|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 13:22:32 [Permalink]
|
So CRUX is not conceding to your earlier winning gambit DaveW. In fact his post above is a move to rehash some 30 pages of his struggle to understand phenotypes. To rehash his struggle and obsession with pink flamingos. Why, cause, difference, genetics, genes....flamingos turn pink. This profundity is getting to him.
It doesn't matter that several journals have been presented to help him understand why, cause, difference, genetics, genes....flamingos turn pink. He needs a simpler explanation....
Now be warned he picked up this word phenotype which if you saw his phenotype. You might have asked him to forget his genes which should have been flushed down the toilet. Or maybe that is why he wants to ignore the genes and for some reason prefers the diet alone is responsible for his phenotype. But he does have a point here. Cheap diet can explain his change to ugly which is a phenotype, right? I cannot believe I am actually helping CRUX even when I think you are right. |
 |
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 17:06:38 [Permalink]
|
DaveW. It just occurred to me. As a skeptic does the pink flamingos even rise to the level of skepticism that merits a discussion here. Sure we have members here who need clarification or curious about pink flamingos. But what is so confounding about pink flamingos that causes us pause.
Is this skeptic forum mature enough to deal with what we should be skeptical about. HPV, religion, UFO, homosexuality, EPS/PSI, climate change, US bankruptcy, population explosion, water shortages, genetically engineered food/fish etc. Where in the scale of what can affect our lives does the pink flamingos stand.
It is sad that our level of curiosity is dictated by a member with a grade 6 level of curiosity and pink flamingos has become his obsession. 30 pages of redundant mindless repetition demands we set the bar higher for skeptics. If he doubts his own understanding of why flamingos are pink. That is not an issue for skeptics but the individuals need to get an education.
Interview the member, validate his concerns, suggest some reading material. But do not put us through this exercise again. 30 pages of phenotypes definition. Do we even know why the individual member is skeptical about a definition or confused about its application. We are not here to educate but as our mission statement declares
""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."
What skepticism can we create over pink flamingos. Are we allowing ourselves to be ridiculed or our efforts squandered to appease every challenged member. Are we modeled around no child left behind. |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 17:14:02 [Permalink]
|
Lightening things up a bit:
Hi Kil http://www.skepticfriends.org/staff.asp
No doubt at all now ! You ARE at the bottom of the conspiracy to resist on the flamingo issue
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0323222/filmogenre
Don't wet yourself, justintime.
ooooh ! behavioural pink ! New thread !!!!!
Researcher Dr Juan Amat said: 'The rubbing is time-consuming...
National Geographic
There's a reason why flamingos are so pretty in pink: The birds apply "makeup" to impress mates, a new study says.
Scientists had long assumed that flamingo feathers change color only when the plumage becomes faded by the sun or unintentionally stained by organic materials.
But while studying greater flamingos at the Doņana Biological Research Station in Spain, ornithologist Juan Amat realized that something else was going on.
"We noticed that immediately after chicks were hatching, [adult] flamingos lost their pink color," he said. (See wading-bird pictures.)
Adults later regained their famous pink plumage, "yet they were not moulting, so we wondered if there was something cosmetic to consider."
Flamingos: Beyond the Pale
To examine this hypothesis, the researchers studied seasonal variations in flamingo color at three wetlands in Spain. The team also monitored the birds' breeding, feather maintenance, and courtship activities.
(See National Geographic's backyard bird identifier.)
Using telescopes, the scientists assigned each flamingo a color value based on a scale of one to three, ranging from very pale to vibrant pink.... |
More fun:
(Related: "Flashier Great Tits Produce Stronger Sperm, Bird Study Shows.")
And:
"We were so excited to discover this," Amat said.
The flamingo-makeup study appeared online October 23 in the journal Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.
"ahem".
