictions based on Mendelian inheritance thus either disproving or failing to disprove that the cause is genetic and that the trait is indeed phenotypic.
Seems to be working fine for me.
|
Simon, you now insist that the phenotype is categorized AFTER, not before. And so before, they call "phenotype" something else ?
You say they have a trait. Previously, you used the word "trait' to denote only a genetically related "characteristic".
Now you use your meme "trait" to substitute for "phenotype", because, you seem to think, it is not true that phenotype is not necessarily related to the genetics; they don't know if a phenotypic difference is genetically related.
However, you forgot that the word you inserted, "trait" is only to be used, you say, for genetically related "characteristics". Don't you see the logic problem you are creating for yourself ? |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/13/2008 12:53:09 |
 |
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 12:45:32 [Permalink]
|
Simon,. read this please
What they were looking at was the coupling
between genetic and phenotypic variation. The epigenetic approach
taken by Waddington and others was somewhat different. Of course they recognized
that studying the effect of genetic variation on phenotypic variation
is important, but they saw this as only part of epigenetics. They also wanted
to understand why very often genetic and phenotypic variations are not coupled.
In other words, they were interested in situations in which genetic variation
does not lead to phenotypic variation, andphenotypic differences are
not associated with genetic differences. |
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/13/2008 12:45:51 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 13:17:07 [Permalink]
|
Nope, for me, trait = characteristic = observable features regardless of their origin.
Phenotype = The part of these phenotypic features that is due to the expression of the genes.
I am not sure about the second quote. Was it about the epigenetic video?
You realize that they were talking about DNA methylation? You realize that DNA methylation is a mechanism for the regulation of the expression the genes?
There is a reason why the dicipline is called epigenetic.
|
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 - 06/13/2008 : 13:23:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Nope, for me, trait = characteristic = observable features regardless of their origin.
Phenotype = The part of these phenotypic features that is due to the expression of the genes.
I am not sure about the second quote. Was it about the epigenetic video?
You realize that they were talking about DNA methylation? You realize that DNA methylation is a mechanism for the regulation of the expression the genes?
There is a reason why the dicipline is called epigenetic.
|
first, do you not admit that calling the thing observed a "trait", so as not to impute a genetic link, but using "trait", which indicates a genetic link, to you, is a little illogical ? |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 13:26:32 [Permalink]
|
| Ok; feel free to use the word characteristic instead if you are more comfortable with it. |
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 - 06/13/2008 : 13:37:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Ok; feel free to use the word characteristic instead if you are more comfortable with it.
|
no,no, simon.
Do you see the problem in logic , that in trying to eliminate the fact that they call it "phenotype", you say they call it something else..another word which has the same memely significance; genetic relationship riding on it.
You see, another person , another bleever in the wrong idea here, sees "characteristic" as having a genetic component. That is the power of your neo darwinian memes. He sees "characteristic" as really meaning "genetic characteristic", the "genetic" part unspoken, ala DaveW in my siggy. He imagines that the word is there, although that is incredible to believe. that's the power. total delusion. Not that it makes you crazy in any other way. Just wrong in biology, on many many scores.
No word can be used successfully by the pathogenic meme-infected, without understanding that NO GENETIC LINK IS NECESSARY, for an observed difference to be called a phenotypic difference !
any word becomes your new meme, if you still do not understand.
All your substitutions , all of them meaning what you have wrongly learned. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/13/2008 13:43:02 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 13:42:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
don't you have a nice smilie crown for me , though? pope's hat?
|
The only hat you've been collecting credits for is the Dunce-cap.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 13:46:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
don't you have a nice smilie crown for me , though? pope's hat?
|
The only hat you've been collecting credits for is the Dunce-cap.
|
another in denial of what happened here.
the fundies will love this site.
An exemplar of dishonest Skeptic discourse.
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/13/2008 13:47:39 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 13:51:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Please tell me of what investigative use "phenotype" can ever be, if we must use
a priori knowledge of the cause in order to study the cause ??? |
Who would do such a thing? You've got the "investigative" part backwards, too.
|
whatever you say Dave. Look above you. see that ? guess who just won the thread ? backwards walking, talking crazy, and standing on my head, trolling with no knowledge to start with, I beat you guys to a bloody pulp !
I'm just teasing you about the crown.
