|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
 Posted - 06/12/2008 : 16:43:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
proof available. examine blood type. can it ever change ? with your statement, it cannot encompass the "contradiction" of blood type change.
my addition of the correct modifier encompasses any situation. Your argument is now correct always.
|
Considering just ABO blood types, and recalling genetics as I learned it in the early 1980's (with some chances to refresh my data banks here & there along the way):
There are 3 alleles: A, B, and i.
These code (pairwise) for 6 genotypes: AB, AA, Ai, BB, Bi, ii.
These are expressed as 4 phenotypes: type AB blood (genotype AB), type A blood (genotypes AA and Ai), type B blood (genotypes BB and Bi), and type O blood (genotype ii).
A and B are codominant alleles, with 100% penetrance. Environment does not play a role in the expression of blood type (that's what "100% penetrance means" - the genes determine the phenotype fully)...yet ABO blood type is considered a phenotype, because it is a manifestation of the genotype.
The only way I know in which a person's blood type can change is after his/her own hematologic stem cells are destroyed, and the stem cells of another person (with a different blood type) engraft in his/her bone marrow & become the source of his/her red blood cells (allogeneic bone marrow transplant or allogeneic stem cell transplant).
|
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
 |
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 17:00:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zebra
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
proof available. examine blood type. can it ever change ? with your statement, it cannot encompass the "contradiction" of blood type change.
my addition of the correct modifier encompasses any situation. Your argument is now correct always.
|
Considering just ABO blood types, and recalling genetics as I learned it in the early 1980's (with some chances to refresh my data banks here & there along the way):
There are 3 alleles: A, B, and i.
These code (pairwise) for 6 genotypes: AB, AA, Ai, BB, Bi, ii.
These are expressed as 4 phenotypes: type AB blood (genotype AB), type A blood (genotypes AA and Ai), type B blood (genotypes BB and Bi), and type O blood (genotype ii).
A and B are codominant alleles, with 100% penetrance. Environment does not play a role in the expression of blood type (that's what "100% penetrance means" - the genes determine the phenotype fully)...yet ABO blood type is considered a phenotype, because it is a manifestation of the genotype.
The only way I know in which a person's blood type can change is after his/her own hematologic stem cells are destroyed, and the stem cells of another person (with a different blood type) engraft in his/her bone marrow & become the source of his/her red blood cells (allogeneic bone marrow transplant or allogeneic stem cell transplant).
|
correct and your post covers enough, Zebra, since you have ID'd an exception, be there one or many. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 18:13:57 [Permalink]
|
Bloody Hell, you just wanted one bloody word? Why didn't you say that in the first place?
And I don't see why adding trait to the definition changes it any.
As for the blood type, as Zebra has stated, there is no natural way to change it in an individuals lifetime. That is still covered by the definition as previously stated.
I really don't get what your point is here. |
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 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 18:19:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Paulos23
Bloody Hell, you just wanted one bloody word? Why didn't you say that in the first place? |
it would have taken more effort to change your assumption than to modify "trait" in a way friendly to you.
I chose first the front door , then the back.
Still you don't see it.
Ok, we go through your words again.
And I don't see why adding trait to the definition changes it any. |
I didn't add "trait", I added " genetic' to 'trait".
why is "trait" important ?
because it allows you to stop using english and use meme.Trait, character, or any of those, without modifiers, means something different to you here than it does elsewhere.
In ordinary conversation, a person's characteristics involve the way he has his hair, keeps s moustache or not, his accent, he picks his nose more than most, in public, and so on. Maybe nothing to do with a "gene encoded for" that many pickings, not necessarily. Maybe there's a gene that makes him less socially responsive though. or one that made him susceptible to sinus infection.
Normal usage does not require the unspoken "meaning" for "characteristic", or 'trait', that it requires here.
As for the blood type, as Zebra has stated, there is no natural way to change it in an individuals lifetime. That is still covered by the definition as previously stated.
I really don't get what your point is here.
|
You add a modifier to "way to change it", an illicit modifier. You add "natural", or you cannot make a good statement of it any more.
start a thread entitled "the natural way " and see how far you get. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/12/2008 19:17:33 |
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 19:59:26 [Permalink]
|
| Bloody word games.... |
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 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 20:11:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Paulos23
Bloody word games....
|
illicit because you have not defined it , it's totally a subjective categorization, and you would then have to show how it was applicable, which you haven't.
it is a bloody word game, and if you don't understand it, you get stuck with statements that will not fit without amending at every turn.
How about a genotype for long life ?
the group or family of the person is long lived, he is going to be long lived, has the genotype and phenotype, but he gets hit by an environmental influence ( dump truck or disease ).