CRUX..if it matters |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/25/2011 17:48:06 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 09/25/2011 : 17:49:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
White Flamingos are not white Cockatoos. That's the first difference there. |
Yes, that's one difference.| The second difference is seen between the flamingos groups. |
And that's a second difference, yes.| The difference there - the SOLE difference - is the diet. |
Yes, the second difference is due to diet, while the first difference isn't.| For our science, that means "differing environmental input" is the SOLE cause of the difference seen. |
I have no idea what you mean by "our science," since flamingo specialists seem to not agree with you.| ...the third difference seen is between the different species. |
No, that's the first difference again.| While white Flamingos color up with shrimp food, white Cockatoos do not. What is the cause of that difference ? Different genetic make up. THIS is where the talk of genes comes in. |
Yes, genes and environment together determine phenotype. I'm glad you agree.| If you have some CHANGE OR DIFFERENCE, to ask about, I might have an answer if I could investigate. It's all about differences, Dave W. All about differences. |
You think the guy with the extreme moustache/beard is not different in appearance from everyone else?
Also:| ...which results in the consolidation of the notion that only the things that changed, are to be related. Under testing, only the diet was different, so the causal relation is the sole relation, and the relation is between change in diet and change in color, or phenotyype. |
If you don't think there's any phenotype differences between flamingos and cockatoos, I certainly won't be able to convince you of anything. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 17:57:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by CRUX
White Flamingos are not white Cockatoos. That's the first difference there. |
Yes, that's one difference.| The second difference is seen between the flamingos groups. |
And that's a second difference, yes.| The difference there - the SOLE difference - is the diet. |
Yes, the second difference is due to diet, while the first difference isn't. |
Here you accepted that the sole difference between flamingo phenotypes of white and pink, is the diet . That means it's the sole cause.
Yet later, if I understand you, you imply that the statement below is relevant, or applies to the former conclusion, reflects on it, or negates it in some way.
If so, you seemingly would then be reverting to throwing back in the junk that can show us no differences.
The junk is "biology in common".
Maybe you do not intend for this later statement to affect your acceptance that diet is the sole difference between a white flamingo phenotype and a pink one.
Or perhaps you will argue that being the only variable responsible for the difference, does not make it a sole cause ?
| If you don't think there's any phenotype differences between flamingos and cockatoos, I certainly won't be able to convince you of anything. |
Dave, since it's how you prefer it, I'll just give the international signal this time: WTF ? Where did you get that from ? Huh ? ... and all that.
CRUX...if it matters |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/25/2011 18:09:15 |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 18:13:18 [Permalink]
|
| You think the guy with the extreme moustache/beard is not different in appearance from everyone else? |
Of course he is "different", Dave.
and "the same" as everyone else, by precisely the same token.
I had asked that if you had a difference to point out, I might be able to speculate. I do not claim he is notdifferent. Getting back to what we actually said - here's what was said :
Then tell us how it works, oh expert phenotyper! Within the field of phenotyping, please use your expertise to tell us the cause of the appearance of this man's facial hair |
see...this is my answer to your statement as seen here| Wrong kind of question, again, Dave W. If you have some CHANGE OR DIFFERENCE, to ask about... |
You did not ask about any difference in specific. You just didn't. You're asking for something else. The cause of the appearance of the facial hair.
If I picked it's whitish appearance, and tried to speculate on that, ..would THAT be an explanation of "the facial hair appearance"? For some reason, I guess that it would only raise howls that the whiteness is not the whole appearance, not the total ball of waxed moustachio, and so on... instead of consideration and thought about the enormity of what you ask...the thing that you just dumped.
Isn't this just a case of you playing "King Augeas" ?
A huge task that could never be finished before the thread finishes... and thereby making it look like I failed to perform sufficiently...that would be a boring trick, DaveW.
So let's just say that I don't "get" where you're going with this line, but I sure will try to play along if it means anything to you.
CRUX...when it matters |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/25/2011 18:57:46 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 19:46:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
Here you accepted that the sole difference between flamingo phenotypes of white and pink, is the diet . That means it's the sole cause. |
No, I explicitly rejected that idea in an earlier post. You even quoted it. There are many causes. You just picked one and call it the "SOLE" cause, despite it being neither the proximate nor ultimate cause.| Yet later, if I understand you, you imply that the statement below is relevant, or applies to the former conclusion, reflects on it, or negates it in some way. |
What "statement below?"If so, you seemingly would then be reverting to throwing back in the junk that can show us no differences.
