|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/14/2008 : 12:21:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Isn't it Berkley? Anyhow, I would say that after one and two thirds threads, with nothing at all productive achieved, and I am including entertainment, which ended after the first couple of pages, as a factor, the whole thing was a waste of bandwidth...
|
What makes you think that he actually contacted Berkley? With this bird, all is open to question. And as for entertainment, heh, in another thread, I was beginning to find him highly amusing and regret his premature departure. 
|
"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! 
|
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 06/14/2008 : 14:45:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Isn't it Berkley? Anyhow, I would say that after one and two thirds threads, with nothing at all productive achieved, and I am including entertainment, which ended after the first couple of pages, as a factor, the whole thing was a waste of bandwidth...
|
I was assuming it was the university he was writing to, no?
Anyhow, yes, it was extremely frustrating. I less tolerant site would have banned him at some point around page 4 or 5. But we're gluttons for punishment and love a kook when we see one. Hell, ol' verlch still hasn't been banned!!
Speaking of which, how is that guy, I wonder... |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 15:40:39 [Permalink]
|
I was wondering about the Big V the other day. I became very fond of him mainly due to there being nothing phony about him. He is stone serious about his rather Bedlamesque views and rarely tries to mess with anyone's head. He never gets abusive nor profane, nor does he knowingly (according to those views) try and bullshit anyone. This can make a conversation with him a somewhat surreal experience.
Wish he'd give us another visit.
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 16:47:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
I was wondering about the Big V the other day. I became very fond of him mainly due to there being nothing phony about him. He is stone serious about his rather Bedlamesque views and rarely tries to mess with anyone's head. He never gets abusive nor profane, nor does he knowingly (according to those views) try and bullshit anyone. This can make a conversation with him a somewhat surreal experience.
Wish he'd give us another visit.
|
Good point, Filthy. There was nothing fake about him, and besides a pinch of Biblically-based misogyny, he wasn't really offensive or abusive. In fact, his down-to-earthness is probably why we never felt the need to ban him. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 21:30:55 [Permalink]
|
Dangit, every time I see the thread title I get a song stuck in my head:If I get a hair cut
Yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2011 : 16:02:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Originally posted by bngbuck
KhittanGoldstein.....
Okay. Your OP was, "If I get a haircut, is it a phenotypic difference?" I gather your opinion is Yes!
Granting for the moment (as I am in no way a biologist, but I fear I may become one soon!) that you are correct; and haircuts, in addition to a vast multitude of other environmental impactions on an organism, do constitute phenotypical differences, what are the implications?
Does this shatter the very foundations of evolutionary theory?
Or is it merely a nit-picking at the vocabulary of genetics; a plaintive cry for more precision in definition?
Which is your position?
|
Are you asking for tips ?
I'm not more than a poor half bind pc illiterate troll out for fun, giving a drubbing to the overconfident blowhards called Skeptics.
Buck, I think that it shaped the foundations. As shown, it was the intent from the start, to use phenotype to investigate genetics.
Please see the video I posted relating to epigenetics. I'll try and bring it , near THE END.
yippeeeeee ! I have interested someone in this topic, someone who doesn't KNOW EVERYTHING already.
MG
|
Sorry to bring up this very old thread. I was on another forum where the same debate was in motion and the same points raised. Pink Flamingos, hair cuts, hair dyed green as phenotypes and I suspect by the same person MG aka troll.
The point I would like to make is you guys were taken/had and surprisingly over some very silly arguments by a very silly person.
MG tried to show phenotypic differences are not associated with genetic differences and used a link from Berkeley which stated.
"A change in the environment also can affect the phenotype. Although we often think of flamingos as being pink, pinkness is not encoded into their genotype. "
But MG incorrectly interpreted Berkeley because.................
"Q: Why are flamingos pink? Could white birds become pink if I feed them with caratenoid food?
A: The pink or rosy plumage in flamingos results from a combination of their genetics, which produces the pigment granules in the feathers, and carotenoids in their food. Hence, zoo personnel have to provide flamingos with special carotenoid-rich shrimp in their diet if these birds are to maintain their natural color. 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. Moreover, the red color in most birds, such as cardinals, tanagers, and red-tailed hawks, does not depend on their diet."
link: http://accessscience.com/studycenter.aspx?main=16&questionID=5678
If you take the standard definition of phenotypes
"A phenotype is an organism's observable characteristics or traits: such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, behavior, and products of behavior (such as a bird's nest). Phenotypes result from the expression of an organism's genes as well as the influence of environmental factors and the interactions between the two."