Contradiction. Phenotype and genotype were long life, Until he met the dump truck. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/12/2008 20:20:59 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 20:16:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
so we can attack the logic anther way for now. one prominent meme is "trait" , for starters. If you think about the word in a normal sense, you can tell that the sense you are using it in is a specialized sense. It conveys more than the word itself would convey in a normal conversation. Strictly speaking, the meme can be differentiated out of the picture, simply by applying the correct modifier and realizing the difference created. You thereby return the word to a normal meme.
IN this case, you need to add the modifier "genetic" to "trait"
in your example, in order to correctly make the assumptions you do.
Like this: | The expression of a specific genetic trait, such as stature or blood type, based on genetic and environmental influences. |
then you have a solid statement that you can make those assumptions on. It takes your argument from a "may be true" to a definite "true". |
Unbelievable.
The meaning of the above is simple: Muhammed doesn't like the fact that scientific words used in a scientific context come with all sorts of scientific background that makes those individual words meaningful and precise to the scientists who use them. He wants the background information packaged into every statement, making them all "normal memes" like those used in "normal conversation."
To a biologist, you see, "trait" includes the adjective "genetic" without it being spoken ("genetic trait," to a biologist, is simply redundant most of the time; it's the exceptions that would be qualified with adjectives). Muhammed, for some reason, sees this as incorrect. Perhaps it's because it leaves him out of the science club until he learns to talk the talk, which takes more than a week.
(Image I now can't get out of my head: Muhammed wakes up, looks out his window, and sees his garbagemen picking up his trash. He overhears one say to another, "grab that can over there." He shouts down, "you should say 'garbage can' to turn it into a normal meme!" The garbagemen look at him, perplexed. He tries to explain, but finally the garbagemen simply turn and leave because they don't have time for 25 pages of misdirection and semantic silliness.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 20:19:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
so we can attack the logic anther way for now. one prominent meme is "trait" , for starters. If you think about the word in a normal sense, you can tell that the sense you are using it in is a specialized sense. It conveys more than the word itself would convey in a normal conversation. Strictly speaking, the meme can be differentiated out of the picture, simply by applying the correct modifier and realizing the difference created. You thereby return the word to a normal meme.
IN this case, you need to add the modifier "genetic" to "trait"
in your example, in order to correctly make the assumptions you do.
Like this: | The expression of a specific genetic trait, such as stature or blood type, based on genetic and environmental influences. |
then you have a solid statement that you can make those assumptions on. It takes your argument from a "may be true" to a definite "true". |
Unbelievable.
The meaning of the above is simple: Muhammed doesn't like the fact that scientific words used in a scientific context come with all sorts of scientific background that makes those individual words meaningful and precise to the scientists who use them. He wants the background information packaged into every statement, making them all "normal memes" like those used in "normal conversation."
To a biologist, you see, "trait" includes the adjective "genetic" without it being spoken ("genetic trait," to a biologist, is simply redundant most of the time; it's the exceptions that would be qualified with adjectives). Muhammed, for some reason, sees this as incorrect. Perhaps it's because it leaves him out of the science club until he learns to talk the talk, which takes more than a week.
(Image I now can't get out of my head: Muhammed wakes up, looks out his window, and sees his garbagemen picking up his trash. He overhears one say to another, "grab that can over there." He shouts down, "you should say 'garbage can' to turn it into a normal meme!" The garbagemen look at him, perplexed. He tries to explain, but finally the garbagemen simply turn and leave because they don't have time for 25 pages of misdirection and semantic silliness.)
|
it's quite true that the meanings are precise to the scientists who use them, and thus you screwed up on the Berkeley deal.
the scientists were quite precise, using english. You, on the other hand, use your memes, and have trouble when scientists talk english, as they should. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/12/2008 20:20:03 |
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 20:20:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
correct and your post covers enough, Zebra, since you have ID'd an exception, be there one or many.
|
an exception to....what? Your meaning is clear to you, but not to the rest of us.
Multiple choice quiz, MG. Do you mean:
a. Exception to phenotype as being determined in part by environment? (Because ABO blood type is 100% determined by genotype)
b. Exception to phenotype as being determined by genes + environment, & instead determined by "environmental factors" alone? (Because an allogeneic transplant can result in a change in ABO blood type*)
c. Both of the above (phenotype can be determined by a range of factors, from 100% genetic to 100% environmental, based on the example of ABO blood groups, their genetics, and the one situation in which they can change*)
d. None of the above (in which case, if you want anyone to understand, you need to explain more clearly your train of thought)
(*The example of allogeneic transplant resulting in a change in a person's ABO blood type merely reflects our ability to get the donor's genes expressed in certain cell lines in the recipient. We haven't changed the recipient's genes, only made him/her a host to the donor's cells. IMO it's a trivial example & does NOT prove that environment can be the sole determinant of phenotype without regard to pertinent genetic factors.) |
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 20:22:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zebra
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
correct and your post covers enough, Zebra, since you have ID'd an exception, be there one or many.
|
an exception to....what? Your meaning is clear to you, but not to the rest of us.