The junk is "biology in common". |
Flamingos and cockatoos do have a lot of biology in common, but not 100%.| Maybe you do not intend for this later statement to affect your acceptance that diet is the sole difference between a white flamingo phenotype and a pink one. |
The question is about the cause of the differences in phenotype, is it not?| Or perhaps you will argue that being the only variable responsible for the difference, does not make it a sole cause ? |
It's not the only variable. If flamingo feather genes (a second variable) were like cockatoos, they wouldn't turn pink.| If you don't think there's any phenotype differences between flamingos and cockatoos, I certainly won't be able to convince you of anything. |
Dave, since it's how you prefer it, I'll just give the international signal this time: WTF ? Where did you get that from ? Huh ? ... and all that. |
Easy, you deny that the phenotype differences between flamingos and other white birds contribute in any way to the phenotype differences within flamingos. The fact that flamingos have feathers that can change color is vitally important to the complete story of why they change from white to pink.
For an analogy, imagine a guy, Jimmy, who is down on his luck and turns to petty theft to try to make ends meet. He gets caught red-handed by a couple of cops, who tell him that they won't say anything if he cuts them in. He initially agrees out of fear, but then decides to do the right thing and gets in touch with a cousin of his who works for the DA. The two cops find out about it, go to find Jimmy to beat the snot out of him. A car chase ensues through a desperately poor neighborhood, and Jimmy accidentally clips a five-year-old girl whose family barely gets by on food stamps and welfare, and breaks her leg. The cops run Jimmy off the road where his car bursts into flames, but in the process they flip their cruiser and all three wind up hospitalized. Unable to hide what they were up to, the cops get suspended pending the results of an IA investigation, and Jimmy files a civil suit against them to get money to pay for his burn treatments. One of the cops happens to be the son of a very wealthy politician, who just throws millions at Jimmy to make his son's problems go away. Jimmy, wracked with guilt over what happened, gives most of the money to the little girl's parents. They in turn move into a nice middle-class neighborhood and use a lot of the money to fund the little girl's education. Inspired by the wonderful doctors and nurses she remembered from her broken leg, she becomes an awesome pediatric surgeon, widely known.
To the question of "how did little Suzy become a famous doctor for kids?" your answer, CRUX, would be that the "SOLE" cause is that her parents paid for it (a cause neither proximate nor ultimate), ignoring all the fascinating contingencies that came together in just the right way for it to have been possible. All that stuff must be "junk." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 19:50:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
I had asked that if you had a difference to point out, I might be able to speculate. |
You couldn't even pick some for yourself? You set yourself up as an expert in the field.You did not ask about any difference in specific. You just didn't. You're asking for something else. The cause of the appearance of the facial hair.
If I picked it's whitish appearance, and tried to speculate on that, ..would THAT be an explanation of "the facial hair appearance"? For some reason, I guess that it would only raise howls that the whiteness is not the whole appearance, not the total ball of waxed moustachio, and so on... instead of consideration and thought about the enormity of what you ask...the thing that you just dumped. |
Hey, you're the one who thinks that the pinkness of flamingo feathers has a "SOLE" cause. I figured you'd think the same of the appearance of the man in the photo. You studiously ignore the complexity of the flamingo, why wouldn't you ignore the complexity of the man? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 20:09:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by CRUX
Here you accepted that the sole difference between flamingo phenotypes of white and pink, is the diet . That means it's the sole cause. |
No, I explicitly rejected that idea in an earlier post. You even quoted it. |
You did reject previously, of course. But you did accept that difference in diet was the ONLY DIFFERENCE which led to the different pheotypes white and pink
Loose talk, Dave. "many causes" of what, specifically, eh ? Not for the difference between white and pink flamingo phenotypes.