You can say the phenotype is the organism's observable characteristics which would be hair as in MG example. The act of cutting the hair would temporary change its appearance but the genotype will cause the hair to regrow and to the same color. So even if the hair is dyed it does not alter the fact his genotype will express the true phenotype.
In short there are situations where the phenotype does not map a one-to-one with the genotype or phenotypic differences are
not associated with genetic differences. But these effects are temporary.
MG tried to show a contradiction in the language between what was Berkeley's pink flamingos a phenotype without a corresponding genotype by highlighting the words "not encoded."
Flamingos are naturally white, their diet of shrimps etc. makes them appear pink but the diet does not cause a gene flip(mutation) which is illustrated by Berkeley, that the pink color is temporary and dependent on their diet.
In short it is not genetic change. Flamingos will continue to produce white offspring's and there is no evolutionary change.
|
| Edited by - justintime on 09/22/2011 06:55:50 |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 08:07:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Originally posted by bngbuck
KhittanGoldstein.....
Okay. Your OP was, "If I get a haircut, is it a phenotypic difference?" I gather your opinion is Yes!
Granting for the moment (as I am in no way a biologist, but I fear I may become one soon!) that you are correct; and haircuts, in addition to a vast multitude of other environmental impactions on an organism, do constitute phenotypical differences, what are the implications?
Does this shatter the very foundations of evolutionary theory?
Or is it merely a nit-picking at the vocabulary of genetics; a plaintive cry for more precision in definition?
Which is your position?
|
Are you asking for tips ?
I'm not more than a poor half bind pc illiterate troll out for fun, giving a drubbing to the overconfident blowhards called Skeptics.
Buck, I think that it shaped the foundations. As shown, it was the intent from the start, to use phenotype to investigate genetics.
Please see the video I posted relating to epigenetics. I'll try and bring it , near THE END.
yippeeeeee ! I have interested someone in this topic, someone who doesn't KNOW EVERYTHING already.
MG
|
Sorry to bring up this very old thread. I was on another forum where the same debate was in motion and the same points raised. Pink Flamingos, hair cuts, hair dyed green as phenotypes and I suspect by the same person MG aka troll.
The point I would like to make is you guys were taken/had and surprisingly over some very silly arguments by a very silly person.
MG tried to show phenotypic differences are not associated with genetic differences and used a link from Berkeley which stated.
"A change in the environment also can affect the phenotype. Although we often think of flamingos as being pink, pinkness is not encoded into their genotype. "
But MG incorrectly interpreted Berkeley because.................
"Q: Why are flamingos pink? Could white birds become pink if I feed them with caratenoid food?
A: The pink or rosy plumage in flamingos results from a combination of their genetics, which produces the pigment granules in the feathers, and carotenoids in their food. Hence, zoo personnel have to provide flamingos with special carotenoid-rich shrimp in their diet if these birds are to maintain their natural color. 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. Moreover, the red color in most birds, such as cardinals, tanagers, and red-tailed hawks, does not depend on their diet."
link: http://accessscience.com/studycenter.aspx?main=16&questionID=5678
If you take the standard definition of phenotypes
"A phenotype is an organism's observable characteristics or traits: such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, behavior, and products of behavior (such as a bird's nest). Phenotypes result from the expression of an organism's genes as well as the influence of environmental factors and the interactions between the two."
You can say the phenotype is the organism's observable characteristics which would be hair as in MG example. The act of cutting the hair would temporary change its appearance but the genotype will cause the hair to regrow and to the same color. So even if the hair is dyed it does not alter the fact his genotype will express the true phenotype.
In short there are situations where the phenotype does not map a one-to-one with the genotype or phenotypic differences are
not associated with genetic differences. But these effects are temporary.
MG tried to show a contradiction in the language between what was Berkeley's pink flamingos a phenotype without a corresponding genotype by highlighting the words "not encoded."
Flamingos are naturally white, their diet of shrimps etc. makes them appear pink but the diet does not cause a gene flip(mutation) which is illustrated by Berkeley, that the pink color is temporary and dependent on their diet.
In short it is not genetic change. Flamingos will continue to produce white offspring's and there is no evolutionary change.
|
arghhhh . justintime, you're starting to make MG look like Mensa material. |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 08:11:45 [Permalink]
|
The point I would like to make is you guys were taken/had and surprisingly over some very silly arguments by a very silly person.