How does the Agony of Defeat feel. Dave ? |
Yup, you're the "king me" guy. Hope it's fulfilling for you. |
- 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 - 06/13/2008 : 13:52:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Originally posted by Simon
Ok; feel free to use the word characteristic instead if you are more comfortable with it.
|
no,no, simon.
Do you see the problem in logic , that in trying to eliminate the fact that they call it "phenotype", you say they call it something else..another word which has the same memely significance; genetic relationship riding on it.
You see, another person , another bleever in the wrong idea here, sees "characteristic" as having a genetic component. That is the power of your neo darwinian memes. He sees "characteristic" as really meaning "genetic characteristic", the "genetic" part unspoken, ala DaveW in my siggy. He imagines that the word is there, although that is incredible to believe. that's the power. total delusion. Not that it makes you crazy in any other way. Just wrong in biology, on many many scores.
No word can be used successfully by the pathogenic meme-infected, without understanding that NO GENETIC LINK IS NECESSARY, for an observed difference to be called a phenotypic difference !
any word becomes your new meme, if you still do not understand.
All your substitutions , all of them meaning what you have wrongly learned.
|
So? What? No words should ever be allowed to have any precise definitions?
Some words do have the term genetic implied (phenotype is one) some don't; for example characteristics. |
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 - 06/13/2008 : 13:56:22 [Permalink]
|
| it's wonderful, Dave. truly a nice glow. Ever defeated a pack of ravening curs ? oh yeah, it feels good, alrighty ! let me tell ya ! |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 13:59:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Originally posted by Simon
Ok; feel free to use the word characteristic instead if you are more comfortable with it.
|
no,no, simon.
Do you see the problem in logic , that in trying to eliminate the fact that they call it "phenotype", you say they call it something else..another word which has the same memely significance; genetic relationship riding on it.
You see, another person , another bleever in the wrong idea here, sees "characteristic" as having a genetic component. That is the power of your neo darwinian memes. He sees "characteristic" as really meaning "genetic characteristic", the "genetic" part unspoken, ala DaveW in my siggy. He imagines that the word is there, although that is incredible to believe. that's the power. total delusion. Not that it makes you crazy in any other way. Just wrong in biology, on many many scores.
No word can be used successfully by the pathogenic meme-infected, without understanding that NO GENETIC LINK IS NECESSARY, for an observed difference to be called a phenotypic difference !
any word becomes your new meme, if you still do not understand.
All your substitutions , all of them meaning what you have wrongly learned.
|
So? What? No words should ever be allowed to have any precise definitions?
Some words do have the term genetic implied (phenotype is one) some don't; for example characteristics.
|
they should and they do. and those who use them should try to use them properly ! I know you don't see the big printing that tells you there does not have to be any connection, and you still won't give up your belief.
Nothing I can do, Simon, unless they open a franchise of Muhammed's Meme-Busting Corner here.
Your belief is as respected by me, now, as any belief that is unfounded and contrary to the evidence. I don't scorn anyone for having this wrong belief. Hard to escape it, actually !
good luck simon !
|
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/13/2008 14:03:17 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 14:14:41 [Permalink]
|
So; you disagree with the definition of phenotype I used?
Ok. But I did not pull it from my rectal area, you know? It is actually the accepted definition for the term. As stated several times in this thread. |
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 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 14:28:40 [Permalink]
|
Nothing I can do, Simon, unless they open a franchise of Muhammed's Meme-Busting Corner here. |
You keep using this word, meme; I do not think it means what you think it means. |
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 |
| Edited by - Simon on 06/13/2008 14:29:06 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 14:51:04 [Permalink]
|
Yidishn Zabourah Goldstein.....
Well, congratulations on your Davidian victory. It looks like the Goliath of Skepticism has surely been vanquished, and it serves us right! Somehow, I don't think we've heard the end yet, tho'!
You said.....| Buck, I think that it shaped the foundations. As shown, it was the intent from the start, to use phenotype to investigate genetics. |
Well, that pretty well answers half of my question. But.....| Please see the video I posted relating to epigenetics. I'll try and bring it , near THE END. |
...I am puzzled! Have you already posted the video? If so, verse and chapter in the foregoing literary epic please. It might take me a week to find! If not, what does THE END mean?
And I still don't understand the implications of haircut as phenotypic difference on the conclusions of the science of Biology? Does your video clarify this?
Oh yeah, the "tips" quip? Sorry, I'm pushing eighty and every day another half-million neurons congeal into concrete and I just get stupider by the minute. I missed that one! ?? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
If I get a haircut 2