You just picked one and call it the "SOLE" cause, despite it being neither the proximate nor ultimate cause. |
False. It was the only one there to pick. There is no other variable in the test.
The junk is "biology in common". |
Flamingos and cockatoos do have a lot of biology in common, but not 100%. |
True, Dave, but irrelevant, since we are talking about a specific item ! Yessir. What biology in common is within the test subject groups is the question, Dave. And it all is, Dave.
In the first of the two groups, they are all white Cockatoos, so no difference in species or any other differences are given.
In the Flamingos, same deal. All white flamingos, but half turn pink when fed colour food, and the other half does not.
So you take out the things in common. The junk you threw in.
| It's not the only variable. |
Sure it is. WRT Flamingo phenotypes of white turning to pink, it is.
| If flamingo feather genes (a second variable) |
No, not in the test, they are not variables. This is just more of junk which you're attempting throw in again.
The test, Dave was of white Flamingos in a split group. One portion got color food, the other did not.
The secondary variable you bring up is only in your head, Dave. It's found NOWHERE in the test as related to us.
The only variable given is the food difference.
You know that already, DaveW
[Edited to fix quoting-hierarchy. //Dr. Mabuse] |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 09/26/2011 15:02:04 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 20:26:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
You did reject previously, of course. But you did accept that difference in diet was the ONLY DIFFERENCE which led to the different pheotypes white and pink |
No, the proximate cause of the color change is that the feathers reflect different amounts of blue light. Diet is a distal cause, and also not the ultimate cause.| Loose talk, Dave. "many causes" of what, specifically, eh ? |
You can't even keep the subject in mind, huh?| Not for the difference between white and pink flamingo phenotypes. |
Yes, for exactly that.| False. It was the only one there to pick. |
No, I gave you four easy ones.| There is no other variable in the test. |
Since when is "cause" a synonym for "variable?"| True, Dave, but irrelevant, since we are talking about a specific item ! Yessir. What biology in common is within the test subject groups is the question, Dave. And it all is, Dave. |
Ah, so you've conflated "flamingo phenotypes" with "test subject groups," as if they mean the same thing.In the first of the two groups, they are all white Cockatoos, so no difference in species or any other differences are given.
In the Flamingos, same deal. All white flamingos, but half turn pink when fed colour food, and the other half does not.
So you take out the things in common. The junk you threw in. |
Cockatoos and flamingos do not share genetics. They are different.| Sure it is. WRT Flamingo phenotypes of white turning to pink, it is. |
So a dead flamingo will turn pink if we jam shrimp down its throat?| If flamingo feather genes (a second variable) |
No, not in the test, they are not variables. This is just more of junk which you're attempting throw in again. |
No, it's more of the complete story that you're trying to ignore.| The test, Dave was of white Flamingos in a split group. One portion got color food, the other did not. |
What test? The question was about the cause of a color change, and not of any test. You're just changing the subject again.| The secondary variable you bring up is only in your head, Dave. It's found NOWHERE in the test as related to us. |
The test is only in your head, CRUX.| The only variable given is the food difference. |
That's as true as saying the only "variable" in the Titanic disaster was the iceberg. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 20:31:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by CRUX
Here you accepted that the sole difference between flamingo phenotypes of white and pink, is the diet . That means it's the sole cause. |
No, I explicitly rejected that idea in an earlier post. You even quoted it. |
You did reject previously, of course. But you did accept that difference in diet was the ONLY DIFFERENCE which led to the different pheotypes white and pink
Loose talk, Dave. "many causes" of what, specifically, eh ? Not for the difference between white and pink flamingo phenotypes.
You just picked one and call it the "SOLE" cause, despite it being neither the proximate nor ultimate cause. |
False. It was the only one there to pick. There is no other variable in the test.
The junk is "biology in common". |
Flamingos and cockatoos do have a lot of biology in common, but not 100%. |
True, Dave, but irrelevant, since we are talking about a specific item ! Yessir. What biology in common is within the test subject groups is the question, Dave. And it all is, Dave.