Multiple choice quiz, MG. Do you mean:
b. Exception to phenotype as being determined by genes + environment, & instead determined by "environmental factors" alone? (Because an allogeneic transplant can result in a change in ABO blood type*)
(*The example of allogeneic transplant resulting in a change in a person's ABO blood type merely reflects our ability to get the donor's genes expressed in certain cell lines in the recipient. We haven't changed the recipient's genes, only made him/her a host to the donor's cells. IMO it's a trivial example & does NOT prove that environment can be the sole determinant of phenotype without regard to pertinent genetic factors.)
|
 "merely reflects"...Paulos tried to justify it with "natural way"...is this your objection too ? or too trivial ?
BTW, the latter part | does NOT prove that environment can be the sole determinant of phenotype without regard to pertinent |
do I have to prove that the environment can be the sole determinant, or that the environment must be sole determinant AND ( new addition) without regard to pertinent genetic factors |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/12/2008 21:03:01 |
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 20:37:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
it's quite true that the meanings are precise to the scientists who use them, and thus you screwed up on the Berkeley deal.
the scientists were quite precise, using english. You, on the other hand, use your memes, and have trouble when scientists talk english, as they should.
|
From the Berkeley Evolution 101 site:
An organism's phenotype is all of its observable characteristics—which are influenced both by its genotype and by the environment. |
MG, the description of "phenotype" in the "Evolution 101" material you read, and pointed us to, at the Berkeley site, and which you seem to be relying upon, was misleading. Poorly written. At the very least, the dash they included between "characteristics" and "which" made it seem like the dependent clause (the one starting with "which") was optional, was just icing on the cake. (Sort of like the dependent clause in the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution, which also suffers from dependent clause-itis.) "Phenotype" is not used to describe ALL of the observable characteristics, but those which have some basis in the genotype. No matter how the Berkeley site said it.
Haircuts reflects the society and culture one it in, and is influenced by social class, peer group expectations, expectations by one's parent or spouse or military unit, finances, season of year, infestation with lice...all sorts of things. Hair length changes, week by week if not day by day. Natural features of hair, including color, waviness, maximum length if not cut - these are phenotypic.
Haircut is just not a phenotype.
|
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 20:45:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zebra
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
it's quite true that the meanings are precise to the scientists who use them, and thus you screwed up on the Berkeley deal.
the scientists were quite precise, using english. You, on the other hand, use your memes, and have trouble when scientists talk english, as they should.
|
From the Berkeley Evolution 101 site:
An organism's phenotype is all of its observable characteristics—which are influenced both by its genotype and by the environment. |
MG, the description of "phenotype" in the "Evolution 101" material you read, and pointed us to, at the Berkeley site, and which you seem to be relying upon, was misleading. Poorly written. At the very least, the dash they included between "characteristics" and "which" made it seem like the dependent clause (the one starting with "which") was optional, was just icing on the cake. (Sort of like the dependent clause in the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution, which also suffers from dependent clause-itis.) "Phenotype" is not used to describe ALL of the observable characteristics, but those which have some basis in the genotype. No matter how the Berkeley site said it.
Haircuts reflects the society and culture one it in, and is influenced by social class, peer group expectations, expectations by one's parent or spouse or military unit, finances, season of year, infestation with lice...all sorts of things. Hair length changes, week by week if not day by day. Natural features of hair, including color, waviness, maximum length if not cut - these are phenotypic.
Haircut is just not a phenotype.
|
I see no error, but you must see error to be correct, according to that. I saw no other information/definition talking about regard for pertinent genetic factors, as you added. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/12/2008 20:46:57 |
|
|
|
MuhammedGoldstein
BANNED
201 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 20:52:32 [Permalink]
|
Do you notice that for every example, the person must add clauses afterward ? why ? because everyone thinks that phenotype DIFFERENCES, need a genetic cause. A Phenotype of the whole person did not change, but phenotype for a characteristic changed through environment only, as in the flamingos.
If you were correct, Zebra, on the hyphen, ( unintentionally ambiguous ) then why would they say| 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. |
occam it.
either dead wrong on both counts, or both right, and precise.
or you take us into clauseland, applying clauses not found anywhere. |
It does mention phenotype, just without using the word "phenotype."... DAVEW |
| Edited by - MuhammedGoldstein on 06/12/2008 21:00:43 |
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 21:13:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
Originally posted by Zebra
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
correct and your post covers enough, Zebra, since you have ID'd an exception, be there one or many.
|
an exception to....what? Your meaning is clear to you, but not to the rest of us.