MG tried to show phenotypic differences are not associated with genetic differences and used a link from Berkeley which stated.
...
But MG incorrectly interpreted Berkeley because.................
"Q: Why are flamingos pink? |
which is a different question from "what causes the color change - what causes the difference ?" ( before/ after)
|
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/24/2011 08:15:33 |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 09:38:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
The point I would like to make is you guys were taken/had and surprisingly over some very silly arguments by a very silly person.
MG tried to show phenotypic differences are not associated with genetic differences and used a link from Berkeley which stated.
...
But MG incorrectly interpreted Berkeley because.................
"Q: Why are flamingos pink? |
which is a different question from "what causes the color change - what causes the difference ?" ( before/ after)
|
You should read the link I provided in that post so you can avoid the redundancy.
http://accessscience.com/studycenter.aspx?main=16&questionID=5678
|
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 09:48:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Originally posted by CRUX
The point I would like to make is you guys were taken/had and surprisingly over some very silly arguments by a very silly person.
MG tried to show phenotypic differences are not associated with genetic differences and used a link from Berkeley which stated.
...
But MG incorrectly interpreted Berkeley because.................
"Q: Why are flamingos pink? |
which is a different question from "what causes the color change - what causes the difference ?" ( before/ after)
|
You should read the link I provided in that post so you can avoid the redundancy.
http://accessscience.com/studycenter.aspx?main=16&questionID=5678
|
Wrong. The question "why is a flamingo pink" is very different from "what caused it to turn pink from white".
The question "why does a barn burn" is very different from "what caused the barn to burn, when it was not burning, before.". |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/24/2011 10:06:45 |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 10:14:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
Originally posted by justintime
Originally posted by CRUX
The point I would like to make is you guys were taken/had and surprisingly over some very silly arguments by a very silly person.
MG tried to show phenotypic differences are not associated with genetic differences and used a link from Berkeley which stated.
...
But MG incorrectly interpreted Berkeley because.................
"Q: Why are flamingos pink? |
which is a different question from "what causes the color change - what causes the difference ?" ( before/ after)
|
You should read the link I provided in that post so you can avoid the redundancy.
http://accessscience.com/studycenter.aspx?main=16&questionID=5678
|
Wrong. The question "why is a flamingo pink" is very different from "what caused it to turn pink from white".
|
Flamingos are not pink, They turn pink. You should try understanding what is being said in my post and link before assuming appearance without cause. |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 10:19:41 [Permalink]
|
You indicated that the answer to the question "Why are flamingos pink" answers "Why did it turn pink from white". Not so. Meanwhile, you're only pointing at links - and also seem to have difficulty in English comprehension.
The link answer is irrelevant to the question posed about the change.
|
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/24/2011 11:18:14 |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 11:18:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
You indicated that the answer to the question "Why are flamingos pink" answers "Why did it turn pink from white". Not so. Meanwhile, you're only pointing at links - and also seem to have difficulty in English comprehension.
The link answer is irrelevant to the question posed about the change.
|
Can you explain why?
The answer is covered in the link. It is just your poor comprehension that is causing you to miss the obvious.
Why are flamingos ping?, because they turned pink from their diet. More explained in the link. duh!!! |
| Edited by - justintime on 09/24/2011 11:23:16 |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 11:30:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Originally posted by CRUX
You indicated that the answer to the question "Why are flamingos pink" answers "Why did it turn pink from white". Not so. Meanwhile, you're only pointing at links - and also seem to have difficulty in English comprehension.
The link answer is irrelevant to the question posed about the change.
|
Can you explain why? |
No need to . You just did.
..chatter chatter blurp... to miss the obvious.
Why are flamingos ping?, because they turned pink from their diet. chatter chatter
|
Thank you. You're fully done now. Environmental change ( in diet ) alone, causes white flamingos to turn pink. |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/24/2011 11:30:28 |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 12:05:08 [Permalink]
|
Your reading must be really bad. Because you were also asked to check the link which says they are pink because of both diet and genetic factors.
Originally posted by justintime
"The answer is covered in the link. It is just your poor comprehension that is causing you to miss the obvious.
Why are flamingos ping?, because they turned pink from their diet. More explained in the link. duh!!!" |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
If I get a haircut 2