In the first of the two groups, they are all white Cockatoos, so no difference in species or any other differences are given.
In the Flamingos, same deal. All white flamingos, but half turn pink when fed colour food, and the other half does not.
So you take out the things in common. The junk you threw in.
| It's not the only variable. |
Sure it is. WRT Flamingo phenotypes of white turning to pink, it is.
| If flamingo feather genes (a second variable) |
No, not in the test, they are not variables. This is just more of junk which you're attempting throw in again.
The test, Dave was of white Flamingos in a split group. One portion got color food, the other did not.
The secondary variable you bring up is only in your head, Dave. It's found NOWHERE in the test as related to us.
The only variable given is the food difference.
You know that already, DaveW
|
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 20:35:48 [Permalink]
|
lots of rubbish printed by DaveW.
Of course there was testing. What a lie.
The man is too tiresome: an untruthful respondent, a person who deceitfully asks huge and virtually impossible tasks be performed without enough info supplied, in order to make it rougher, and a revisionist on threads.
To further claim it was never tested, go here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIA1Genotypevsphenotype.shtml
| Although we often think of flamingos as being pink, pinkness is not encoded into their genotype. The food they eat makes their phenotype white or pink. |
I've had my say. DaveW has no interest in it but to try to maintain his face (after what has transpired), by throwing junk out there.
Of course the diet has been tested with the white flamingos. He knows that it has been confirmed. He's being dishonest with that tack.
Bye !
This is a very poor site, but well decorated. |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/25/2011 20:56:05 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 21:08:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
Of course there was testing. What a lie. |
Where in this thread was "the question" about testing? The question was about cause. You've ham-fistedly decided it's about some "test" and "variable." Of course in a scientific experiment, one should try to control the variables under test, but "the question" was never about that.| The man is too tiresome: an untruthful respondent... |
Liar.| ...a person who deceitfully asks huge and virtually impossible tasks be performed without enough info supplied, in order to make it rougher... |
No, I was making a point about you setting yourself up as some sort of export on phenotypes. You were never supposed to even try to answer the challenge, because there was obviously no "SOLE cause" for the man's phenotype.| ...and a revisionist on threads. |
Do tell.| To further claim it was never tested... |
Nobody ever claimed it wasn't tested.| I've had my say. DaveW has no interest in it but to try to maintain his face (after what has transpired), by throwing junk out there. |
I've got nothing to lose. I'm not an expert. Were you to convince me of the correctness of your argument, I would have learned something new. You couldn't do that, though, because all you had was your insistence that you were right and a tendency to ignore inconvenient counterarguments.| Of course the diet has been tested with the white flamingos. He knows that it has been confirmed. |
It's also not "the SOLE cause."| He's being dishonest with that tack. |
No, you're a liar for claiming that "the question" is about a test.Don't let the door hit you on the way out. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 21:34:33 [Permalink]
|
Will you deny that you altered thread 1 after banning MG ?
Removing some of your own comments and some others, comments that might have been embarrassing to you because you were shown to be stupid ?
Do you deny that? I will be going to the archives to see if there is anything left of what was removed .
Deny it ? I know exactly what I'm looking for
that does not deny what you did; the unfair burden you tried to place, deceitful merkin
Your faux dismay at the state of peer review while changing the rhetorical content of threads afterward - that was PRICELESS.
Deny you altered thread one afterward. |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/25/2011 21:48:21 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 21:46:59 [Permalink]
|
Huh. I thought you said "bye."Originally posted by CRUX
Will you deny that you altered thread 1 after banning MG ?
Removing some of your own comments and some others, comments that might have been embarrassing to you because you were shown to be stupid ?
Do you deny that? |
Yes, I will flatly deny that.| I will be going to the archives to see if there is anything left of what was removed . |
I assume you have some independent, 3rd-party archive of our old threads against which to verify your accusation.| Deny ? I know exactly what I'm looking for |
I'm sure think you do, although I don't know why you would care, unless you were MG, or at least a very special friend of his. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
If I get a haircut 2