Multiple choice quiz, MG. Do you mean:
b. Exception to phenotype as being determined by genes + environment, & instead determined by "environmental factors" alone? (Because an allogeneic transplant can result in a change in ABO blood type*)
(*The example of allogeneic transplant resulting in a change in a person's ABO blood type merely reflects our ability to get the donor's genes expressed in certain cell lines in the recipient. We haven't changed the recipient's genes, only made him/her a host to the donor's cells. IMO it's a trivial example & does NOT prove that environment can be the sole determinant of phenotype without regard to pertinent genetic factors.)
|
"merely reflects"...Paulos tried to justify it with "natural way"...is this your objection too ? or too trivial ?
BTE, the latter part | does NOT prove that environment can be the sole determinant of phenotype without regard to pertine |
do I have to prove that the environment can be the sole determinant, or that the environment must be sole determinant AND ( new addition) without regard to pertinent genetic factors
|
The term (& idea of) "phenotype" was developed by a botanist in 1911, to describe his observation of the size distribution among genetically identical beans. While the definitions we've come up with don't spell out the connection with genetics, this connection is definitely there. As an example, Wikipedia's page on Genotype-phenotype distinction says (in part; bolding added by me):
The genotype-phenotype distinction is drawn in genetics.
...
An organism's genotype is a major (the largest by far for morphology) influencing factor in the development of its phenotype, but it is not the only one. Even two organisms with identical genotypes normally differ in their phenotypes. One experiences this in everyday life with monozygous (i.e. identical) twins. Identical twins share the same genotype, since their genomes are identical; but they never have the same phenotype, although their phenotypes may be very similar. This is apparent in the fact that their mothers and close friends can always tell them apart, even though others might not be able to see the subtle differences. Further, identical twins can be distinguished by their fingerprints, which are never completely identical.
The concept of phenotypic plasticity describes the degree to which an organism's phenotype is determined by its genotype. A high level of plasticity means that environmental factors have a strong influence on the particular phenotype that develops. If there is little plasticity, the phenotype of an organism can be reliably predicted from knowledge of the genotype, regardless of environmental peculiarities during development. |
Major influence = the blueprint = the genes. Environmental factors = an "influence", an effect...not the sole determinant.
| In contrast to phenotypic plasticity, the concept of genetic canalization addresses the extent to which an organism's phenotype allows conclusions about its genotype. A phenotype is said to be canalized if mutations (changes in the genome) do not noticeably affect the physical properties of the organism. This means that a canalized phenotype may form from a large variety of different genotypes, in which case it is not possible to exactly predict the genotype from knowledge of the phenotype (i.e. the genotype-phenotype map is not invertible). If canalization is not present, small changes in the genome have an immediate effect on the phenotype that develops. |
The assumption being, that phenotype is largely determined by genotype.
There is, apparently, a newer term in biology, phenome, which "is the set of all phenotypes expressed by a cell, tissue, organ, organism, or species. A phenome includes phenotypic traits due to either genetic or environmental influences....Phenomics is the study of the nature of phenotypes and how they are determined, particularly when studied in relation to the set of all genes (genomics) or all proteins (proteomics)."
Again, the definition includes environmental as well as genetic factors, but the purpose seems to be to separate out those traits which are genetic, from those which are "only" or solely environmental.
ABO blood type of someone who has had a bone marrow transplant is phenotypic the way that wings transplanted from a mutant fruit fly onto a wild type fruit fly are phenotypic...they aren't. It doesn't count, it isn't natural, it's just an example of humans mucking with one organism (OK, two).
|
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 21:29:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by MuhammedGoldstein
it's quite true that the meanings are precise to the scientists who use them, and thus you screwed up on the Berkeley deal.
the scientists were quite precise, using english. You, on the other hand, use your memes, and have trouble when scientists talk english, as they should. |
Bwahahahaha! How could I have possibly "screwed up on the Berkeley deal?" You're the one who's talking about the "phenotype of a characteristic," when the phenotype is the characteristics. You're simply being delusional: the scientists used a science word with a specific meaning and you - with your "English" meme - interpreted the words incorrectly, as if they were simply English. This is to be expected with one week of study of 101-level material under your belt, what makes this whole thing insane is that you're simply redefining the words until you think you're right and everyone else is wrong. But now you're so confused that you've mixed up "phenotype" and "characteristic," getting them completely backwards:| A Phenotype of the whole person did not change, but phenotype for a characteristic changed through environment only, as in the flamingos. |
That is not even wrong. |
- 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
